

In Defense of "The Big Bang Theory" - ideonexus
http://ideonexus.com/2013/02/04/in-defense-of-the-big-bang-theory/
An extensive response to geeks and nerds who are highly critical of a show that is actually fairly progressive and highly erudite in its humor.
======
Irregardless
Apparently nerds are too self-conscious to be parodied and find it more
offensive than the Hitler jokes they post on Reddit all day. The fact that I
just stereotyped them (and by them I mean "us") probably has several
scrambling for their rage comic generators already. It's incomprehensible that
anyone would ever joke about their quirky, endearing traits or the fact that
they're passionate about unconventional things.

Adrock's quote is the perfect example of this:

> . . . the main difference between Sheldon and Abed is that Abed is treated
> as a hero. . . Community tells us it’s cool to be a nerd. If Abed is better
> then we are better. Community is a warm hug of acceptance whereas The Big
> Bang Theory is a pantsing and a punch in the face.

This is just sad. Nerds insist that you coddle and pander to them because
their egos are too delicate to handle a joke? Please, that generalization is
far more insulting towards nerds than any joke TBBT has ever made.

As a nerd and a geek, the thing I find most offensive is the way other geeks
and nerds react to The Big Bang Theory. It's almost embarrassing to be
associated with people who behave like such spoiled children.

~~~
griffordson
I agree.

> As a nerd and a geek, the thing I find most offensive is the way other geeks
> and nerds react to The Big Bang Theory. It's almost embarrassing to be
> associated with people who behave like such spoiled children.

I know what you mean, but I actually often laugh about this about as much as I
laugh at the actual show. Knowing how many of the real geeks around the world
would collapse into a Sheldonesque tizzy fit about a scene is half the fun of
the scene.

------
Eliezer
This is the first time I'm hearing anything about TBBT but even watching the
show for around 60 seconds (Brian Greene in the coffee shop) made me think
that it was terribly, terribly written and terribly, terribly acted. I'm sorry
if this sounds like I'm tooting my own horn, but at this point _Harry Potter
and the Methods of Rationality_ probably _is_ the most popular HP fanfiction
ever written and that probably _does_ make me one of the world's leading
authorities on how to depict the inner mental life of nerds. _This is not how
you do it._

I can't imagine writing a scene where HJPEV is laughing with Hermione over
someone's terrible popular explanation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty. They'd
never go to a comic-book store just to laugh at it. It would violate their
character identities completely. In a story where Harry Potter has to be
rescued from certain death at the hands of a yaoi fangirl horde (Ch. 42, and
you didn't even notice) a scene like the one in TBBT would be just too
unrealistic. And if somehow anything like that _did_ happen in a scene, if
some wizard _did_ undergo a comic misunderstanding of quantum physics, it
would be after I'd done whatever it took to explain correct-Heisenberg to the
reader so that they would be laughing (and commiserating) right along with the
protagonists. If you don't explain Heisenberg, what's the point? There's
nothing left but empty feelings of superiority.

~~~
diminoten
You are mistaken to think this show is supposed to depict the inner mental
life of nerds.

It's absurdly common amongst people of our kind to assume TBBT is written for
us, when in reality it's written as a caricature of us, _for_ the general
public. Much like Fraiser is not written for radio hosts, and Friends is not
written for New York living twenty-somethings, TBBT is not _supposed_ to be
for nerds.

It's just not a big enough audience, yet, to cater to.

~~~
incision
>It's absurdly common amongst people of our kind to assume TBBT is written for
us, when in reality it's written as a caricature of us, for the general
public.

Anecdotally, every recommendation I've encountered for the show has come from
self-described nerds who feel the show does speak to / for them.

I think you might be underestimating the number of people who will relate to
and even try to emulate a popular caricature of themselves.

~~~
zalzane
Describing one's self as a nerd has been a growing trend lately ever since
geek became chic.

I personally know multiple people who after watching BBT now identify as a
nerd despite not having any sort of hobbies or technical experience.

~~~
danielweber
How dare they.

 _How dare they._

~~~
zalzane
How dare they associate with a cultural identity that they don't understand!

Besides, it's only the nerds of yesterday who had to deal with the endless
bullying and loneliness! Future generations should get a free pass to
associate themselves with the identity just because they watched some stupid
sitcom.

------
laumars
The beauty of the way how the TBBT is written is that geeks understand the
science and laugh with the show, but the jokes are delivered in a way that
non-geeks can still laugh at the punch line as well. Having a show that
doesn't dumb down the humour, while still entertaining people like ourselves,
would isolate nearly everyone else.

A good comparison would be between Frasier and TBBT. Frasier used very
highbrow rebuttals delivered in a slapstick way. So even if you've never
watched Opera, didn't drink wine and generally understood little about the
interests of protagonists, you could still enjoy the slapstick jokes and silly
situations that Frasier and Niles Crane would often create for themselves.

And this is why TBBT is such a great show - because it's nerdy _and_ my wife
still enjoys it.

Furthermore TBBT has a lot of subtlety that only a geek or someone living with
a geek would notice. Things such as background props (eg desktop computers
with the side panels missing). That level of detail only comes from a crew of
people wanting to pay homage to nerds rather than ridicule them.

So while TBBT does play to the stereotypes a lot and while there are
undoubtedly some cringe worthy moments, do think it's a well rounded show if
you look at it as a whole.

~~~
swang
Subtlety.

To me, given how the show is written, that feels more like pandering. "Oh
look, LEGO Millennium Falcon, this show _GETS_ _ME_"

~~~
laumars

        > Subtlety.
    

Thanks for the correction. Post edited :)

    
    
        > To me, given how the show is written, that feels more like pandering. "Oh look, LEGO Millennium Falcon, this show _GETS_ _ME_"
    

That would be the pessimistic view of things, but personally I can't see the
issue with that. I'd sooner see facets like that celebrated on popular shows
rather than hidden away on niche programmes.

------
Adrock
Here is the most complete and eloquent explanation of Big Bang Theory hate
that I have read:

[http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-p...](http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-
problem-with-the-big-bang-theory)

I recommend reading the whole thing. The snippet that pulled me in was the
perfect comparison to Community:

"There’s a saying which made its rounds in geekdom recently – “Real nerds
watch Community”. Now I take issue with the idea of “real nerds” but the
sentiment still stands. Whereas The Big Bang Theory sees nerd culture as an
object of ridicule, Community celebrates it. Community’s laughing with you
whereas Big Bang is giving you a wedgie and laughing at you. When TBBT makes a
pop culture reference it uses it as a punchline, it names a show like Firefly
and asks you to laugh at it. When Community makes a pop culture reference it
commits. Community makes a whole episode based on a trope or a genre, it
doesn’t just use paintball as a plot device it takes paintball seriously and
bases two season finales around epic battles of paint. Community doesn’t laugh
at the idea of playing D&D it bases an episode on it. Parallels can be drawn
between the characters of Sheldon in Big Bang and Abed in Community. Abed too
has trouble reading sarcasm and emotion, he has obsessions with routine and
structure as well and disruptions in routine cause him considerable distress.
Abed sees everything in terms of television and film tropes. This is how he
understands the world around him and how he figures out how best to react.
Unlike Sheldon, it is often confirmed that Abed does have mental difficulties,
most likely Asperger’s Syndrome. But, crucially, the main difference between
Sheldon and Abed is that Abed is treated as a hero. In the pilot episode Jeff
Winger, arguably the most conventionally “cool” member of the group says this:
“Abed is a shaman. You ask for bread and Abed gives you soup because soup is
better. Abed is better”. In one episode Abed is literally treated as a god.
Yes, his neuroses do at times inconvenience the rest of the group but his
belief that they see him as a nuisance is dismissed as his own insecurity
rather than the truth. Community positions us, its audience, as Abed. It knows
that we are knowledgeable about the things we love, it knows that we
understand tropes and genre conventions, it gives us the benefit of the doubt
and treats us as intelligent human beings who will not only understand the
meta pop culture references, but will find them funny and love the show for
it. Community tells us it’s cool to be a nerd. If Abed is better then we are
better. Community is a warm hug of acceptance whereas The Big Bang Theory is a
pantsing and a punch in the face."

~~~
Irregardless
So nerds only like shows that cater to their superiority complex and idolize
every aspect of their existence?

That sure sounds a lot like the superficial, narcissistic plebeians from whom
nerds constantly strive to differentiate themselves. Not to worry, though, I'm
sure they're all smart enough to detect the overwhelming irony.

~~~
gamblor956
TBBT makes fun of being a nerd (or a geek) at the expense of nerds and geeks.
The audience is never the nerd or geek themself; it's everyone else. TBBT does
not intend for you to emphathise with the nerds, they are there for your
enjoyment. Essentially, TBBT makes nerds into the new samba blacks.

There is nothing smart about the jokes; the punchline (and frequently, the
entire joke) is usually [something vaguely nerdy sounding that most people
don't know]. Basically, TBBT just randomly says "quantom superstring theory"
and you are expected to laugh at it because the phrase sounds ridiculous;
there usually isn't any more context to it than the utterance of the nerdy-
sounding thing.

In contrast, Community takes the concept and builds into something
substantial. They'll take "quantum superstring theory" and, for example, turn
it into an episode where the vibrations of silly string perfectly predict
events going on elsewhere on campus.

~~~
Erwin
BBT has a UCLA processor on staff as a fact-checker who fills in the realistic
science parts: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Saltzberg> \-- when
interviewed he said his fellow scientists were at first wary of the show but
then wildly enthusiastic after actually seeing the first season.

Mayiam Bialik (a minor but recurring character) holds a PhD in neuroscience
(taken after playing Blossom so many years ago) and there's been quite a show
of renowned scientists as guest stars (at last two Nobel prize recipients,
Hawkings and George Smoot). I think they'd disagree with with your dismissal
of the scientists portrayed as "new samba blacks".

On the 5-season Bluray set they show how the show is taped -- I think it took
4 hours to get the 25ish minutes done, all in front of a live studio audience,
and an incredibly engaged one. In the breaks the interview some of the
audience -- one was a female rocket scientist from Texas.

I personally found "Community" rather dull, and far less engaging than other
in the new wave of non-laughtrack comedies/mockumentaries a la CYE, Modern
Family, Veep, Parks & Recreation and Arrested Development.

------
bluetidepro
It's quickly mentioned in the article, but the laugh track in the show is what
makes me HATE "The Big Bang Theory". It drives me crazy, it ruins ever joke
for me, and it also makes it very hard for me to follow the plot of the
episode when there is a " _laugh pause_ " after every 1-5 words in the dialog.

I find much more humor in a show that has hilarious jokes/PUN's and doesn't
need to stress them so much. For example, Arrested Development, is one of the
best comedies ever done (in my opinion) because the complexity in their jokes
and there is no need to stress the idea of _when to laugh_.

If "The Big Bang Theory" goes by the idea that the laughing from the live
audience helps them determine what to cut parts of the episode, they should
just film it without the live audience then air it to a screening crowd
separately to decide what to cut and keep. Why dilute the show for other
viewers not watching it live with that extreme annoyance of constant laughter?
I just don't get it.

~~~
chiph
Laugh track removed:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKS3MGriZcs>

It goes from annoying to awkward.

~~~
danielweber
Of course it's awkward. The timing is still left in their for the laughs to
happen but replaced with silence. It's like blanking all the comments out of
source code and then complaining that it uses whitespace awkwardly.

~~~
papsosouid
Jokes on you, my code still looks exactly the same!

------
Deestan
I don't get the hate either, even if it _is_ true that they are "laughing _at_
us". I can laugh at myself for being weird.

According to my friends, Sheldon's tireless and obnoxious pedantery is a
perfect caricature of me. When he drops some furniture he is carrying to
debate the point that pulling it up the stairs would reduce the required
vertical force by _exactly_ fifty percent and not _about_ fifty percent, he is
doing something weird and nerdy that I could also see myself doing. It is
still funny.

~~~
danielweber
_even if it is true that they are "laughing at us"._

For lots of geeks that brings back really painful memories. I can easily see
myself, at another point in my life, hating TBBT.

People always tell me that I'm like that kid on "Real Genius" and don't I love
that movie? Well, no, I don't, I hate it, and the end of OP's essay goes into
it: because it doesn't show the pain of being the geek, and it shows that it's
easy for the geek to get the girl without moving out of his safety zone.

I enjoy TBBT, but I'm sure some of that comes from the fact that I watch it
with my geek wife. If I was 15 years younger I might think it's just another
boulder that society has nonchalantly placed on my shoulders.

------
jerf
I stayed away from it for years because of the "controversy". Recently my wife
got the first season, and now we've been mainlining it; we're almost up to the
current season.

First, while I don't know a Sheldon, I have known someone who trended in that
direction. It is not a shock to me that someone like that could exist.

Second, for all that you may complain about the geeks having "limited romantic
prospects", they've all "gotten some", and by the fifth season three out of
four are in relationships and one is engaged. Actions speak louder than words.

Third, accusations of stereotyping geeks are more limited when there are four
main geek characters and several other ancillary ones, spanning all sorts of
spectrums. The characters are Hollywood'ed up, but given that, reasonably
realistic.

Penny started the series as a flat-out dufus, which concerned me. She got
upgraded to an average person after about 10 episodes, who may not be able to
keep up with the math (who can, after all?), but is no longer actively
_stupid_. A bit o' bad judgment perhaps, but who doesn't have that?

I do wish the laugh track would go away.

And finally, at the risk of being a pedant, I can add to one more bit of
_shocking, shocking!_ inaccuracy in the show... but, bizarrely, it has nothing
to do with science or geekdom. _They play Jenga wrong!_ Consistently! The
rules of Jenga are that you must complete all three pieces of the top row
before you start the next one. You can not put a piece on each side, then
start building across the gap! Argh! Of all the places to screw up... (I have
not yet seen all Jenga episodes; my wife reports there's one where they play a
very large version in the season I have not seen yet. But all two or three
times I've seen it to date they've played it this way! NERD RAGE!)

I recommend going into it with an open mind, and bearing in mind that in first
few episodes, as is always the case, the characters are still coming into
focus.

------
alexholehouse
I hate the big bang theory, and for the longest time I've tried to put my
finger on what it is I don't like about it. I think it comes from a mixture of
two things.

The writing making the characters repeatedly try and display how smart they
are (which I'm aware is integral to the show) but to me makes them totally and
desperately unlikable. That, coupled with the general tension building
component of most sit-coms where all too frequently characters do what is
_clearly_ a bad idea, followed by some form of "make it better" set of
actions.

I know that if they [the characters] made a mistake and just repaired it in a
very mundane way this would not be good television, but I find it incredibly
jarring that these unlikable characters have one thing going for them, their
intelligence, yet seemingly couldn't find their way out of a paper bag.

(EDIT: This reflects the relatively few episodes I've seen, but every time I
see one I feel exactly the same)

(EDIT2: Perfect example from a comment below,

"When he [Sheldon] drops some furniture he is carrying to debate the point
that pulling it up the stairs would reduce the required vertical force by
exactly fifty percent and not about fifty percent, he is doing something weird
and nerdy..."

Debating yes, absolutely, but scientific debate by itself isn't funny to the
general population (Deestan would enjoy it, I might enjoy it, but Joe Bloggs
on the street probably wouldn't care) so he _drops it_. That's not smart. If
the show was consistent he'd then point out that the loss of energy from
dropping it far outweighs the benefit of moving it around, or he'd break his
toe.

It's this orthogonal slapstick which seems _totally_ incongruous with
Sheldon's typical behavior which annoys me.

~~~
sophacles
I think you miss the point of the jokes. In all honesty... there is a large
component of "nerd behavior" which is captured well in it. There is a tendency
amongst us, which I have as much as anyone else, to ignore the practical,
common sense aspects of every day life, in the favor of theoretically perfect.
The joke isn't about being logically or internally consistent, the joke isn't
about slapstick schadenfreude, the joke _is_ that in worrying about the energy
optimization he forgets or fails to just accomplish the actual task, and
undoes any possible gains (it doesn't need to be stated, because _everyone_
gets it).

And it isn't unrealistic - I've watched teams get into debates over how to
perfectly optimize some corner of code, and ignore the fact that it doesn't
matter for the use case, because that bit is rarely run or happens fast enough
that it isn't a bottleneck anyway. At my makerspace I've seen people go down
crazy design rabbit holes and come up with overly-complex designs to do a task
when there is a simple practical solution that they are over-looking (e.g lets
figure out how to 3d print this internal piece to snap in and stay fixed
permanently, and spend hours on it, instead of just using the super-glue we
need for other parts anyway to hold it in place).

It is fun to go down these rabbit holes sometimes. It is also annoying and
humorous when we do it and waste a bunch of effort on it, and there is a
simple, common sense solution staring us in the face.

------
bjourne
This is a kind of typical dialogue from an episode:

    
    
        Sheldon: Leonard, where do you stand on the anthropic principle?
        Leonard: Interesting question. On the one hand, I always thought…
        Sheldon: You don’t even know what it is, do you? The anthropic principle     states that if we wish to explain why our universe exists the way it does, the     answer is that it must have qualities that allow intelligent creatures to arise     who are capable of asking the question. As I am doing so eloquently right now.
        Leonard: I know what the anthropic principle is.
        Sheldon: Of course. I just explained it to you. Now, where do you stand on     it?
        Leonard: Where do you stand on it?
        Sheldon: Strongly pro.
        Leonard: Then I believe that God created the world in six days, and on the     seventh he made you to annoy me.
        Raj: Hey, guys.
        Leonard: Hey.
        Sheldon: Yeah, wait, Raj, where do you stand on the anthropic principle?
        Raj: I’m all for it.
        Sheldon: Attaboy!
        Leonard: Well, hang on. Why do you believe that he knows what it is and I don’t?
        Sheldon: Oh, Leonard. Let’s not take a saw to the branch we’re sitting on, shall we?
    

Why is Sheldon such a douchebag? He is socially incompetent but does he have
to be an asshole too? Why doesn't Leonard or anyone else ever want to discuss
science with Sheldon when it's supposed to be their biggest interest? It's
like they are ashamed of being smart people.

~~~
ajuc
It's never confirmed that Sheldon is the smartest of them. You only have his
words for that. He's always working on sth big, but never delivers. And there
are dozens of other smart people and geeks in the show, most of them likeable.
I don't have a problem with show full of geeks, in which one of them is
asshole. Seems fair.

~~~
jerf
I do think that's actually a hole in the show. One can infer socially that
Sheldon really must be all that or he'd be long-since fired, but it would be
helpful to be a bit more direct in occasionally showing it.

I've also noticed that for all they dump on Howard, he's the only one in the
show who they show accomplishing things (plural!); I have not yet figured out
if this is dramatic oversight or something they are doing on purpose. I'm
assuming accident; neutering your main characters like that isn't a good
narrative move, unless they're being _really_ meta (which I doubt in this
case).

------
Samuel_Michon
The author read this:

 _"My friend who works at a school for autistic children believed he had
Asperger’s Syndrome [...] She told me that [Sheldon] was a totally accurate
portrayal of someone on the autistic spectrum and had many characteristics of
someone with Asperger’s – specifically the inability to recognise sarcasm or
understand human emotion as well as the obsession with “his spot” and his
distress when routine is changed."_

And then wrote this:

 _"If you think Sheldon is autistic, then you have never met an autistic
person. We had an autistic kid who hung out at our shop on Saturdays. It was
tough. He would bring boxes of toys in with him to pile up on one of the
tables. The slightest thing could set him off into a screaming rage fit. [...]
When you argue that Sheldon is a “totally accurate portrayal of someone on the
autistic spectrum,” then you have broadened the definition of autism to the
point where you have rendered the word meaningless."_

The author obviously has no grasp on the Autistic spectrum [1], didn't take
five seconds to Google 'Asperger syndrome' or 'high-functioning autism', but
that doesn't stop him from ignoring an expert's opinion. Lazy and arrogant,
but it gets worse:

 _"[Claiming Sheldon is a totally accurate portrayal of someone on the
autistic spectrum] seriously offends me. It offends me on behalf of the
mothers and fathers who are living with autistic children who are now adults
and still require constant supervision, are still in diapers, or still have
violent humiliating outbursts in public. Go listen to this account of the
daily trials of two parents living with an autistic child, and you’ll
understand how ignorant and disrespectful it is to compare the quirky
physicist on a sitcom to someone with a seriously debilitating mental illness
that consumes the lives of those caring for them."_

The author is basically saying that there is no such thing as high-functioning
autism and that those who pretend it exists are offending sufferers of 'real'
autism and the ones with the misfortune of having to deal with them.

Talk about offensive.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum_disorders>

------
ksmiley
> When you argue that Sheldon is a “totally accurate portrayal of someone on
> the autistic spectrum,” then you have broadened the definition of autism to
> the point where you have rendered the word meaningless.

How so? It's called the "autism _spectrum_", after all, so it's natural that
there are varying levels of severity among those affected. Sheldon having
high-functioning autism doesn't somehow invalidate anyone else from having
more severe autism.

> That seriously offends me. It offends me on behalf of the mothers and
> fathers who are living with autistic children [...]

To me, this smells like a pre-emptive ad hominem against those with an
opposing viewpoint. If you disagree with me, then you've offended me, you're
disrespectful, you're ignorant. If you want to argue that Sheldon doesn't have
autism, that's fine. But if you do, then keep in mind that part of your
audience _does_ think he has autism. Why would you attack the people you're
trying to convince?

~~~
danielweber
I know someone with an Asperger's son she couldn't figure out, and she was
told to watch Sheldon for a few episodes. She came back and said, "okay, I
understand what's going on in my son's head a lot better now."

I'm sure that would make some people fly into a rage, but the depiction helped
her figure things out from his perspective.

------
SeanLuke
> So it comes as a shock to me that there is a lot of hate for BBT in geek
> culture.

I didn't realize this was a thing.

Just because you can google for "Big Bang Theory Sucks" doesn't demonstrate
that there is lots of hate for BBT "in geek culture".

I can also google for "Puppies Suck". Okay, you only get two results of
relevance. But still.

There are haters for every TV show in the universe. Haters are always louder
than those who love the show. And easily googled. This doesn't mean they're
numerous.

~~~
npsimons
It's not a "thing"; one of the most cogent (and informative, and insightful)
criticisms of BBT is given barely any notice as a link entitled "Sheldon is
autistic", which just goes to show that the author probably didn't read it all
(there is _so_ much more than autism issues in that article; it's at
[http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-p...](http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-
problem-with-the-big-bang-theory)).

The question is not "should I hate this because everyone else does?" but "is
BBT really a champion of geek culture, or is it pandering to the anti-
intellectuals like every other show out there?" Read the article I linked and
decide for yourself.

~~~
pyre
As an aside, it find it really hard to read black text on a "brown paper bag"
background.

------
loumf
Like most entertainment, BBT is a parody, exaggeration, and simplification of
real life. I find a lot more relevant humor in it than in any other sit-com
I've watched -- to the point where I could anticipate the joke because I had
had the exact conversation with my friends.

In the episode where the female characters go to the comic store (described in
the OP), they then have an episode long argument on exactly who can move
Thor's hammer, which I'm sure rang true to any comic reader.

------
ajanuary
>> If you think Sheldon is autistic, then you have never met an autistic
person.

>> When you argue that Sheldon is a “totally accurate portrayal of someone on
the autistic spectrum,” then you have broadened the definition of autism to
the point where you have rendered the word meaningless.

No true Scotsman much? The arrogance to accuse people of mis-labeling while
seeming to have such ignorance of the realities of the autistic spectrum left
me slightly gobsmacked.

------
Aloisius
Oh for the love of Pete. I love Sheldon. Heck my girlfriend has repeatedly
told me she would leave me for Sheldon. This idea that everyone is making fun
of nerds must be due to some kind of insecurity. As a geek, I quite enjoy the
show.

------
_mulder_
Still not as good as 'The IT Crowd' in the UK. "Did you know if you type
'Google' into Google you will crash the internet?!"

~~~
csmattryder
"Don't talk about memory or RAM, okay?"

"Ha! Memory _is_ RAM!"

That's comedy for geeks. Not some odd tangent about string theory.

------
cavilling_elite
I can't enjoy BBT. Just because you put smart words in a characters mouth, it
doesn't make a smart comedy.

~~~
crntaylor
I agree. The Big Bang Theory is comedy _about_ smart people, not comedy _for_
smart people.

~~~
winthrowe
I don't deny that, but if I comedy for smart people is thin upon the ground,
I'll take comedy about smart people over reality television that's otherwise
permeating the airwaves.

------
agentultra
I don't like TBBT for the same reasons I don't like shows such as Mad Men:
_they say very little about their subject matter_. A friend of mine tried to
explain Mad Men by reminding me, "that was the way it was back then." I really
don't need to be reminded of that. I'm not nostalgic for all of the sexism,
racism, and I'm not really fond of the advertising industry. In a similar
manner friends who explain TBBT to me need to remind me, "that's how things
are." Geeks are infantile, weird, and still fun to laugh at. Nothing has
changed since elementary school then at least.

I might enjoy the show more if its mocking and condescending overtones were at
least met by one self-aware character. At least then there would be the chance
for satire. Instead it's just a laugh track of predictable tropes: geek says
something geeky about math or science that is completely disproportionate to
the current, mundane situation. Normal character rolls their eyes. Audience
laughs. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Add a dose of the usual, "normal," sexism once in
a while and laugh at how "geeks," shrivel like flowers when faced with the
objectification of their, "desires." Ha, ha.

The show is hardly any different than any other sitcom on television.

------
WalterBright
Although TBBT is supposedly about Caltech staff, a more, shall we say,
accurate view of students at Caltech is the movie Real Genius. The depiction
is only slightly exaggerated. Many of the incidents in the movie are based on
things that actually happened in the 70's at Caltech.

The extras in the movie were frequently real Caltech students, recruited
because the art director for the movie was unable to duplicate the look :-)

------
roldie
This Portlandia Nerd PSA makes a similar point to the one that the Community
is good/Big Bang is bad people are trying to make.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ir3v5yDk9Ws)

------
bitwize
Given that the average sitcom writer's conception of a nerdy character is more
like "Screech" or Steve Urkel, the complex, neurotic, and really quite well-
researched characters on _Big Bang Theory_ are like a bolt of awesome from the
blue.

------
tgrass
I like BBT for the neuroses. They're dead on.

------
looki
I don't like the show, and I have a single "geek" friend who also does not.
Everybody else seems to enjoy it. Not just my other friends, but people in
general. People I meet IRL, people I see on Facebook, people I stumble across
online. "A lot of hate for BBT in geek culture"? I don't think so.

------
nmullaney
As a former undergrad at Caltech, I actually think BBT is pretty great. (I'm
only about 1.5 seasons in though, so it's possible it drops in quality later).
It's definitely more extreme than reality for comedic effect, but it does
actually remind me of my college years.

------
n3rdy
Just pointing out the full hierarchy of the nerd scale:

Dork -> Geek -> Nerd -> Hacker -> (Ritchie || Wozniac || Tesla)

It does in fact go deeper, but its a little more controversial:

Jock <\- Madden Gamer <\- Gamer <\- Dork -> Geek -> ...

------
darth_aardvark
is it alright to dislike TBBT just because it's really unfunny and lazy
comedy?

~~~
newplagiarist
No, you'll get in trouble for that. But in all seriousness, I do agree with
you.

------
kylec
It's probably a coincidence, but the title and subject of this article are the
same as last week's Ihnatko Almanac episode:

<http://5by5.tv/ia/58>

