I know that many scientists (and at least one science blogger) really like the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory. The show is well-written and acted, has a half dozen funny one-liners per episode, and delivers a weekly helping of science and nerd culture in-jokes.
In a recent episode, Howard the NASA scientist erased several hours of data from the Mars Rover after inviting a woman he had met in a bar to come back to his office and drive it. His pick up line: “Have you ever driven a car …. on Mars?” Funny stuff and mostly harmless, right?
No. Not right. After watching several episodes on a recent cross-country flight, I’ve concluded that this show is bad for American Science. And here’s why:
Three of the four main characters are scientists with limited romantic prospects. Howard lives with his mother and inhabits an imaginary world where his Beatles haircut makes him irresistible to women. Raj finds himself unable to speak when the nerds’ sexy neighbor is in the apartment. Sheldon apparently has a sitcom version of Asperger’s Syndrome.
Only Johnny Galecki’s character, Leonard, finds himself simultaneously able to work in physics, love comic books and successfully date women.
Thus BBT reinforces the popular stereotype that scientists are social misfits (mostly male) who can’t get a date.
Not only is this not true (granted I work at a science magazine but most of the researchers I meet are very cool and many of them are women), but research has posited that these portrayals potentially discourage kids from pursuing science past junior high.
I made this argument to Sean Carroll while I was out at Caltech last week, and his response was essentially, “Lighten up. People love these characters.” Respectfully, I say that’s wrong. People loved Urkel, but no one wants to be Urkel.
As the creators of the dominant portrayal of scientists in American culture right now, the producers of BBT can do better. And they can start by letting Howard move out of his mom’s house.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Thanks for having the guts to say what everyone was thinking.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I’m glad I’m not the only one to find the stereotypes in this show disturbing. I’ve tried to watch Big Bang Theory a couple of times and was so put off by the characters I had to turn it off. They’re not at all like the scientists I’ve known over the years.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
This show is bad for how it portrays nerds, women, comic readers, and gamers. But then, I’m biased because I also don’t find it funny.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Please tell me this post is a joke…
I’ve seen one episode of the Big Bang Theory, and while I didn’t find it enjoyable enough to revisit, it fell pretty squarely into the comedy genre. And in the science of comedy, you can exaggerate the qualities of the characters in an attempt to make them funnier. It’s not exactly the most clever manifestation of comedy, but it’s tried and true.
BBT is a situation comedy, not a recruitment tool. If someone has an aptitude for science or mathematics, and even a passing curiosity about the way the world around them works, I seriously doubt they’ll cast off their future aspirations because Howard or Sheldon can’t get girls. And, quite frankly, if someone is willing to let a sitcom’s portrayal of a scientist dissuade them from pursuing science as an occupation, do we really need them attempting to tackle the mysteries of the universe?
If you don’t like the show, you don’t like the show. But it’s not going to bring about the collapse of scientific thought. It’s just a mediocre network sitcom.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Rick Sutten-
My thoughts exactly, thanks for keeping me from having to type too much. Instead, I will simply copy and paste your best point:
” And, quite frankly, if someone is willing to let a sitcom’s portrayal of a scientist dissuade them from pursuing science as an occupation, do we really need them attempting to tackle the mysteries of the universe?”
Why stop at BBT? If kids are weak-minded enough to let stereotypes prevent them from pursuing their dreams, then maybe we should analyze some shows that they might actually be watching. Does Hannah Montana glorify being a rockstar too much without emphasizing how important it is to go to law school and become a supreme court justice? Can watching too many cartoons make kids feel that being an actual human isn’t as cool as being animated, causing them to lose interest in living in the real world?
I love watching the show with my wife and explaining the “nerd jokes” to her. She loves watching it because she the shows token blonde bombshell, Penny, has a hilarious way of dealing with the nerds she loves.
Bottom line: THIS IS COMEDY.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
A PhD/Psych candidate decided Uncle Al was a historic second year project. Piles of paper were trudged back to Chapel Hill then run through scoring black boxes. A desperate cry for help arose – preventative maintenance on the scoring boxes – for Uncle Al was… perfectly sane. She did a project with rats.
On a Pittsburgh psych office wall there hangs framed an MMPI output whose line across seven scales is 50 (+/-)3%. The rest of you need intervention. The Big Bang Theory is everything perfect in the very best people re Google hiring practices. Personnel (Human Resources, Human Factors Engineering) is all about drinking buddies.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Pft. Nice article. “research posited (you mean assumed, right?) that these portrayals potentially discourage kids from pursuing science past junior high” Do you mean the research conducted on fifth graders? Fifth graders…… fifth graders?? Are you kidding me? Are fifth graders really concerned about not getting laid and living with their moms past the age of 20? You obviously connect with the three of the four guys on the show on some level, that’s why you’re upset. It’s a t.v. show, dude. Saying a t.v. show is “bad for science” is like saying an anti smoking commercial is bad for the cigarette industry.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I get that BBT is a sitcom and a pretty funny one at that, but the producers shouldn’t get a free pass because Sheldon and Leonard have a double helix model in their apartment and wear cool superhero t-shirts.
At the risk of further overanalyzing this, I will make a comparison to Scrubs, another very funny sitcom. J.D. (the Zach Braff character) on Scrubs is in many ways just as big a nerd as anyone on BBT. Therein lies the comedy.
The difference is that he is just one TV doctor in a universe of hundreds of TV doctors. Aside from Faraday on Lost, I can’t think of a lot of other TV physicists, so Sheldon and Howard have a larger proportional impact.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I tuned into this show when it first started, and it was clear in the scenes where the characters were gaming that some of the actors didn’t know how to hold a video game controller. Where did they get these guys? The Amish community?
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
As an adult who is Aspergers with multiple science degrees, I completely relate to Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory. I’ve lived that life of a university’s “special dorm” environment filled with nerds. Social missteps are still common in life. But understand the reality, it’s only a TV Sitcom with exaggerated characters. And as a TV production, it’s better than most. Why write a damning article over nothing significantly important and engaging to science or life in general, when you can enjoy the BBT in-jokes and smile at your own foibles?
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Was FRIENDS bad for friendships? Did MASH discourage military medics? Has SEINFELD hurt nothing?
These are obviously silly questions. So too is the question of whether THE BIG BANG THEORY is bad for science. First, any show that can reference the number of scientific theories, laws and facts that this show does must elevate the national discourse of science, at least so that a few people google a phrase or two. Second, while the main characters are exaggerated geeks, they are not the only scientists on the show. Leslie Winkle is a female physicist that works with them. There was a guest scientist who had won a grant, as well as disproved some of Leonard’s research, that rode a motorcycle and successfully wooed Penny. While the main characters are not ideal scientists, they are supposed to be “the geeks of the geeks” and that’s part of the fun – at one point Penny says that in they’re world, they’re the cool ones, which is the whole point: they are such an exaggeration of the nerd-geek stereotype that they are an ideal for scientists in their sitcom world.
This is the real world, and I can understand how they are not your ideal scientists. However, over multiple episodes the show does a good job of disproving stereotypes and adding dimension to the characters. I think it’s unfair to a show that shows both experiments and the scientific thought process to say it is bad for science. In fact, it’s simply wrong.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Dr. Larry Fleinhart from Numb3rs (which actually gets comparable ratings to BBT) is a physicist. There are quite a few characters who are scientists on that show, though not all physicists.
Dr. Jacob Hood, another favorite of yours, is a biophysicist.
Walter Bishop from Fringe…well, the less said about him the better, but he is a scientist.
I read an AP article this morning about the editor of Security Magazine expressing dismay that “Paul Blart, Mall Cop reinforces a stereotype the security industry has been working on dispelling for years.” I find it interesting that this post was released the same day as that one. Another semi-popular comedy being taken way too seriously.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Ah come on. There have been comedies about gays, black people, comedy writers, families (jewish, catholic, WASP, mixed), friends, lawyers, divorced people, married people, etc. etc. It is a COMEDY.
Do you think a boring world without comedy will make some contribution to solve the problems of people divorcing, erratic children or lack of science students? Please. This doesn’t deserve a response.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
The show sucks because it doesn’t do nerds justice. I have never met someone in the sciences who would be like the people in this show, even in a caricature.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Bah! Ages of lurking and now I delurk to be argumentative…
Anyhoo, what sitcomic and Ivan said. These guys are clearly meant to be the ubergeeks, so it’s fine if they’re a bit (or even a lot) exaggerated. If viewers don’t get that…well, that’s just not very smart of them. Are people really dumb enough that they uncritically take sitcoms as representative of real life?
As for not wanting to be like some of the characters – I for one would kill to be as smart and socially inept and free as Sheldon. And I’m sure a lot of kids would love to do the kinds of things they do, and be brilliant, and understand that a career doesn’t determine your personality. If anything, kids who are smart but aren’t particular popular may think they could be amongst the coolest of the cool in science, and thus be more likely to head that way.
And the sheer amount of interesting scientific concepts thrown out over the course of a show – usually during Sheldon’s little rants – is awesome. Not only are they based on sound stuff, they’re not even exaggerated like they are in, say, CSI, or Fringe, or pretty much any science-involving fiction show out there. Getting science out there is good, ain’t it?
So yeah, I’d say BBT is good stuff. There’s certainly nothing else like it on South African television, and I’d say it does more good than harm. And if not, come on – it’s just entertainment…
February 4th, 2009 at 5:08 am
“Has SEINFELD hurt nothing?” Okay, that was hilarious! Thanks, sitcomic.
But seriously, whether Sam Lowry is blowing things out of portion or not isn’t the point. The point is: he has a point. For all comedy and all sitcoms that stereotype people and make fun of people, there will always be people who stand up and say that there is some harm being done, and they’re right. Their point is legit.
Do we like our comedy and our sitcoms? Yes! Obviously we do. Can we defend sitcoms? Yes. Can we ignore Sam’s statements? Yes. Can we throw out his point because he offended our interests. Yes. But his point is still legit.
Tons and tons of sitcoms tear people down. Tons and tons of people are totally okay with that. Tons and tons of people watch them and love them. Does that validate them? No. Period. You can say whatever you want, but it doesn’t validate them.
Can you have comedy that doesn’t tear people down? Yes. Many of the best comedians and comedic actors in the business regulary do comedy that doesn’t come at someone else’s expense.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
[...] After watching several episodes on a recent cross-country flight, I’ve concluded that this show is bad for American Science. And here’s why:. Three of the four main characters are scientists with limited romantic prospects. …Continue [...]
February 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Ben, argument from ignorance gets you nowhere. I am a scientist, and could give you a legion of examples of real people who are just like all four of the male leads on BBT. I see them everywhere.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I think using the same framework I could make a case for the show being antisemitic based on its treatment of Jewish identity. That doesn’t make it true.
I, too, get a kick out of the show even though some aspects of it are a little lazy (the speech-impaired reoccurring character comes to mind). While certainly not all physicists fit the stereotype(s) (and my friendships would be demonstrative of this), that doesn’t mean there isn’t a bit of truth in them as well. The “science is cool” campaigns are worthwhile and I’m happy to support them, but sometimes we can let a sitcom be a sitcom.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I totally disagree, I love the show for its geeky injokes of sci-fi and comic books, and having no background or prior interest in physics at all,
I now find myself drawn to science books at the bookstore, wanting to
understand string theory, space travel, and others they have mentioned.
Now i want to broaden my horizons and gain knowledge – I think BBT opened my eyes a bit!
February 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Okay, I’m going to go right ahead and overanalyze the hell out of this
It’s true that, although many in science are not like the four male leads, there are those who are. And I’m a big geek myself — I recognize something of myself in those guys. But that’s kind of the point. I think we should have more people in science who are *not* like us: we may be happy being geeks and enjoy laughing with the antics of other geeks, but there are many others who would not be, and are not, happy to be geeks, yet whose brains and passion I’d like to see brought into the scientific fold. I don’t think they are weak-minded if they look at a bunch of guys geeking out and decide that a life of nerdom is unappealing.
The fact that those of us familiar with scientists may readily recognize the characters is the problem — they’re us and we’re them. It’s a symptom of clubbiness. Observers of the scientific and engineering communities (and some members of those communities) have frequently described situations where scientists and engineers unconsciously establish exclusive cultural clubs that have the negative effect of reducing the intellectual pool available to the field (e.g., the obstacles that women face because of how careers in science are structured are well documented). Intellectual diversity goes hand in hand with cultural diversity (even the simple cultural diversity of male and female, or geek and non-geek), and as long as the different camps remain grounded in genuine scientific precepts, intellectual diversity equals better science and engineering.
When this clubiness is pointed out to a group the response is often either denial or “Of course we’re exclusionary — what we’re doing requires elite expert thought! Doing it any other way would be the equivalent of socially promoting unqualified individuals. Stop trying to lay your post-modern deconstructionist trip on me!” Yet, on closer examination or over time, the link between many of the specific cultural aspects in question and the content of the field tends to evaporate. The kind of elite expert thought truly required to grok and progress the field is weakly coupled, if not completely orthogonal, to the culture that can seem so axiomatic to those in it[1]. Even when you consciously embrace a desire for intellectual diversity and all that that entails, it can be really hard to dig out your own subconscious bias[2]. Look through the bios of previous generations of scientists and see how many of them had (now obviously) non-scientific ideas that they were convinced came from the same intellectual well as their genuinely scientific ideas. (More recently, good commentaries that talk about how a field can convince itself that a particular manner of doing business is as natural as breathing, or somehow automatically flows from the needs and implications of the scientific method despite the existence of valid alternatives, are Lee Smolin’s The Trouble With Physics and David Mindell’s Digital Apollo.)
To summarize: I think the problem with BBT is not that it’s creating totally inaccurate stereotypes: it’s that it’s helping to perpetuate a clubby cultural bias within science and engineering. In effect, BBT is saying “You have to be this geeky to go on this ride,” but it doesn’t have to be so: neither the scientific method or the universe care how geeky scientists and engineers are.
[1] This is precisely why from time to time, outsiders have been able to come into a field and make dramatic breakthroughs.
[2] I think all professions may be subject to this to clubbiness problem: certainly journalism is no exception. People tend to hire or promote people like themselves, and if there’s a veneer of a rational explanation to justify those decisions, people will internalize that rationale, even if its really just a cultural construct.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I’m a woman in science, and I dislike this show because I don’t find it funny. But it also really reinforces stereotypes that scientists are dorky white guys. (Yes, I know there’s the South Asian guy, but his whole character revolves around “Hehehehe! His accent is funny!”) Whenever I do outreach in a high school, the students are floored to see a non-dorky (ok, a little dorky) young female scientist – I can only imagine how shocked they’d be if I wasn’t white. The Big Bang Theory hurts science by reinforcing students’ convictions that people who look like them are never scientists.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:46 am
Apparently you guys are watching a different show because 3 of the geeks besides Sheldon have gotten laid multiple times. That is pretty damn good considering their extreme personalities. And maybe you have not seen all the episodes because Season 2 Episode 11 had a non-geeky scientist Dr. Underhill. I’m a computer scientist and have met and worked with many, many scientists like this. I have no idea why people would take offense to characters that represent a certain portion of the scientific community. Fine, you are not like this, that is great, these people still exist and the show is hilarious. So take it easy and get over it. I have a feeling too many people here don’t think collecting star wars memorabilia, worshipping sci-fi (oh please don’t debate this word) shows like Star Trek and having “Halo Nights” is funny but I do and so do many others, mainly because we out grew these things at age 13 (oh yes I know many “geeks” in their 30-40s who do these things). Maybe you can’t handle the truth?
So stop whining and relax.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
@ Andrew
But you see, it’s because *I am like* the white, male, geeks[1] on the show that I have a concern. I would like to see more diversity among scientists and engineers, on humanist grounds and because it makes for better science and engineering. I think that’s harder to achieve if people “just like me” are overwhelmingly depicted as being the holotype for scientists and engineers.
[1] For example, a quick glance around my office from where I am sitting reveals, among other things, a talking Dalek figure (”EXTERMINATE!”, “DESTROY THE DOCTOR!”, “YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF THE DALEKS!”, “DALEKS RULE SUPREME!”), a collection of half-a-dozen rubber Tux penguins nestled on top of a 1970’s-era hatbox disk pack container, a poster from the H2K2 hacker conference, most of my collection of kitbuilt scale-models of rockets and spacecraft, a 20-plus-strong fleet of Stars Wars micromachines (if anyone is willing to part with an Episode IV-model Death Star for a reasonable price, let’s talk), and a set of Dr. Who Top Trump cards. I have seen the geek, and it is me.
February 7th, 2009 at 4:12 am
What I am most disturbed by is the number of posts critical of the show by “educated” people who seem to buy into the media driven perception of what is “normal”. All of the characters on the show lead generally happy and productive lives. While they may not “succeed” in the social aspect of their lives as they would hope…who does? EVERYONE struggles with friendships, romance, and love. I was raised to believe that I am the only one who determined my happiness.
Would those critics above be pleased if the show was essentially “Higher Education 90210″? If the characters interspersed their science with bouts of wining, dining, and womanizing (or “boy-toying” in the case of Leslie Winkle) would that make them “OK”? Would a few jealousy driven love triangles be better, and would they have to be equilateral, right, or isosceles?
As for the idea that the show may discourage kids from pursuing science…HOGWASH! While I am not a scientist I carried a curriculum heavy in science classes because the things I learned in my elementary and junior high science classes were COOL! I wanted to learn more about them. The idea that something I had just learned about in my 8th grade science class was referenced on a popular TV show would have encouraged me (i.e. “Hey….other people think that’s cool too!”) I would not have thought twice about the “perception” of the characters.
February 7th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
People, it’s a t.v. show. Period. It’s meant for mindless entertainment.
February 10th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Well I must say that this new TV show has raised a lot of questions about what science and physics are all about.
If anyone wants to find out what’s involved in becoming a physicist, might I suggest: http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/MemoirsOfAHayseedPhysicist.html
A synopsis of what it’s like will come into view.
As far as I know physicists are just human beings, much like the rest of us.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I love this show and its characters. If you watch closely, most of the characters have active sex lives (aside from Sheldon) and the show is very careful to keep mentioning it. I love the show because it doesn’t shy away from geek-culture, and it reminds me of the kinds of people I grew up with (and still know and love). I find myself thinking, yes, there are people like me on TV! I also know that one of the co-creators, Bill Prady has definite geek cred, and the characters are based on people he knew.
Another positive is that it gradually shows how Penny, the “everywoman” character has grown to befriend and love the geeks for who they are. It makes them more accessible, less “freaky” and definitely more lovable. The tagline of the show before the pilot was “Smart is the New Sexy” which tells you a lot right there.
Take a breather and chill out, man!
February 25th, 2009 at 12:18 am
I love this show.
And my friends and I are really just as bad, geek-wise. WE had a rousing debate just this weekend on the logic of disney magic. True, it’s no star wars, but still.
It’s not bad for science. So what if the stereotypical geek is a bit of a loser who can’t get girls. Stereotypical blonde beauties are bubbly and moronic. Goths and emo’s are supposed to be dark evil freaks who hate the world. Neither situation is an accurate view but people don’t complain when tv portays them that way.
Besides, aren’t kids alot more likely to be okay with geeks if they look like they’re funny happy people? Like Bill Nye? Everything I learned about science until i started school, and alot of it afterwards, came from Bill Nye and Magic School Bus.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
TBBT is very funny and extremely true to life! I have worked with these people! If you dont relate to the ’scientists’ or the ‘blonde’ then you may well be on the wrong web site!
May 6th, 2009 at 12:30 am
[...] Is “Big Bang Theory” Bad for Science? | Science Not Fiction | Discover … [...]
May 8th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
have you ever BEEN to Caltech?
May 16th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
American science is bad because of a humorous sitcom? Wow, you really must have nothing better to do with your time. I for one love the show. Maybe it is because I can relate in different ways to some of the characters and I have a passion for science. But guess what? There is a solution. If you don’t like it – TURN IT OFF and stop dribbling nonsense and labeling it reasonable concern for your country’s future. There are many shows on TV that portray less than realistic views of the world. Isn’t that why we watch TV to start with?
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
[...] Sites en contra: Gateway Skepticism, Science not Fiction [...]
June 9th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Model Sailing Ship
Dynamic lighting: Notice that as you approach the stars, light is cast on the ship. As you change direction or move away the direction and intensity change. Filters on particles: As you move the ship around, lots of little stars are shot out as thrust….
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:58 am
If the BIG BANG theory was correct……then every thing in the Universe would have had to disintegrate
At the same time, which immediately suggests that every thing we see and measure is of the same age.
Therefore, the beginnings if the Universe is here….every where.
Why worry about the rest, find out more about what is around us.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:14 am
As a viewer, an engineering student and a writer, I’d much rather allow over-the-top portrayals of stereotypes than have the artistic direction of the show compromised for the sake of realism. Are all scientists awkward social losers? No. Are there certain groups of highly neurotic people in the sciences that tend to associate with one another? Sure. More so than in most other demographics, even. However, I think pretty much everyone realizes that this is not the norm.
Honestly, if someone is stupid enough to believe, based on a sitcom, that taking a science-based education path will somehow turn them into one of the show’s characters, they probably wouldn’t make a very good scientist anyway. There’s so much cause/effect confusion happening there that I don’t know where to start.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Using “research has posited” to support a conclusion makes it very clear that you are no scientist, MISTER science blogger.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Damn, I thought from the post’s title that this was about the actual theory.
Can someone explain why the universe being roughly the same in all directions and a scant 3 degrees above absolute zero, indicates in any way that it originated from a hot singularity?
I know, I know, the most current mathematical models predict the most recent WMAP readings, so how could I doubt?
My objection is that the current predictions of the Big Bang Theory do not flow naturally from the theory’s basic concepts, but over the years have been fine tuned to the empirical results through the addition of several fudge factors, such as inflation, dark matter, and dark energy.
The Big Bang Theory started its life incorrectly predicting the temperature of the universe (5K and up; it was supposed to be a very hot primeval atom), dodged the horizon problem, the magnetic monopole problem, and the flatness problem by inserting inflation, and lazily tacked on dark energy after completely failing to predict the accelerating universe revealed by the study of Type Ia supernovae.
It is easy enough to explain the fundamentals of evolutionary theory to anyone not already dead-set against it by religious indoctrination. The details are endless and much of what we now know, including endosymbiosis and lateral gene transfer, were not predicted by the original theory, but have added to it and are naturally compatible with it. Common decent may have given away to the last common ancestor at the microbial level, but no one serious can seriously doubt, on evidential grounds, that evolution occurred and is responsible for producing all modern life on Earth.
Not so with The Big Bang Theory. No one seems willing to provide a simple, convincing, layman’s explanation of why we are so scientific-consensus-sure that the Universe started with a bang.
If one exists, I would certainly like to hear it.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
[...] course, raises strong feelings among scientists. Right here at Discover, you can read both pro and anti feelings about the show. The complaints are mostly about the cheerful reliance on various [...]
October 24th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I like this show.
I like science.
I’m also in highschool, where educational choices are being made and one is also most suspectible to stereotypes and TV shows.
I know many people who don’t love science yet watch this show. They know that we’re not all nerds and pursuing science as a career does not automatically make you a socially akward nerd who loves comic books (in fact, I know many people who like comic books and are rather popular).
It’s also just a show. People who really want to pursue science as a career aren’t going to be discouraged by a sitcom, thinking they’ll be nerds.
It’s a funny show and although everyone may not like it, it’s not “Bad for Science”.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Shalom
I read your comments with interest. Please view my video “CHAIM PADDAMAN SUPPORTS THE BIG BANG THEORY PART 2 “CHAIM DOESNT PAY. It is a jewish tongue in cheek response to the big bang theory on cbs. It sends out a strong message if you are able to read between the lines. IT is available on YOU TUBE
regards
chaim paddaman
November 16th, 2009 at 4:30 am
As a brazilian non-white physicist, perhaps I can contribute with a different viewpoint. Here in Brazil the youth culture at highschool is not dominated by anglo-saxon (or should we say, american?) concepts like “to be popular” or “to be a looser”.
TBBT here is a popular sitcon that is doing marvelous work:
For geeks: a) to assure to geeks that they can have productive lives like the TBBT characters; b) That “normal people” or even “blondes” like Penny are not desprezible low-QI people, but can be lovely friends with high social-QI and that geeks can learn a lot with them.
For non-geeks: a) that geeks can be human, interesting and lovely; b) that Aspies like Sheldon can be human, interesting and lovely;
My two teenage daugthers (16 and 14) love the sitcom, specially Sheldon, and both will pursue scientific careers (biology and astrophysics, perhaps?). No, the are not geeks, only intelligent teenagers girls. OK, this is only anedotical evidence. But the original post ans several comments here are anedotical also.
Smart is the new sexy! Live long and prosper!
January 20th, 2010 at 12:21 am
It’s fiction. It’s funny. The nerds are to the extreme, but so is the ditzy waitress, Penny.
Last week, I hosted an outreach program, and a 15 year old girl asked, “Can we melt action figures with a lazer like they did in The Big Bang Theory?” How is getting young students interested in science a bad thing?