You know, years ago, I used to really like Neil before he adopted this "Well, ackchually..." shtick over scientific inaccuracies in works of fiction. I find him absolutely insufferable now. It's the same kind of brainworms as CinemaSins.
If you get really good at anything, there’s a natural temptation to use that skill outside of its proper context.
If you get really good at anything, there’s a natural temptation to use that skill outside of its proper context.
Indeed! It explains a lot of the issues in many fields, today. A bunch of us computer programmers got really good at that, and now it's still illegal to shoot us for it (for now). /s (mostly...)
I know, buddy… I know.
Phychohistory is feasible, we just need to scale up!
That's it, you're banished.
Now I'm just really sad about my dead dog.
This motherfucker watched a movie where a girl inherits all of the memories of her 4 most recent female ancestors because her mother used drugs while she was pregnant and he's like "that isn't how sound moves through sand"
Is that an actual movie cause that sounds wild
Yeah that's dune
That's the story of dune, and it was covered in the 1984 movie. Idk if the new one gets into it I haven't seen it yet
It wouldn't be Dune without being overenthusastic about the capabilities of psychedelics.
Oh yeah, and it gets weirder from there.
He's a physicist, so he's obviously going to comment on the physics. He might've commented on it if he was a geneticist, ob/gyn, or pharmacist.
Or he could have the insight that this story wasn't going for scientific accuracy
I think that Neil doesn’t understand something very vital about being a science educator which if there is one thing people know about them, it’s that they are smart as hell and whether that is actually true or not the science educator must adopt a self-deprecating, disarming character to be relatable to the audience within the context they are in because of it.
You can’t play the character of a king and be relatable if people perceive you as actually being a king outside the context of the play….
Well-put. Compare Bill Nye, who comes across as highly intelligent, yet still relatable and likable, in large part because his Science Guy character tends to be a bit of a goof, and, more importantly, because he never talks down to his audience.
Right, Bill Nye isn't threatening or high status (in a theatrical sense) in his extreme advantage of knowledge over you and obvious superior intelligence that implies.
Bill Nye (at least his old stuff I haven’t watched him in a long time) just feels like your goofy neighbor or science teacher and your walls don’t go up because of it, you are so much more willing to consider that a preconception you had might have been wrong because Bill Nye isn’t correcting you out of a place of superiority (which again the audience will by default unfairly project onto someone like Bill Nye given the context), it’s from a place of “the universe is weirder and more fun than you thought and I am hyped in a mad scientist way to be the person that gets to show you that!!”. Same thing with Myth Busters, they were most effective when they were visibly thrilled by the privilege of getting to show people how much weirder and cooler science was then they thought, not just because it's morally good to spread science education but also because it's fun as hell to get to be the goofy character doing it while seeing the eyes of adults around you light up like kids. You are a magician, except you are way funnier than a magician because the result of your magic tricks is to make people permanently feel how weird the universe really is.
We hate being wrong except when an irreverent character shows us that we were wrong because we underestimated how cool, weird or goofy the universe actually is.
I suppose this an obvious case of why just valuing STEM in school is a huge mistake, someone with theater training could easily point this dynamic out and make sure they played the character that made them the best science educator possible if they were in the position Tyson is in. It wouldn't even take any more work than Tyson is already doing, it is simply a matter of genuinely understanding perspective (the theater part) and giving a shit.
Similar story. I liked him a lot, read one of his books, and started listening to his podcast. But the more I listened, the less I liked him.
I really, really liked his podcast when the co-hosts rotated, including Kristen Schall and Eugene Merman. Then it became Chuck Nice all the time, and I didn't stick around to see if it ever changed back.
That one tweet about the stars in Titanic was the only good one of those.
I totally agree with this sentiment. This is the way I feel about Elon Musk. Although, I do have an exorbitant amount of disdain for the latter.
He talked about electric cars. I don't know anything about cars, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Then he talked about rockets. I don't know anything about rockets, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Now he talks about software. I happen to know a lot about software & Elon Musk is saying the stupidest shit I've ever heard anyone say, so when people say he's a genius I figure I should stay the hell away from his cars and rockets.
I don’t he gets the movie really isn’t about “science”. It’s about philosophy, politics, religion, etc.
Seems to be a case of the ole " I can't see the forest, all these trees are in the fucking way!".
Which is kinda funny considering the books had a lot to do with ecology.
If you ever never seen the dunes of Florence, Oregon. It’s pretty cool. That’s where the dune idea came from.
I’ve heard there are some ties to Salem since he lived there but I have not figured those out
You know, years ago, I used to really like Neil before he adopted this "Well, ackchually..." shtick over scientific inaccuracies in works of fiction. I find him absolutely insufferable now. It's the same kind of brainworms as CinemaSins.
Relevant comic:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21
Physics teaches you can model reality with math.
If you get really good at anything, there’s a natural temptation to use that skill outside of its proper context.
Indeed! It explains a lot of the issues in many fields, today. A bunch of us computer programmers got really good at that, and now it's still illegal to shoot us for it (for now). /s (mostly...)
I know, buddy… I know.
Phychohistory is feasible, we just need to scale up!
That's it, you're banished.
Now I'm just really sad about my dead dog.
This motherfucker watched a movie where a girl inherits all of the memories of her 4 most recent female ancestors because her mother used drugs while she was pregnant and he's like "that isn't how sound moves through sand"
Is that an actual movie cause that sounds wild
Yeah that's dune
That's the story of dune, and it was covered in the 1984 movie. Idk if the new one gets into it I haven't seen it yet
It wouldn't be Dune without being overenthusastic about the capabilities of psychedelics.
Oh yeah, and it gets weirder from there.
He's a physicist, so he's obviously going to comment on the physics. He might've commented on it if he was a geneticist, ob/gyn, or pharmacist.
Or he could have the insight that this story wasn't going for scientific accuracy
I think that Neil doesn’t understand something very vital about being a science educator which if there is one thing people know about them, it’s that they are smart as hell and whether that is actually true or not the science educator must adopt a self-deprecating, disarming character to be relatable to the audience within the context they are in because of it.
You can’t play the character of a king and be relatable if people perceive you as actually being a king outside the context of the play….
Well-put. Compare Bill Nye, who comes across as highly intelligent, yet still relatable and likable, in large part because his Science Guy character tends to be a bit of a goof, and, more importantly, because he never talks down to his audience.
Right, Bill Nye isn't threatening or high status (in a theatrical sense) in his extreme advantage of knowledge over you and obvious superior intelligence that implies.
Bill Nye (at least his old stuff I haven’t watched him in a long time) just feels like your goofy neighbor or science teacher and your walls don’t go up because of it, you are so much more willing to consider that a preconception you had might have been wrong because Bill Nye isn’t correcting you out of a place of superiority (which again the audience will by default unfairly project onto someone like Bill Nye given the context), it’s from a place of “the universe is weirder and more fun than you thought and I am hyped in a mad scientist way to be the person that gets to show you that!!”. Same thing with Myth Busters, they were most effective when they were visibly thrilled by the privilege of getting to show people how much weirder and cooler science was then they thought, not just because it's morally good to spread science education but also because it's fun as hell to get to be the goofy character doing it while seeing the eyes of adults around you light up like kids. You are a magician, except you are way funnier than a magician because the result of your magic tricks is to make people permanently feel how weird the universe really is.
We hate being wrong except when an irreverent character shows us that we were wrong because we underestimated how cool, weird or goofy the universe actually is.
I suppose this an obvious case of why just valuing STEM in school is a huge mistake, someone with theater training could easily point this dynamic out and make sure they played the character that made them the best science educator possible if they were in the position Tyson is in. It wouldn't even take any more work than Tyson is already doing, it is simply a matter of genuinely understanding perspective (the theater part) and giving a shit.
Similar story. I liked him a lot, read one of his books, and started listening to his podcast. But the more I listened, the less I liked him.
I really, really liked his podcast when the co-hosts rotated, including Kristen Schall and Eugene Merman. Then it became Chuck Nice all the time, and I didn't stick around to see if it ever changed back.
That one tweet about the stars in Titanic was the only good one of those.
I totally agree with this sentiment. This is the way I feel about Elon Musk. Although, I do have an exorbitant amount of disdain for the latter.
quoth @rodhilton@mastodon.social
He talked about electric cars. I don't know anything about cars, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Then he talked about rockets. I don't know anything about rockets, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Now he talks about software. I happen to know a lot about software & Elon Musk is saying the stupidest shit I've ever heard anyone say, so when people say he's a genius I figure I should stay the hell away from his cars and rockets.
I don’t he gets the movie really isn’t about “science”. It’s about philosophy, politics, religion, etc.
Seems to be a case of the ole " I can't see the forest, all these trees are in the fucking way!".
Which is kinda funny considering the books had a lot to do with ecology.
If you ever never seen the dunes of Florence, Oregon. It’s pretty cool. That’s where the dune idea came from. I’ve heard there are some ties to Salem since he lived there but I have not figured those out