Big Bang Theory Show - Impact on Science/Engineering 5

[rconnor]

The general perception of science and engineering in our society plays a pivotal role in defining the future of those fields, both in terms of employment, funding and general development. One of the recent major emissaries of science and engineering in pop culture is the TV sitcom, Big Bang Theory.

I am continually told by those that know me as someone that will use any excuse to advocate for science appreciation and science literacy, that I’d love Big Bang Theory. I’m told that “it’s making science cool again”, that “it humanizes scientists” and that “it’s spreading science to the masses”; they consider the show to have a positive influence on the public’s appreciation or interest in science. This also appears to be echoed by the show runners/writers themselves. So I watched a number of episodes and, unsurprisingly for me, have developed quite a strong opinion on the subject. As my purpose is to gauge the reaction of the engineering community to the show, I’ll withhold giving my take on it until later, in order to not direct or enflame the conversation from the get-go.

So, eng-tips community, what is your take on the impact Big Bang Theory has on the general public’s perception of science and engineering?
1) Positive – the show improves the public’s perception of science, leading to a positive impact on the field
2) Negative – the show is harmful the public’s perception of science, leading to a negative impact on the field
3) Neutral – it’s just a comedy show; it has no significant impact on the field

Regarding the “impact on the field”, I’d consider the following:
- Influences the scientific literacy of the public
- Influences the public’s appreciation of science/scientists
- Influences a young person’s desire to enter a scientific field (male and female are different issues)
- Influences the likelihood the public will advocate for an increase in funding of scientific research

Let me be clear, I’m not here to discuss the merits of it as a comedy show. Certainly whether you find the show funny or not will influence your reaction to the show as a positive, damaging or neutral advocate for science but try to dissociate the two.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Thats true, out of all of them he's probably the most useful.
Yeah, especially (or perhaps unless in this case) if you need to use the bathroom on the space station.

I'm not sure I agree with the "most useful". I would stipulate that the usefulness of the engineer is more obvious and apparent, but not necessarily with most useful.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[ornerynorsk]

Kingnero said it first. Penny.

It's entertainment. I'm neutral on it. I don't know that 99% of the viewing audience have any concept what-so-ever of most of the subject matter, including me, except for the mechanical stuff.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[CajunCenturion]

In answer to the actual question:

Will it influence the public's scientific literacy? Very little if at all. On those occasions where they go into some detail about a scientific concept, if it's over the watcher's head, then it's going to stay over the watcher's head. If it's not, then you're already at or beyond that literacy point.

Will it influences the public’s appreciation of science/scientists? I think it's going to reinforce one's own perception about science and geek whatever that perception happens to be.

Will it influences a young person’s desire to enter a scientific field (male and female are different issues)? Maybe, but only if that person already had at least some interest in science to begin with.

Will it influences the likelihood the public will advocate for an increase in funding of scientific research? No. The current financial situation in the USA, with the total debt, fiscal cliff, deficit spending, yada, yada, yaha, completely overwhelms the general public's thinking about scientific research funding.

The show it what it is. An entertaining sitcom that, as others have said, would probably not succeed without Penny. Penny is the "normal" character that the general public identifies with and without that character, the general public would lose interest. The fact that she's also very attractive doesn't hurt in the slightest.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[rconnor]

Some great replies, thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

Firstly, I’d like to clarify that I do not feel that this show ought to do something positive for science. It is for entertainment, not for educational purposes (as molten pointed out) nor is it designed to advance the sciences. However, I feel that there is perception amongst people, at least those in my social circle, that this show does provide some benefit to science. I even get the impression that some feel I, being an advocate for science, should be somewhat grateful to the show.

I disagree with this position.

The Portrayal of Science
Science is portrayed as this nebulous, unapproachable, difficult process. When “science” is done in the show, it’s usual a character toiling away trying to solve a blackboard full of incredibly complex equations. None of these are defined or explained; the audience is taught not to care what it’s about, just that it’s “science”. It reinforces two dangerous (but very popular) ideas: 1) science is unapproachable and 2) #1 doesn’t matter because you really don’t need to give a crap about it; some nerds will do “science” so you can get a smaller phone.

This is echoed by the Penny’s (who embodies “normal” society) reaction to “science”. She is at times utterly dismissive of it (the “science” becomes the brunt of the joke when she enters the room...hold for 5 seconds of laugh track and reaction shots...and....) or, at best, treats “science” as permissible (mainly due to its irrelevancy).

Some have brought up the good point that the characters appear to have a genuine passion for science. I agree and this, to an extent, is positive. However, the beauty and joy that they see in science is certainly not translated to the “normal” characters, or the audience for that matter. If the show was truly respectful towards science, it would show case it as something wonderful and awe-inspiring, instead of the facilitator of some one-liner.

The Portrayal of Science - Men
Either Sheldon has aspergers and we are laughing at his mental issues or he is an apathetic, neurotic, anti-social, snob (or somewhere in between...which could hardly be an improvement). He looks down on other characters (constantly mocking their intelligence), he is jealous or trivializes others accomplishments, he makes no attempt to be comprehendible, he is reclusive to an extreme – all traits that the public would prescribe to their version of a stereotypical scientist. He is entirely unlikable. The only reason why people like the character is that they can laugh at how ridiculous he is.

Raj and Howard are just token scientist characters:
1) Terribly dated hair, clothes, style
2) Sheepish and meek (both emotionally and physically)
3) Like videogames, boardgames, “nerdy” TV and movies
4) Anti-social
5) Have “nerd” voices (strong Indian accident for the one and nasally, mousy for the other)
6) Absolutely zero “street smarts”

Although the use of extreme stereotypes is certainly not new in sitcoms, for a show that is paraded as being for and/or by scientifically inclined people, it certainly does scientifically inclined people no favours. It compounds an already negative few that is prevalent in the general population.

But…but…look at Leonard, he’s intelligent AND (slightly) “normal”. The very fact that this is treated as a surprising combination of characterizes further emphasizes the false dichotomy between intelligence and sociability. He is used as an exception that proves the rule that you can be either scientifically inclined or normal.

The Portrayal of Science - Women
The most clear cut example of this false dichotomy is observed in how woman are portrayed:

Penny (representing “normal” females) – blonde, hot, lively, friendly, charismatic, a little stupid (but it’s ok because intelligence is not an important or desirable quality in females apparently), popular

Sheldon’s girlfriend – glasses, kind of frumpy, cold, demanding

Howard’s girlfriend – glasses (ubiquitous amongst intelligent woman), shrill voice, naïve to societal norms, “could be hot if she tried” (lose the glasses, dress better, put on makeup…you know, be “normal”), helpless (to the point it overshadows her intelligence), shy

Notice that calling them Sheldon and Howard’s girlfriend is quite apt because they aren’t portrayed in the show as independent people; they only exist in the show to be girlfriends. Penny on the other hand is quite independent and usually carries an independent storyline (normally revolving around her being hot and/or normal).

Which of the three do you think young girls would desire to be?

Using my criteria:
Scientific Literacy - does not touch it. It is purposefully designed to be over the head of most of its audience. Although the show does not need to educate people on science, it could be a great platform for it (a little explanation here and there, talk about recent advances in science…I think there was an episode on the Higgs, I haven’t seen it though)
Appreciation for Science – very little (and I’m often told that it is). Again, could be so much more
Young People into Science - my biggest issue with the show is that it further perpetuates the false dichotomy that you can be either scientifically inclined or normal. I feel it’s a deterrent, especially for women.
Funding – no effect. This one was a stretch, I don’t expect a sitcom to have this kind of influence.

The show obviously puts a great deal of attention into getting the science right and understanding nerd culture. It’s obviously designed by scientifically inclined people and appears to be designed for similar people. It could be what others would have me believe this show is, a great and positive emissary for science into pop culture. But it falls so short of that and, as I’ve argued, actually is quite damaging.

If it wants to be just another sitcom, fine. But my blood boils when I’m told “it’s good for science”.

(Also, Cajun, that Einstein quote in your signature is one of my favourites from him, great stuff. It reminds me of a T.H. Huxley quote, which speaks to me deeply:

“The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land.”)

 

[JohnRBaker]

For what it's worth, Mayim Bialik, who plays Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler on the show (whom rconnor described as "Sheldon’s girlfriend"), actually has a Ph.D in neuroscience from UCLA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayim_Bialik

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[rconnor]

I'd argue that further proves my point. The show takes a brilliant, beautiful, interesting, seemingly sociable, scientifically inclined, multi-talented young woman and turns her into a mock-able stereotype. She could play herself and she'd be an amazing role-model for budding scientists.

Most of the characters on this show are like Urkel. Sure, they're lovable but no one wants to be Urkel.

 

[TenPenny]

I find it greatly amusing when people think a sit-com television show does anything for public perception, other than give some laughs.

Those who have their opinion of science and/or scientists changed (for the better or worse) by watching 'Big Bang Theory' are not the kind of people who should be allowed to have an opinion on science, they should be euthanized.

It's a comedy show. Written for cheap laughs, with the occasional witty bit thrown in.

 

[moltenmetal]

I forgot to mention the overwhelming benefit of that show: it allows me to describe a former roommate of mine in uni as a way creepier version of Sheldon Cooper, and suddenly people understand...

 

[CajunCenturion]

A creepier version of Sheldon? He must have been some character.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SomptingGuy]

The extra features on the season #6 DVD are well worth watching. Real space stuff.

- Steve

 

[SNORGY]

The fact of the matter is, if a television program was created that accurately reflected what the vast majority of engineers actually do and accomplish, it would be insanely boring to the general public. We aren't like doctors where its sad but still OK to have a patient die once in a while (re: Grey's Anatomy - they kill someone every other week and they are all still heroes, but how many people can an engineer kill before he or she is a scuzz-bucket?); we aren't like lawyers who win and lose cases or have the stereotype of robbing innocent people of their hard-earned money; we aren't like anything - other than just ordinary people responsible for vehicles that don't crash, bridges and buildings that don't fall down, chemical plants that don't explode; indeed, we are most properly characterized by the fact that because of us and what we do, day-to-day life for everyone else is pretty drama-free. Documentary programs like Frontiers Of Science, Frontiers Of Construction, Nature Of Things - they all do a pretty good job of showing the viewing audience what engineers do, but 99% of the viewing audience - including US - hit the remote and tune into Big Bang Theory because, well, the shows about engineering are not entertaining.

It's sad, but it's the truth. We are in the only profession that I can think of - apart from skydiving or cliff-jumping or something - where it's "...one mistake and you're finished...". So, we don't make any. And because of that, we are boring.

 

[cranky108]

The concerning part is the number of people who believe everything the "magic box" displays, including this show. It's not reality, it is intended to be consumed so people will watch the commercials. Nothing more.

The problem is the show is following a predictable path simular to many other shows, and is becoming just another sitcom, with little redeaming value.

 

[TheTick]

Perhaps more attractive young actresses and models will find themselves attracted to nerds. Then we'll get either better-looking scientists or smarter supermodels. Call it a win/win.

 

[rb1957]

SNORGY ... what about "Mayday" ? but certainly our day-to-day work-life isn't very exciting (to people not in the industry) ... and that's the way we like it ... an "exciting" day usually means something bad has happened.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

I find it greatly amusing when people think a sit-com television show does anything for public perception, other than give some laughs

Although, I’d certainly agree that people should not form their opinion on any subject by watching trashy TV shows, it absolutely does happen. Sometimes with very significant consequences. The greatest example of this is CSI.

The judicial system has been trying to combat the “CSI Effect” since the public’s perception of the judicial process and forensic science, caused by shows like CSI, has started influencing jurors decisions. The conclusion of one study states: “No matter what it is called, there is a real phenomenon occurring in courtrooms all across the nation at both the state and federal levels. The CSI Effect must be controlled to ensure fairness within criminal jury trials. Vigilance toward protecting the constitutional fairness of the American criminal justice system can never be too excessive—the stakes are too high and false outcomes are too devastating.”

Furthermore, the “CSI Effect” has also influenced academia. Enrollment in forensic science, crimnology and related programs has skyrocketed since the shows like CSI aired (here). Universities and vocational schools have jumped on this opportunity and have developed expedited programs, which has lead to some criticism over the quality of these degrees (and here). (An interesting example of the continued commodification of education, but that’s another story)

The sentiment that TV shows can’t have an impact on the public perception (let alone public action) is unfounded and ignores the gullibility (and lack of skeptical thought) of the average public. I’d argue that Grey’s Anatomy and ER have had at least some influence over the medical profession, positively or negatively. And I think the same can be applied to The Big Bang Theory and science.

 

[PJones]

I'm a big fan. Between the robot hand and Sheldon and Amy playing doctor - Star Trek Style - I keep swallowing my gum!

 

[beej67]

I like it a hell of a lot better than Mythbusters. Mythbusters makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a spoon. Terrible application of scientific method, commonly leading to wrong conclusions. At least BBT is intended to be fiction.

But honestly I'd rather watch Community than either of those. It's a show that actually has a good script.



Oh, and Archer.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[TomDOT]

rconnor: The "CSI Effect" is likely overblown, and is a very convenient excuse for a lawyer who fails to convict. From your own link:

"One of the largest empirical studies of the CSI effect was undertaken in 2006 by Washtenaw County Circuit Court Judge Donald Shelton and two researchers from Eastern Michigan University. They surveyed more than 1,000 jurors, and found that while juror expectations for forensic evidence had increased, there was no correlation between viewership of crime shows and tendency to convict."

"Many stories about the CSI effect assume that there has been an increase in acquittal rates, though this is often based entirely on anecdotal evidence. A 2009 study of conviction statistics in eight states found that, contrary to the opinions of criminal prosecutors, the acquittal rate has decreased in the years since the debut of CSI."

 

[CheckerHater]

Pretty much summarizes it all:

 

[cranky108]

Well maybe it can help us to understand people who don't know anything about science.