4 ms·

This is actually a decent route for a kind of supplementary education: it would be pretty valuable to expose a broad audience to the way scientists/engineers re

This is actually a decent route for a kind of supplementary education: it would be pretty valuable to expose a broad audience to the way scientists/engineers really think about problems—and the opportunity is generally wasted, preferring to convey that scientists/engineers just have some magical ability that the audience does not. It's a little difficult to say exactly what it is that could be communicated, but I guess I'd call it 'intuition'; and the value of trying to convey it in a movie is that if you tell the average person, "I'm now going to give you some examples of how scientists think about things"—they're going to become nervous and less efficient at absorbing the info. I was recently impressed by "Ex Machina" for being 'plausable-ish' and showing realistic, intelligent thought processes, as an example. The t.v. show "House" is also sometimes good about it.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
I'd like movies to go more for a kind of "social proof". Part of the reason Star Trek, especially TNG, raised a generation of scientists and engineers is because science and engineering there is normal. Not mundane, but normal. Every protagonist and background character in this world is highly educated; no one is surprised by it, nobody boasts about it - it's just how everyone are. Even that dirty Klinon thug knows more science and engineering than your average university graduate. It's just normal, and I think it reflects on the audience. Besides thinking, there's a huge value in portraying accurate science and technology. Even if it's background, not core of the plot. Pretty much everyone in the West learns stuff from TV and cinema, whether they like it or not. Especially if one doesn't know about something beforehand, the movie will set baseline expectations about that thing. Think how most people seem to believe that people will explode when exposed to vacuum - thanks to decades of movies that told them exactly that. If people are going to learn from TV, they may as well learn the correct stuff.
- protomyth 11y ago
  "Pretty much everyone in the West learns stuff from TV and cinema" I think that's universal of all stories in all cultures. I remember a speaker at Gen-Con in the 90's claimed that the original reason for campfire stories of heroes was to inspire the young men to defend the group in times of danger (overcome the flight with a heroic fight). Cinema is just a very effective way in the line of delivery methods. VR is going to be really interesting to watch.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I agree it's probably a human universal. But the TV and cinema are special here - as you said, they're a very effective delivery vector, but moreover, movies usually cover vast range of things, and we watch shit ton of them. For instance, have you ever seen a real assault rifle? Maybe you have, but I haven't - so all I feel about them, i.e. my intuitive knowledge (as opposed to stuff I read on Wikipedia) comes from movies and videogames. I haven't seen a live round fired from a gun in my life, but I "know" how it sounds, how the bullets behave, etc. Half of it is probably wrong, but barring a real-life experience, that's all I've got. And while campfire stories could cover things in the abstract, movies let you cache images of just about anything - from how to bake pancakes, to how to deal with angry people, to how planes work. I think we're underestimating just how much "life experience" of an ordinary person comes from TV - and thus how much of it is wrong.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      True, but I think TV and cinema are the last generation's special with the internet now this generations like a couple of generations ago radio was the thing. The vector is a little more amped now with the imagination level down on the audience. I guess frequency is up mainly because of external factors (e.g. fear of strangers for parents). I have seen an AR-15 (which is not really an assault rifle, but the media is not very accurate) and handled a gun (my mom's) and shot one when I was 7 (I sucked) and hunted (we apparently ended up tracking Sun-Tzu the deer). I'm very worried by our "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express" level of knowledge.
- Adam_O 11y ago
  I think about this too sometimes.. TNG in particular had scientifically literate characters and that sort of depth was considered normal, there was no fuss about the big ideas and the knowledge, they just applied it. It is easy to get used to a mature baseline of thought like that as a viewer. Most of the newer apocalyptic themed sci-fi just seems silly in comparison. As a side note, I really like some of the comic books written by Jonathan Hickman, for example his S.H.I.E.L.D. or FF runs. He seems to be a fan of science.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    TNG is a thing that comes back as a topic almost whenever I have a longer discussion with my mother and brother. It's those discussions that made me realize that there are two things that Star Trek world had, that I miss in the real one: 1) High level of baseline literacy we were talking about. Contrast to our world, when many people shy from learning new things, and those who do learn are often labeled as nerds and warned about dangers of having too high self-esteem. I really long for the world where this sort of anti-intellectualism is not something to be proud of, and where the social pressure is encouraging self-development, rather than discouraging it. 2) Expectation of competency. It's visible on all levels - from civilian vs. Starfleet interactions, through teamwork of starship crews, to the inner workings of big bureaucracies like the United Federation of Planets. Everyone is assumed competent until proven otherwise. Characters in Star Trek know they're working with others who are as smart as they are, and so they trust each other and trust the system. Contrast with the real world, where we often assume our coworkers are incompetent, and the predominant narrative in society is that bureaucracies are stupid and evil. I only now realize how much my expectations of humans are different thank to Star Trek, and that a big part of my life is trying to form an area around myself, where 1) and 2) would hold. There's also point 3), but that may be a particular quirk of my personality - I prefer stories where not individuals, but organizations are heroes. That's another reason why I love Star Trek, and that's also why S.H.I.E.L.D. was always my favourite part of the Marvel Multiverse. A magical mutated flying superhero is boring. A Helicarrier - now that's interesting. :).
    - Adam_O 11y ago
      Fully agree with 1) in a sense that the sciences and the humanities are all around us, in front of us, and it's not 'geek' impulse to try exploring both, it's part of being a rational, fulfilled human being. As for 2), that's an interesting point. Perhaps it speaks to a level of maturity and mutual trust that we have not achieved yet. Maybe it manifests naturally as a result of progress with 1). It'd be interesting to read some lengthier discourse on this.. I feel it relates to government, market forces, social perception, culture and more..

TeMPOraL 11y ago

I'd like movies to go more for a kind of "social proof". Part of the reason Star Trek, especially TNG, raised a generation of scientists and engineers is because science and engineering there is normal. Not mundane, but normal. Every protagonist and background character in this world is highly educated; no one is surprised by it, nobody boasts about it - it's just how everyone are. Even that dirty Klinon thug knows more science and engineering than your average university graduate. It's just normal, and I think it reflects on the audience. Besides thinking, there's a huge value in portraying accurate science and technology. Even if it's background, not core of the plot. Pretty much everyone in the West learns stuff from TV and cinema, whether they like it or not. Especially if one doesn't know about something beforehand, the movie will set baseline expectations about that thing. Think how most people seem to believe that people will explode when exposed to vacuum - thanks to decades of movies that told them exactly that. If people are going to learn from TV, they may as well learn the correct stuff.

protomyth 11y ago
"Pretty much everyone in the West learns stuff from TV and cinema" I think that's universal of all stories in all cultures. I remember a speaker at Gen-Con in the 90's claimed that the original reason for campfire stories of heroes was to inspire the young men to defend the group in times of danger (overcome the flight with a heroic fight). Cinema is just a very effective way in the line of delivery methods. VR is going to be really interesting to watch.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I agree it's probably a human universal. But the TV and cinema are special here - as you said, they're a very effective delivery vector, but moreover, movies usually cover vast range of things, and we watch shit ton of them. For instance, have you ever seen a real assault rifle? Maybe you have, but I haven't - so all I feel about them, i.e. my intuitive knowledge (as opposed to stuff I read on Wikipedia) comes from movies and videogames. I haven't seen a live round fired from a gun in my life, but I "know" how it sounds, how the bullets behave, etc. Half of it is probably wrong, but barring a real-life experience, that's all I've got. And while campfire stories could cover things in the abstract, movies let you cache images of just about anything - from how to bake pancakes, to how to deal with angry people, to how planes work. I think we're underestimating just how much "life experience" of an ordinary person comes from TV - and thus how much of it is wrong.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    True, but I think TV and cinema are the last generation's special with the internet now this generations like a couple of generations ago radio was the thing. The vector is a little more amped now with the imagination level down on the audience. I guess frequency is up mainly because of external factors (e.g. fear of strangers for parents). I have seen an AR-15 (which is not really an assault rifle, but the media is not very accurate) and handled a gun (my mom's) and shot one when I was 7 (I sucked) and hunted (we apparently ended up tracking Sun-Tzu the deer). I'm very worried by our "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express" level of knowledge.
Adam_O 11y ago
I think about this too sometimes.. TNG in particular had scientifically literate characters and that sort of depth was considered normal, there was no fuss about the big ideas and the knowledge, they just applied it. It is easy to get used to a mature baseline of thought like that as a viewer. Most of the newer apocalyptic themed sci-fi just seems silly in comparison. As a side note, I really like some of the comic books written by Jonathan Hickman, for example his S.H.I.E.L.D. or FF runs. He seems to be a fan of science.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  TNG is a thing that comes back as a topic almost whenever I have a longer discussion with my mother and brother. It's those discussions that made me realize that there are two things that Star Trek world had, that I miss in the real one: 1) High level of baseline literacy we were talking about. Contrast to our world, when many people shy from learning new things, and those who do learn are often labeled as nerds and warned about dangers of having too high self-esteem. I really long for the world where this sort of anti-intellectualism is not something to be proud of, and where the social pressure is encouraging self-development, rather than discouraging it. 2) Expectation of competency. It's visible on all levels - from civilian vs. Starfleet interactions, through teamwork of starship crews, to the inner workings of big bureaucracies like the United Federation of Planets. Everyone is assumed competent until proven otherwise. Characters in Star Trek know they're working with others who are as smart as they are, and so they trust each other and trust the system. Contrast with the real world, where we often assume our coworkers are incompetent, and the predominant narrative in society is that bureaucracies are stupid and evil. I only now realize how much my expectations of humans are different thank to Star Trek, and that a big part of my life is trying to form an area around myself, where 1) and 2) would hold. There's also point 3), but that may be a particular quirk of my personality - I prefer stories where not individuals, but organizations are heroes. That's another reason why I love Star Trek, and that's also why S.H.I.E.L.D. was always my favourite part of the Marvel Multiverse. A magical mutated flying superhero is boring. A Helicarrier - now that's interesting. :).
  - Adam_O 11y ago
    Fully agree with 1) in a sense that the sciences and the humanities are all around us, in front of us, and it's not 'geek' impulse to try exploring both, it's part of being a rational, fulfilled human being. As for 2), that's an interesting point. Perhaps it speaks to a level of maturity and mutual trust that we have not achieved yet. Maybe it manifests naturally as a result of progress with 1). It'd be interesting to read some lengthier discourse on this.. I feel it relates to government, market forces, social perception, culture and more..