Is it my perspective that's off?
Aug. 10th, 2007 11:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alpharaposaI watch Eureka on SciFi. It's a nifty show. The premise is that there's a secret town full of scientists (sponsored by the US government) named Eureka, and that they're responsible for all sorts of nifty inventions. An 'ordinary guy' gets dragged in as sheriff of the town, and every week something goes horribly wrong with somebody's latest project. (If you're familiar with Girl Genius, it's rather like having a whole town full of sparks.)
Requires some suspension of disbelief, but a fun show.
However, the latest episode had a couple of bits that grumped me.
Jack Carter (sheriff and obligatory norm) was talking with his daughter about IQ tests, and said that he got a 111- that he wasn't really trying and got over 100 percent.
Are the majority of people out there really likely to make that mistake? Or is this a case of "writers making the normal guy stupid to make the other people look smarter"?
And then, something that's starting to bother me- you have all these geniuses, yet the guy who makes the suggestions that save the day is invariably Carter. In the latest episode, the trouble was with a giant magnetic field pulling space junk from the sky. Carter was the one who suggested using a similar magnetic field to divert the junk someplace safer. But, really, anybody who accepts the principle that magnetic fields move space junk should be able to see that solution. Can real geniuses be that dumb? Would a group of seven geniuses have all of them be that dumb, so that the 'norm' has to come up with the save-the-day solution?
It's hard for me to answer these questions because, as a kid, one of the labels hung on me was "The Smart Girl". Being smart was a big part of my identity. However, I'm no longer as dead certain of my relative intelligence in the world. There's lots I don't know, and I feel poorly educated and unmotivated far too often.
So, when I look at these issues, either way, I see a problem. If I think of myself as 'not really that smart', then Jack Carter not knowing about IQ tests is problematic, because I know about them. This makes Carter's characterization as an 'ordinary guy' fail. But if I am really that smart, then the bunch of geniuses spacing out on the obvious answer falls flat. If I can figure it out, then shouldn't they? That makes the scientists' problem solving abilities fall flat, which undermines the whole 'genius' label. (Also makes Carter seem far more intelligent than otherwise.)
So, I end up having to ask, because I'm no longer sure where on the 'smartness spectrum' I lie anymore. Is the sheriff's characterization valid? And can scientists really be that dumb? Or is it just me?
Requires some suspension of disbelief, but a fun show.
However, the latest episode had a couple of bits that grumped me.
Jack Carter (sheriff and obligatory norm) was talking with his daughter about IQ tests, and said that he got a 111- that he wasn't really trying and got over 100 percent.
Are the majority of people out there really likely to make that mistake? Or is this a case of "writers making the normal guy stupid to make the other people look smarter"?
And then, something that's starting to bother me- you have all these geniuses, yet the guy who makes the suggestions that save the day is invariably Carter. In the latest episode, the trouble was with a giant magnetic field pulling space junk from the sky. Carter was the one who suggested using a similar magnetic field to divert the junk someplace safer. But, really, anybody who accepts the principle that magnetic fields move space junk should be able to see that solution. Can real geniuses be that dumb? Would a group of seven geniuses have all of them be that dumb, so that the 'norm' has to come up with the save-the-day solution?
It's hard for me to answer these questions because, as a kid, one of the labels hung on me was "The Smart Girl". Being smart was a big part of my identity. However, I'm no longer as dead certain of my relative intelligence in the world. There's lots I don't know, and I feel poorly educated and unmotivated far too often.
So, when I look at these issues, either way, I see a problem. If I think of myself as 'not really that smart', then Jack Carter not knowing about IQ tests is problematic, because I know about them. This makes Carter's characterization as an 'ordinary guy' fail. But if I am really that smart, then the bunch of geniuses spacing out on the obvious answer falls flat. If I can figure it out, then shouldn't they? That makes the scientists' problem solving abilities fall flat, which undermines the whole 'genius' label. (Also makes Carter seem far more intelligent than otherwise.)
So, I end up having to ask, because I'm no longer sure where on the 'smartness spectrum' I lie anymore. Is the sheriff's characterization valid? And can scientists really be that dumb? Or is it just me?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 04:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 06:27 pm (UTC)However, I'm worrying away more at the problem of failed characterization than anything else. Did it fail because I am unusual, and see things differently? Or did it fail because of bad writing?
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 11:45 pm (UTC)From the writing standpoint, the writers have evidently fallen into the trap of thinking that all genius types are eccentric oddballs that can't see the obvious in front of them. Not to say this isn't sometimes true...Albert Einstein certainly had his moments where he proved he wasn't quite connected. But that's hardly a basis for a broad characterization.
From the viewpoint stand, one noted problem that bright people have is that they see connections and relationships which others don't. The classic example is blowing the PSAT and SAT because they see correlations which were not intended.....having four choices, and seeing three of them connect, for instance, where the test writers only saw one. Or, to use a real life example, the law says a scooter that can't keep up with traffic speed is supposed to stay to the far right, unless making a left turn. But what if the far right is a turn lane...do you go there and cut back across to stay on the far right, or do you stay to the far right of the straight lane?