OK, let me say right from the beginning that I love the show. I completely agree with almost all the criticisms that people make about it, but it doesn’t matter to me. I love how the characters interact, and I love the subtle (and not-so-subtle) nerd humor. It probably helps that I have a BS in Physics.
So, my question is: is Sheldon an actual genius, or does he just think he is?
It’s pretty clear that he’s very, very smart, and his eidetic memory gives him a tremendous advantage when it come to factual data, but is he creative?
It’s been shown that he has never really come up with any ground-breaking theories. He hasn’t won that Nobel prize yet. And, he was bested in the Physics Bowl by a janitor.
So, is he a genius, or just a legend in his own mind?
There was an episode where some young kid, 15 I think, that was the youngest to win some well respected award and the university was trying to convince the kid to go to their university instead of another one and tried to get the guys to help bring the kid in.
The previous youngest holder of that award was Sheldon. I’m sure there are other things but I think that puts Sheldon into the genius catagory.
Also Sheldon brags that once he got to ride in a helicopter when he was a kid. It was a ride to take him to the hospital because he had built an MRI machiine, or something, and he got hurt.
Unfortunately, being a character on a TV sitcom prevents Sheldon from actually publishing theories or winning Nobels (which can be delayed from the awarded work by decades, anyway). From a scriptwriting perspective on a running show, his scientific accomplishments have to be kept mostly ambiguous and slightly fictional, lest the writers get too far away from real-world science or risk satisfying Sheldon’s characteristic ambition.
Still, his list of scientific discoveries are numerous. For example, he co-authored a discovery of supersolids with Leonard, at 15 was a visiting professor at a German university, at 16 he “examined perturbative amplitudes in N=4 supersymmetric theories leading to a re-examination of the ultraviolet properties of multiloop N=8 supergravity using modern twistor theory” and won CalTech’s chancellor’s award.
There’s an episode where a grad student latches on to him and cracks the proverbial whip until he solves the problem he’s working on. All that game playing and comic book reading is holding him back.
Didn’t Sheldon graduate from college when he was a pre-teen?
Not all geniuses win nobel prizes or make significant real-world contributions. I quote Dilbert’s garbageman “Intelligence has much less practical application than you’d think”.
I think the argument here is that genius doesn’t just mean “super smart”, which no one could deny with regard to Sheldon, but rather that it means “super smart” AND do something new and or creative with those smarts. I don’t know if that’s the true definition of “genius” but it’s not the first time I’ve come across it being used that way.
S02E09 “The White Asparagus Triangulation”. Sheldon was 12 and built a CAT scanner:
"Steph: I’m sorry, you tried to build your own CAT scanner?
Sheldon: No, I didn’t try, I succeeded. In fact, I was briefly able to see the inside of my sister’s guinea pig, Snowball, before he caught fire. It led to an interesting expression in our house, not a Snowball’s chance in a CAT scanner."
This incident highlight’s a lot about Sheldon’s mind. On the one hand, he build a working CAT scanner at the age of 12 which is quite a feat. On the other hand he botched it and bye-bye Snowball plus he got burned enough to require a helicopter ride to the hospital.
Sheldon is a flawed genius. He really can do remarkably advanced things. But he also is unaware of his limitations and that causes problems. He is better at theory than at practice. E.g., he can swim, drive, etc. in theory.
He’d make a perfect villain in a Matt Helm/Austin Powers type movie. He really would put the hero in an easily escapable cell rather than killing him.
It also points out that a CAT scanner that sets the subject on fire fits Sheldon’s criteria for “working”. He’s good at meeting the goals he sets for himself, but very poor at evaluating the appropriateness of those goals.
The problem with the series for me is that it equates being a genius with being a nerd. Which isn’t true. Plenty of geniuses don’t watch Star Trek and read comic books and plenty of nerds have only average intelligence.
So three people who work at the same place and have similar interests getting together is unrealistic? Sheldon was a loner before Leonard became his roommate and introduced him to Raj & Howard. And it has never been implied that the three are “geniuses.”
I dislike the series and have only seen it in passing. But, from what I have seen, this is flawed reasoning for not liking the show. There have been other more well rounded characters highlighted on the show who share a similar level of intelligence to the nerd ensemble, without their nerdish trappings. One episode I saw had a colleague of Leonard’s who was athletic, rode a motorcycle, and was instantly attractive to Penny. The one guy’s girlfriend is a waitress at Penny’s restaurant, and also going for a Phd in something or other. And, I am willing to bet there are other examples of this. There are plenty of reasons to dislike the show. This doesn’t seem like an especially good one.
To me, it indicates the people who make the show don’t understand their subject. It would be as if they made a show about four cops and they made jokes about how they sit around the police station all day playing Dungeons and Dragons.
No, the police equivalent would be policemen sitting around eating donuts in their police cars.
Do all policemen eat donuts? No. Are all people who eat donuts members of the police? No.
Are all geniuses into sci-fi shows/comic books? No. Are all people who enjoy sci-fi shows/comic books geniuses? No.
Do these stereotypes exist for both groups of people? Yes.
This is my point. If you made a show about cops hanging around a donut shop it would be the applicable stereotype, regardless of its real world accuracy. But a show that had cops playing D&D like that was a stereotypical cop activity wouldn’t make any sense. You don’t use nerd jokes in a show about cops.
If they had made a show about four guys who worked in a comic book store or hung out at SF conventions, then the nerd jokes might be applicable. But four college professors? That makes no sense.
I hesitate to defend this show because I don’t think it’s particularly good – it’s a “Well, if nothing else is on…” thing for me – but:
I think it’s more like if they made a show about four geeky cops who sit around playing D&D and don’t have many other friends because all the other cops think they’re loser nerds.
Are these characters actually professors? It was my impression that they were postdocs, researchers, etc.
I work in academia myself and while I don’t know anyone as extreme as the characters on BBT, there are geeks in academia. I have a few colleagues who enjoy roleplaying games, sci-fi movies, and going to comic book stores, so I don’t think it’s nonsensical to depict a small group of academics as also being huge geeks.
Little Nemo, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think it’s a fair stereotype. And, as I said before, it’s not like they imply that all scientists in academia have these nerdy inclinations.
Thanks kaylasdad!
I suppose Lamia and I should go into a thread about a show we actually like.
