[MikeCF]

Read your Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias.

It's simple "status via association."

People want to increase their status. People want to take the path of least resistance. The easiest way to do this is to associate with people of higher status.

"Oh, I really love this Neil Tyson!" = "Look at how high status I am. I'm a science nerd!"

Who many of Tyson's fans do you suppose pick up a high school physics textbook and work out some problems in their free time? How many have read A Brief History of Time or Cosmos?

Tyson is popular for the same reason TED is. You watch a 5 minute video and...Boom! Fucking Science Rocks! I ROCK BECAUSE SCIENCE!

Tyson once checked a groupie in a funny way. The groupie said, "You're my favorite astrophysicist!" Tyson replied with, "Who is your second favorite?"

Now...an aside.

Who are the most ruthless status climbers?

Women.

Now you can also understand why Rebecca Watson - who has made no contributions to science qua science - and other women so viciously fight to be allowed into the scientific community.

They don't add anything. But by attaching themselves to actual producers, they improve their own status.

[speakeasy]

You guys are way overthinking this. If people "fucking love science" what's so bad about that? It could be "I fucking love drugs" or "I fucking love violence". Tyson is sparking an interest in astronomy among people who may have never thought much about it. We're not all going to run out and become scientists because we heard Tyson speak, but we may be inspired to look at the world in a more rational way and see our proper place in it and the cosmos. I think that's a good thing.

[MikeCF]

(10-20-2013 05:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

You guys are way overthinking this. If people "fucking love science" what's so bad about that? It could be "I fucking love drugs" or "I fucking love violence".

Because they don't really love science.

It's all a front designed to make them look smart.

Go to one of his groupie's homes. Look at the book shelf (or iPad or Kindle).

That'll tell you how much they "fucking love science."

[Hades]

(10-20-2013 03:28 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

Guys, are we really going to act like an astrophysicist being popular is a bad thing because some of the people who follow him are "hipsters" and "the left"?

Neil Degrasse Tyson or Kim Kardashian?

I have a physics degree myself and find the field very interesting.

It's good that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a celebrity, and I'm very happy to see great men like Stephen Hawking with star power, but that doesn't change the fact that (oftentimes) the most vocal of his fanbase are poseurs, worthy of contempt.

The very people who desperately want to be seen as bright and associate with great minds are often morons and jerkoffs, unable to put themselves through the necessary suffering of a hard science education and barely capable of doing basic math - but they'll tell you all day that they "love quantum physics" and "can't get enough special relativity".

Anybody can throw some very introductory information at them regarding the collapse of the wavefunction (pretty much a tenant of quantum mechanics) and they'll have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. It's almost upsetting. There was a grand total of six people in the entire physics department at school and nobody outside of the department had a clue what the hell we work on.

I don't hate Neil DeGrasse Tyson at all, he's probably a cool guy and it would be great to have a beer with him or figure out the particulars of his astrophysics job, it's just his fanbase are mostly losers.

[Roosh]

(10-20-2013 12:06 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

I like his podcast "Star Talk Radio."

He has over a million followers on twitter: https://twitter.com/neiltyson

Kourtney Kardashian's husband has 3x more:

https://twitter.com/scottdisick

[MikeCF]

(10-20-2013 05:15 PM)Hades Wrote:  

It's good that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a celebrity, and I'm very happy to see great men like Stephen Hawking with star power, but that doesn't change the fact that (oftentimes) the most vocal of his fanbase are poseurs, worthy of contempt.

Good post.

I'm an actual "nerd." That is, on weekends I'm on PubMed researching chemicals and supplements and drugs and whatnot.

Before that I was into cosmology, then consciousness, etc.

When I was naive, I'd try talking actual science or deep philosophy with the "fucking science rocks!" crowd.

Deer in the headlights look. Every time.

It's all a front.

The real science nerds aren't all talking about how much they love science.

They are talking about actual scientific topics.

Sorta how the real players aren't talking "game theory" like negs and shit and instead are out approaching.

"I fucking love game!"/Never makes an approach in real life.

"I fucking love science!"/Never read a serious scientific book and on weekends in on Reddit talking about a love of science and atheism and rationality rather than scouring scientific journals for new insights.

[speakeasy]

(10-20-2013 05:15 PM)Hades Wrote:  

I have a physics degree myself and find the field very interesting.

It's good that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a celebrity, and I'm very happy to see great men like Stephen Hawking with star power, but that doesn't change the fact that (oftentimes) the most vocal of his fanbase are poseurs, worthy of contempt.

The very people who desperately want to be seen as bright and associate with great minds are often morons and jerkoffs, unable to put themselves through the necessary suffering of a hard science education and barely capable of doing basic math - but they'll tell you all day that they "love quantum physics" and "can't get enough special relativity".

Come on...So does this hold true for anything else? If someone says, "I fucking love basketball" do they have to be a good basketball player? Or have been on team themselves at some point? Can someone not be a fan of Lebron James even if they can't shoot a hoop to save their life?

What's the difference? Do we have to be "capable" in all the things we are fans of? Of all the dumb shit people out there are following like Miley Cyrus and feminism, I'd prefer they follow Neil Tyson and science, even if it is only at the superficial level. They could be into way worse things. And this could just be a gateway. These same people who follow "I fucking love science" may have kids and push them toward STEM fields, or introduce their kids to a love of science and technology.

[Teedub]

(10-20-2013 02:42 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

This seems like a future:

Left/Right political thread
atheist/religion thread

I think he's great to listen to. However recently, I've noticed a lot of people on the forum have taken an anti-atheist stance. Considering this is a forum about game, which is inherently based on evolutionary and scientific principles, I find this 'hate' rather amusing. However, you're right, so I'm bowing out of this before it gets to 50 million pages of pointless argument!

EDIT: speakeasy, once again I am in agreement with you. You da man. Haha

[Hencredible Casanova]

(10-20-2013 02:54 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

Hen, the very definition of being agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves.

Of course you can have your own definition but with that kind of logic we could also consider Judaism and Christianity the same religion because they both believe in the same god.

Disclaimer: I'm agnostic.

Some aspects of Judaism and Christianity are very similar, at least the branch of Christianity my family follows. Orthodox Christians from the Horn of Africa rely more on the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) than the New one, which is different from most other Christians.

Personally, I'm an agnostic too, and an atheist with respect to all organized religions. I don't ascribe to superstition and find the "leap of faith" argument intellectually dishonest.

[Teedub]

(10-20-2013 01:09 PM)renotime Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 12:57 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

He's also a prominent atheist which is one reason why many on the left like him. When such a proponent happens to be an amazingly credentialed physicist and expert of the cosmos, it lends a lot of credence to the atheism brand.

He's not an atheist.

He's most certainly an 'atheist' in the sense of what religious people would consider it. He's not a 'political' atheist though, sure. His argument about 'non-golfers' etc is enough to tell me that he's basically an atheist. If he was living anywhere but the States, he'd be brave enough to say this. He may say he's agnostic, but its at the far end of the scale. If 1 is complete faith, and 10 is complete unbelief, I am pretty sure he'd be a 9 - The same as Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins (who is much more unlikable than the former two)

[Screwston]

Ive seen a few interviews and like him. I had no idea hipsters and smart posers adored him though. Ive found that most guys who love a nerdy topic keep it to themselves because they know others wont be able to relate.

[Therapsid]

(10-20-2013 06:05 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 02:54 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

Hen, the very definition of being agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves.

Of course you can have your own definition but with that kind of logic we could also consider Judaism and Christianity the same religion because they both believe in the same god.

Disclaimer: I'm agnostic.

Some aspects of Judaism and Christianity are very similar, at least the branch of Christianity my family follows. Orthodox Christians from the Horn of Africa rely more on the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) than the New one, which is different from most other Christians.

Personally, I'm an agnostic too, and an atheist with respect to all organized religions. I don't ascribe to superstition and find the "leap of faith" argument intellectually dishonest.

Off-topic, but Judaism and Christianity are more different than most people think, especially Orthodox Judaism. Most Christians have barely even heard of the Talmud let alone know things as basic as the difference between the Mishnah and Gemara.

The typical Christian has a vague notion that Judaism is Christianity with the New Testament lopped off. As if the religion remained frozen for the last two thousand years.

Yet, many Christians are suddenly armchair professors when it comes to critiquing the Quran.

[Teedub]

(10-20-2013 06:05 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Personally, I'm an agnostic too, and an atheist with respect to all organized religions. I don't ascribe to superstition and find the "leap of faith" argument intellectually dishonest.

That's exactly how I'd describe myself also. Organized religion is bullshit of the highest degree, at least the Abrahamic ones. I'm not educated enough on Hinduism etc to offer an opinion, but I wholly suspect the same. How people can say evolution by natural selection isn't factual is beyond me. There are creationists on this forum who literally believe that God made humans as unique species separate from other primates. Shocking, at least to me.

[Teedub]

Religious people are willfully ignorant, stupid people (religious or otherwise) are stupid, and a lot of 'internet atheists' are ignorant about evolution. All three often seem to think evolution is some march toward 'humaness'. It isn't. The garden slug that 'crawls' across your lawn at night is as evolved as you or I. It is perfectly evolved, via natural selection, to function in its habitat. A lot of religious people say "of course we didn't evolve from monkeys'. We didn't, we share common ancestory, proven my numerous, numerous studies. You only need, on a common level, to witness gorilla behaviour for example, to see that without doubt there are traits shared between the species. I don't think you need to be an atheist to see this. Why don't religious people say that perhaps evolution was pre-programmed by a 'creator God' for this to happen. I have no essential problem believing in that, I have a problem in people in 2013 literally believing that the Garden of Eden thing is true, when it is evidencially not.

[Nemencine]

@ SPEAKEASY @HADES @MIKECF.

Speakeasy, while i understand where you are coming from, the truth is that hades and mikecf are right(imho). As a hard science major myself, it is truly annoying to meet these poseurs in real life. the female species of these poseurs are the worse.

It is not just limited to science, you see it in philosophy too. "i love philosophy". by that they think asking facile questions like "does god exist?" or "is there life after death?" or "is love real or just chemicals in the brain?" (some cannot even say "brain chemistry"...so they results to statements like "chemicals in the brain".) These facile kind of questions are what they think constitutes serious analytical philosophy.

Even worse are the ones that likes to throw around words like "existentialism" or names like nietzsche without ever reading a single book on either. some even like to label themselves "nihilist". hehehehehe.

The worst offenders are the female ones that want to be taken seriously. they think because they labeled themselves "atheist" they are automatically more intelligent. hahahahaha.

[Enigma]

(10-20-2013 05:15 PM)Hades Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 03:28 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

Guys, are we really going to act like an astrophysicist being popular is a bad thing because some of the people who follow him are "hipsters" and "the left"?

Neil Degrasse Tyson or Kim Kardashian?

I have a physics degree myself and find the field very interesting.

It's good that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a celebrity, and I'm very happy to see great men like Stephen Hawking with star power, but that doesn't change the fact that (oftentimes) the most vocal of his fanbase are poseurs, worthy of contempt.

The very people who desperately want to be seen as bright and associate with great minds are often morons and jerkoffs, unable to put themselves through the necessary suffering of a hard science education and barely capable of doing basic math - but they'll tell you all day that they "love quantum physics" and "can't get enough special relativity".

Anybody can throw some very introductory information at them regarding the collapse of the wavefunction (pretty much a tenant of quantum mechanics) and they'll have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. It's almost upsetting. There was a grand total of six people in the entire physics department at school and nobody outside of the department had a clue what the hell we work on.

I don't hate Neil DeGrasse Tyson at all, he's probably a cool guy and it would be great to have a beer with him or figure out the particulars of his astrophysics job, it's just his fanbase are mostly losers.

I see exactly what you're saying and both you and MikeCF make good points.

However, as speakeasy pointed out, what average person goes beyond the surface level of anything?

How many people "love music"? Look on anyone's Facebook page or online dating profile and that's easily one of the most common interests.

Yet how may of them actually have even a passing understanding of music theory or listen to anything that's not on the radio or even know what the lyrics to their favorite song actually mean?

How many people even know the director to their favorite movie or who composed the score? How many football fans can explain what a weak-side blitz or zone blocking scheme are?

People in this country are stupid and superficial on a whole. The average person has only read the same handful of books that everyone else has. You've never found it weird that you know more about everything than everyone simply by researching on the internet and reading a few books?

We could go down the line and point out each thing they don't know about or we can simply accept that they're dumb asses.

In the grand scheme of things, I'd much rather see the hipster trend of "nerds" being "cool" rather than the previous trend of stupidity being praised and books, science, etc. being completely shunned. When I was in school, cats would brag about how low their grades were or how little they payed attention in class.

Maybe dumb bitches saying they love science will encourage some kid to hit the books and become an engineer or create some new vaccine rather than dropping out and starting some shitty band in his mom's basement.

[Walderschmidt]

I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson because he spoke at my military university promoting STEM majors, (cadets are forced to attend speaker's events) and he was one of the best speakers that I have heard in my two years at that time.

For a little context - he is one of two speakers whose speeches I remember being present for.

Wald

[Wutang]

(10-20-2013 04:41 PM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  

Tyson isn't the problem.

"I fucking love science" is the problem.

These assholes never walked the walk. Fuck them.

People need to start questioning what we fund and what we do with the knowledge we acquire. What knowledge do we want and why. We have antibiotic resistance at the same time we have dick and baldness drugs. We have a shitload of studies of obscure shit and no energy future. We hardly know what's killing the bees but we spend how much money on other science because science is a machine.

Hipster science worshipers should fuck off. Left wing science worshipers should know that the social "science" they believe in is the same bullshit quotient as the religious beliefs of the Right wingers they despise.

"I fucking love science" is like a hetero guy being a fan of a male porn star. Instead of worshiping the guy go rail a chick like that. Oh wait they can't. Neither can the "I fucking love science" crowd.

I Fucking Love Science = I Fucking Love Colorful and Sparkly Pictures On Facebook That May or May Not Have Anything To Do With Science

[renotime]

My brother's a nerd hipster type and he likes him. He's also very smart and has a nuclear engineering degree from Georgia Tech.

But maybe he is just an outlier.

[Wutang]

(10-20-2013 05:59 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 05:15 PM)Hades Wrote:  

I have a physics degree myself and find the field very interesting.

It's good that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a celebrity, and I'm very happy to see great men like Stephen Hawking with star power, but that doesn't change the fact that (oftentimes) the most vocal of his fanbase are poseurs, worthy of contempt.

The very people who desperately want to be seen as bright and associate with great minds are often morons and jerkoffs, unable to put themselves through the necessary suffering of a hard science education and barely capable of doing basic math - but they'll tell you all day that they "love quantum physics" and "can't get enough special relativity".

Come on...So does this hold true for anything else? If someone says, "I fucking love basketball" do they have to be a good basketball player? Or have been on team themselves at some point? Can someone not be a fan of Lebron James even if they can't shoot a hoop to save their life?

What's the difference? Do we have to be "capable" in all the things we are fans of? Of all the dumb shit people out there are following like Miley Cyrus and feminism, I'd prefer they follow Neil Tyson and science, even if it is only at the superficial level. They could be into way worse things. And this could just be a gateway. These same people who follow "I fucking love science" may have kids and push them toward STEM fields, or introduce their kids to a love of science and technology.

I think what peeves people about the "I Fucking Love Science" crowd versus the basketball fan crowd is that people is the smug attitude from the former - not surprising considering the former contains tons of SWPL Reddit hipster types and no one can do smug like them. For them it's not just about "fucking loving science" but letting everyone on their Facebook friends list know how intellectual and free thinking they are. You typically don't get the same vibe from people who are say into Kim Kardashian.

[speakeasy]

Great post Enigma. I can understand why guys like Mike CF would be annoyed if you have dedicated a good part of your life to a deep, formal understanding of science and other people proclaiming a love for it don't understand 1% of what you do. I get that. At the same time, just because someone is enthralled by science, doesn't mean they have to be a specialist. People are enthusiastic and love many things in which they aren't formally educated. Saying you love science but not being a scientist or formally educated in that field doesn't make you a poseur. Now if you actually claimed to be a specialist or knowledgeable but weren't, then you're a poseur. The music analogy above is good. Many love music, they appreciate it, they feel its importance in their life, but leave the theory and mechanics to the composers. I can be a music lover and it's not a requirement to understand the science behind harmonics.

[Wutang]

Nothing wrong with being an amateur or fan of anything whether it be science, philosophy, or art.

I think what the more negative sounding people on this thread are complaining about is a certain sort of fan.

To use the music analogy, the fans that no one has an issue with are the types that don't play music themselves but have a genuine love for whatever band they are into and tell you how this band has affected their life.

The fans that people hate on are the posers who merely use it as a way to elevate their status - people who are jumping on the bandwagons. These people usually have very superficial understanding of whatever they are into - far below even what a non-specialist should know. Think of some chick telling you they love Linkin Park and then when you ask her what her favorite song is and she tells you her favorite Linkin park song is the one where they talk about how sad they are and the one white guy screams while the half Asian guy raps. Or the guy who obviously just lists the most obscure hipster bands he can think of on his profile in an attempt to look cultured. Most of these people will never move on from that point just like most people who "fucking love science" will never move beyond re-posting Facebook and Tumblr pictures.

[BortimusPrime]

(10-20-2013 01:22 PM)Hades Wrote:  

Neil DeGrasse Tyson might or might not be a great physicist who's a nice dude, but hipsters and the left love him because he's a black guy (+1 I Have Black Friends; Am Not Racist), makes science easily consumable (+1 I Look So Smart on the Internet, +1 I Fucking Love Science), is a shining beacon of charisma in a field generally populated by losers and spergs (+1 I Don't Like His Politics But He Makes Such Great Speeches), weirdly enough you can say he's popular because he's popular (+1 Oh, You've Heard of Him, Too?).

+5 Black Guy?

I think the main thing is that there always has to be one popular science celebrity at any given time. Basically the least spergy noteworthy physicist, whose career is turned from doing actual science to making pbs documentaries for the proles talking about how large galaxies are, or in modern times, pbs documentaries consisting of nothing but cgi of stars exploding.

[Hades]

(10-20-2013 05:59 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 05:15 PM)Hades Wrote:  

I have a physics degree myself and find the field very interesting.

It's good that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a celebrity, and I'm very happy to see great men like Stephen Hawking with star power, but that doesn't change the fact that (oftentimes) the most vocal of his fanbase are poseurs, worthy of contempt.

The very people who desperately want to be seen as bright and associate with great minds are often morons and jerkoffs, unable to put themselves through the necessary suffering of a hard science education and barely capable of doing basic math - but they'll tell you all day that they "love quantum physics" and "can't get enough special relativity".

Come on...So does this hold true for anything else? If someone says, "I fucking love basketball" do they have to be a good basketball player? Or have been on team themselves at some point? Can someone not be a fan of Lebron James even if they can't shoot a hoop to save their life?

What's the difference? Do we have to be "capable" in all the things we are fans of? Of all the dumb shit people out there are following like Miley Cyrus and feminism, I'd prefer they follow Neil Tyson and science, even if it is only at the superficial level. They could be into way worse things. And this could just be a gateway. These same people who follow "I fucking love science" may have kids and push them toward STEM fields, or introduce their kids to a love of science and technology.

This is worth thinking about, if "love" for something can happen without serious commitment (haha, this sounds like the game forum).

I guess if you want to see where I'm coming from, find a newspaper article or blog post that butchers the RVF. Something like "Bearded PUA Rape Artist Writes Books for Drugging and Raping Innocent College Sorostitutes Virginal Girls - Has Forum for Sharing International Rape Tactics for Making Rape" and see how annoyed you get as they completely misappropriate and fuck up everything the RVF actually means, and continually interject their own gay and naive worldview into it.

That's what it's like, interacting with these poseurs.

Self-described "science nuts", "physics guys", "smart guys", etc; who can't even demonstrate knowledge of basic newtonian physics or integral calculus (or a willingness and aptitude to learn it) is what makes them poseurs.

Consider the following, in any group of theater majors these big-talkers would quickly emerge as the "rational-thinking scientist" and people would defer some of the decision making to them, in any (cool and sensible) group of physics majors they would quickly get laughed at and ordered to run down to the liquor store to pick up another case and a carton of smokes while "the men are working".

The sciences in general is a network of subcultures, they don't like people cheapening what it means to be a mathematician, or a physicist. It takes effort and sacrifice to do either with competence. Besides which, being a scientist gets little recognition as it is - seeing assholes cash in on it makes me rage.

I know that this attitude sounds pretty lame and exclusive, but there are standards that have to be met to be considered a physicist. Surely anybody can make them, but they need to put in the time and effort to do so.

[j r]

(10-20-2013 09:25 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 01:22 PM)Hades Wrote:  

Neil DeGrasse Tyson might or might not be a great physicist who's a nice dude, but hipsters and the left love him because he's a black guy (+1 I Have Black Friends; Am Not Racist), makes science easily consumable (+1 I Look So Smart on the Internet, +1 I Fucking Love Science), is a shining beacon of charisma in a field generally populated by losers and spergs (+1 I Don't Like His Politics But He Makes Such Great Speeches), weirdly enough you can say he's popular because he's popular (+1 Oh, You've Heard of Him, Too?).

+5 Black Guy?

I think the main thing is that there always has to be one popular science celebrity at any given time. Basically the least spergy noteworthy physicist, whose career is turned from doing actual science to making pbs documentaries for the proles talking about how large galaxies are, or in modern times, pbs documentaries consisting of nothing but cgi of stars exploding.

I think the proles are watching WWE or the Kardashians and not PBS documentaries on cosmology. There's nothing wrong with being a popularizer of science and there's nothing wrong with PBS documentaries on science and history. They tend to be quite good. Shit like Frontline and POV always tend to have a pronounced lefty bent though.