The Mismatched 'MythBusters' 473
biohack writes "Most fans of the MythBusters would agree that the two hosts of the show, Adam and Jamie, are 'diametrically opposed in every aspect of their lives'. The Christian Science Monitor story about the MythBusters explores the connection between the backgrounds of the hosts (who knew that Jamie had a degree in Russian literature?) and their creative differences on and off camera." From the article: "It took Hyneman a of couple years to feel comfortable talking in front of a camera, let alone to strangers on the street. 'You have to remember that I'm a guy who is happiest in a dark room just thinking,' he says. 'I'm not a sociable person. I don't like to talk.' Savage, on the other hand, is outgoing. They're clearly the Oscar and Felix of myth busting ... 'Jamie is all about total, complete, and utter control. Thinking first and then acting. Adam is about acting first and then thinking.'"
Isn't conflict the first rule of drama/comedy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps their opposite personalities are one reason they got gig.
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:5, Insightful)
His science is far from "stellar". Often, it's quite poor. One should never watch MythBusters for anything but its entertainment value. More often than not they completely misunderstand and incorrectly describe scientific and engineering concepts that are in reality quite simple.
Their methodologies make many professional product testers and scientists cringe. We can clearly see their mistakes, but those who don't have much scientific training may not. To take their "findings" seriously is a big mistake, but many people do it anyway.
Their show is far more educational and entertaining than most of the shit that is on TV. But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
It's the main reason why the show works (Score:5, Insightful)
And not just the entertainment side, mind you. The science side also benefits from the mix of personalities.
Some problems require finesse and fine planning. Others require repeated blows with a hammer. I think that's why the producers occasionally pit Adam vs. Jamie on some myth-type task. To see which works best for a given situation: The Thinker, or the X-Factor.
It's a damn good show on a lot of levels, really.
Moo (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, this is news?
Re:Something else... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then when the show reaches the finale and something blows up, they both cackle like little kids and seem like best buddies.
I can tell you when Slashdot will cover Survivor (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as they start building death rays [wikipedia.org] or chicken guns [wikipedia.org], that's when.
Mythbusters is science, done in a fun way. Ever watch Mr. Wizard or Bill Nye? Or Jearl Walker? That's the schtick these guys are in. Science as fun. You know, so that the next generation of kids will think science is cool and keep making/building/inventing stuff.
Science isn't just a field of study - it's also an establishment. And good PR is part of any successful establishment.
Re:Does it make anyone else feel a little dirty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Moo (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please, because he doesn't like talking to people, let alone in front of the camera? That's idiotic. I hate talking to people, and I can't imagine being paid enough to talk on camera; I'm no where near a sociopath.
Of the two, I identify most with Jamie. I "get" him. Despite what the current MTV generation would have you believe, neither he nor myself have any notable mental conditions.
Re:The Christian Science Monitor?????? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does it make anyone else feel a little dirty? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a valuable resource for stories that often won't make the mainstream press. For a news outlet it's unique in the fact that it isnt funded through advertising so outside the contempory pressures imposed on the media by big business. Thats not to say it isn't subject to other outside pressures. I often skim it for anything interesting, the religous stuff doesn't interest me but you know what there's a simple soultion don't read those articles. Even so you should be critising everything you read as news, religous dogma is the easiest stuff to spot and filter out.
If you want a true picture of the world you should be looking to as many sources as possible.
Degree in Russian literature (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:1, Insightful)
Scientifically is in quotes because they essentially ran one test, watched soda splatter all over the place, and left it at that. Actual experimentation would involve multiple runs to confirm results, actual measurements (versus "I think that was about twice as high"), and, oh, I don't know, science.
They didn't bother checking to see if they were matching the amount of the ingredients they were testing to actual Diet Coke. They didn't bother measuring the actual result. They didn't bother combining ingredients to see if there was a combined effect. They didn't bother doing just about anything that might be considered scientfic.
Plus they repeatedly claim to be doing actual science on the show. They run clip shows showing "cut footage" to try and prove that they're doing "actual science". But they're not. Their science is barely grade school level. You might be able to pass your 8th grade science class running "experiments" of the quality they do, but that's about it.
Dodgy science aside... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:3, Insightful)
bust nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it just me or is the "scientific method" these guys employ full of it.
I watched all of three shows, and each of them had incredible experimental flaws in them. If it wasn;t so long ago, I'd recount exactly the flaws I saw, but I forget.
Is it entertaining, perhaps, are they busting myths, no way.
Re:The show needs someone like Adam (Score:1, Insightful)
Who knew one had a degree in Russian literature? They come across as arts students because they piss on the scientific method. (As an aside one of them worked on the starwars prequels. I'd try NOT to mentino that). Their show might be 'cool' and 'entertaining' and even have some element of thought but I always laugh at their back of the envelope scientific calculations because their very methods are awful. The most common things they seem to do are:
1) Take a tiny sample size of 1 or 2 of an item and then come to conclusions about myths that involve life and death.
e.g. mobile phones - try two and a wide band transmitter, take 1 aircraft, and one dodgy as shit cobbled together frankensteined cockpit, and conclude that mobile phones don't interfeer but the FAA is playing it safe. I agree with the conclusion but the method is laughable.
which brings us to...
2) Take a crude as fuck model or experiment and draw conclusions based on that. If there's a scientific study refer to it in a footnote at the end of the show. If your rough results agree pat self on back.
I'd be fine if they presented it as entertainment but they're pretence that there's any real sciece going on pisses me off. They're like Steve Irwin for risk adverse tech nerds who like to blow things up. Thankfully they don't harass animals doing it. It just ain't science and it rots the brain to present it as anything but entertainment. I'm not saying they're stupid or incapable people, just that the sensationalist nature of the show is rot.
Shop work without safety glasses (Score:2, Insightful)
I love this show but it's being "MTV'd" :( (Score:5, Insightful)
Also it was very clear that Jamie had an introverted personality and is a smart thinking kind of guy.
Anyhow some of those originals, they spent the WHOLE EPISODE on a single myth and you got to see fascinating detail on what they were trying to do, plus I felt I was learning a little bit - not a lot but a little bit.
Now, it seems to me that with the Mythterns (Kari etc) and the amount of stuff they put in an episode it's all somewhat slickly edited for the masses.
Also the narrator, who I liked originally, he FUCKING REPEATS EVERYTHING THEY SAY! etc, there's an interview with Grant he says "Ok so we need to put the flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hooo in order to see if X will happen" - then the goddam narrator says "Grant has just told us they need to get that flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hoo, if he gets this right we will see if X happens"
I KNOW HE JUST TOLD ME YOU FUCKER! >:(
(He also summarises what happened 5 minutes before the commercial break for another 30 seconds after each break)
Why do they have to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator??? (sp?)
The editing makes it so that they break up the myths and split them up across the episode but I find that annoying, I want them put together like the older episodes.
What happened to us seeing Jamie and Adam in a scrap yard looking for things! Sure it's not important but it was interesting damnit.
Also, I feel Jamie is being forced to behave in a way which is not normally him, you could clearly see in around mid season 2 he was somewhat agitated at this and uncomfortable, he's coming out of his skin a little bit now.
Also Adam is NOT as stupid as he's being portrayed, he's a very cluey guy and more outgoing than Jamie but I dunno - he's been turned into the "homer" of the show.
Ultimately a lot of documentaries on discovery suck now and heck I don't even get the full range of discovery over here in Australia.
Docu's used to be slow paced, informative and somewhat quiet, mythbusters didn't exactly follow this formula since it's not a docu but it was simpler and more charming originally.
Now documentaries need to have hardcore music and cgi sections, instead of just showing what is happening or speculating on what might happen from a proffessor no no they have to render something add that boomy music, have the excitable sounding narrator go at it hardcore etc.
(Don't get me wrong, I do love stuff like megastructures and so on, but still the editing seems so damned dramatic for dopey people)
Before anyone says it, I'm 28, not 50 and I still recall the good old days of somewhat intelligent television.
Re:I love this show but it's being "MTV'd" :( (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, I'm almost 50 and I don't remember any good old days of somewhat intelligent television...
I have to admit, as infotainment goes, "Mythbusters" does a pretty good job, not quite but almost as good as the old "Mr. Wizard" or "Bill Nye the Science Guy" shows.
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:5, Insightful)
What is science? The distinguishing characteristic is that it comes as close as possible to the ideal of "gather data - hypothesize - test hypothesis" feedback loop as possible. There are some additional useful criteria, like using controls, etc., but the feedback loop is the basic element of science.
By this criteria, this is nearly the most scientific show on television, and they've gotten better in the past couple of seasons too. For actually showing the scientific process, I can forgive much.
(The process may not always be perfect, but news flash: If you think every peer-reviewed study has perfect, impeccable controls and rock-solid statistics and complete coverage of the relevant topics, you're on crack. Real experiments often look uncomfortably like a Mythbusters production. No fair holding Mythbusters to semi-mythical ideals when "real" scientists generally don't make it either.)
The other aspect of science is the large body of knowledge and experience that has been built up by the human race by the repeated application of that feedback loop. Sometimes they do OK, sometimes they do poorly; the farther they stray from application of mechanical principles, the worse they tend to do. (On the other hand, they sometimes surprise me; IIRC, they pointed out that sharp pointy things attract lightning better than flat things in one of the lightning episodes, which is something I only covered in calc-based electromagnetism in college and I daresay most people have never been exposed to.)
Yes, they aren't perfect in this department. However, I'm not sure it's possible for them to be perfect. First, I've seen a lot of so-called criticisms that are more wrong than the show is, so for those people even if the show actually improved, they'll believe it's getting worse. Second, by its very nature, it covers an extremely large array of topics, and you're just not going to be able to put together a team of experts in chemistry (all kinds), physics (any kind you'd encounter in normal life), psychology (all kinds), history (all kinds, including the actual building of historical devices), and random misc. (all kinds), and still be able to afford to put it on TV.
Personally, I think they're better than nothing, and doing a decent job, all things considered.
Could they be better in theory? Certainly! Could you get much better in practice? That's much less clear. It's not fair to compare Mythbusters to the show that exists in your head that has an infinite budget and unlimited access to the best experts of all kinds. That's not an alternative.
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:1, Insightful)
" 1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another"
How does Jamie meet any of those? Or even come close?
Also, by way of wikipedia:
"In current, clinical, use, psychopathy is most commonly diagnosed using Robert D. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Hare describes psychopaths as, 'intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.'"
How does Adam even come close to meeting that definition?
Re:I love this show but it's being "MTV'd" :( (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The show needs someone like Adam (Score:3, Insightful)
-If
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:3, Insightful)
Shame on me for saying without supporting link, but iirc if a person is rendered suddenly unconscious while standing, or is shot dead instantly (etc) they will fall "forward" instead of backwards, though most of the momentum is downward.
But while we're at nitpicking the nitpickers... The purpose of Mythbusters isn't science itself, but to engage people in science. To entertain foremost, but there's a background hope your 8 to 18 year old kid will say "Waittaminute" at something, look at it, and do their own analysis at some level. No I don't mean load the back yard up with bottle rockets and send the beanie baby to the neighbors (IE the raccoon myth) but they actually have lots of things where you can look and say "I think I can make a better device than that" or "But what happens if THIS factor is accounted for?" or or or.... For a kid, that can be a career deciding moment. And at worst, it makes them more aware and willing to research. How many of us haven't seen the death ray links both from the show and hobbyists (linked from /. articles, of course!! Like http://www.solardeathray.com/ [solardeathray.com] ) and said "Hrmmmm...."?? I know I'd like to try building my own (but knowing my glue skills, I'll set me on fire, and the Britney Spears plush will survive. If we ever want ET life to touch down here, I'd best not do that.)
Also, I must agree, 90% of the time the scope of their intentions is misunderstood either through us not looking, or them not presenting. Or both. I'm not praising their science, I'm praising their intentions. And to be honest, I'd be honored to meet EITHER of the hosts, or even "The Build Crew" (KARI!!! but the rest are neat too) and engage in a 5 minute(+) discusion.. I suspect there's lots to these guys we don't get to see on TV.
Re:Some things aren't supposed to be serious (Score:5, Insightful)
When you say, "oh, the mythbusters got it wrong here, here, here and here" then you're proving the point that what they're doing is for science since they followed the scientific method of documenting and reporting what they expected, what they saw, and how they came to those conclusions. It might not be as thorough as youd' want it to be, but the fact is, science isn't e=mc^2, it's the proof that e=mc^2.
I realize you are trolling but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything about the way they produce and edit the show says edutainment. Also keep in mind each one hour show (minus commercials) covers between three to five different "myths". Their accuracy of measurement is dependent on the topic. In your example, we have a "fun" myth with low danger. Plus we have a high probablity of it looking cool on tape whether it works or not, which it probably will since the internet has several videos. I'd say "I think that was about twice as high" is a reasonable margin of error in that scenario.
Second, numbers and graphs don't mean much to most normal people. Take the "Will driving fast on a washboard make the ride smoother?" segment. They had some very good data from an accelerameter that actually had them questioning their perceptions. They also had a pyramid of wine glasses filled with water. The splashing water is easier for a normal person to translate into something they can relate to. A "horizontal acceleration of blah point blah blah m/s^2" means little, while most people have some idea the amount of force it takes to shake some water out of a glass (even if they don't know what force is).
In fact I thought they did a pretty good job of using the scientific method in that segment. When they got data they didn't expect they refined their experiment to eliminate variables and try to narrow in on what was *generally* happening.
Also I think when you hear someone mention science its usually Adam. Its safe to say that Adam doesn't always think things through. My guess is that what Adam usually means is he is *using* science, not *doing* science. Most people do not differentiate using scientific knowledge and using the scientific method. The show often uses scientific knowledge to make educated guesses about what will happen. Basically this is used to narrow "likely" outcomes. They use a fair amount of scientific knowledge for safety reasons as well. I'll even grant you that probably a good deal of the "using science" is some anonymous producer calling up a subject matter expert.
I will grant that they are taking short cuts. However, off hand I can't think of an episode where Jaime has stated that they were publishing their results in a peer reviewed journal.
Re:Does anyone get the impression.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I always got the impression that it was some sort of high-functioning autism such as Asperger syndrome but then, IANAD (...doctor)
Social withdrawal or discomfort in social situations, pedantic mannerisms, some odd habits based on views rooted in pure practicality (anyone remember that ep where his lunch was basically a sack of nutrition?), and a fairly intense engineering interest might all, when taken together, point that way.
What does it matter? He seems like a decent guy and he's certainly and entertaining presenter (on what is, essentially, an entertainment show rather than a rigorously investigated scientific journal)
Re:Does anyone get the impression.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Social withdrawal and discomfort is a trait of both, while pedantic behavior and odd habits is a sign of OCD.
But like you said, does it really matter? I guess 4/5 of the population could be diagnosed with something if we just look close enough.
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:3, Insightful)
So because you only saw them do one test means they couldn't possibly have done more? Remember, this is an editied show, it's not live... they don't just turn on the cameras and they have an hour to do whatever... I'd be willing to bet that they probably did run multiple tests and measured them. I mean, did you notice when they said things like "I think that was about twice as high" there was a scale on the wall? So maybe, I dunno, Adam remarked (while doing the experiment) that it went about twice as high and then they went back and look at the data before declaring a myth busted/not busted/plausable or whatever.
They didn't bother checking to see if they were matching the amount of the ingredients they were testing to actual Diet Coke. They didn't bother measuring the actual result. They didn't bother combining ingredients to see if there was a combined effect. They didn't bother doing just about anything that might be considered scientfic.
What because they didn't show a few hundred tests of Adam doing experiments they didn't do it? That would be an incredibly boring show...
Plus they repeatedly claim to be doing actual science on the show. They run clip shows showing "cut footage" to try and prove that they're doing "actual science". But they're not. Their science is barely grade school level. You might be able to pass your 8th grade science class running "experiments" of the quality they do, but that's about it.
Have you been to the studio and seen the process they go through for each show? (Disclaimer: neither have I) Just because you see the results and not the entire process doesn't mean they didn't do it. Of course maybe I'm wrong, maybe they do just fly by the seat of their pants. They have stated that a lot more work goes on behind the scene's (Like running a lot more tests than just what you see on tv) but instead of just trusting them we should make wild accusations about their findings and their process.
The thing I really like is that they are not above admiting they were wrong, they routinely revisit myths based on feedback from the viewers. Some people say oh, you should have tested it this way so they go back and do it. The primary thing you have to remember though is that it's a TV SHOW... it's entertainment. Most of the myths you could probably bust before they even start with a few formula's and show on paper that it's impossible... but that wouldn't make good TV, neither would showing them analyze all of their data and record all of the tests.
Re:Kari Byron (Score:4, Insightful)
You are a gun expert (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember that episode and it was Jamie, who grew up in a farm and knows guns, who scolded Adam for doing that. Their showing that must have been exactly for showing it's dangerous. When they do something that's truly dangerous with guns or explosives they always call an expert.
I think the most valuable lesson one gets from the Mythbusters is that one needs not be an expert to do some thinking. True, anybody could look up in a table to see how long a bullet travels in water. But how were those data obtained in the first place? That's the "scientific" value of the show. When a new field is being explored, there are no experts and one must invent new ways to test things.
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not claiming they're the most scientific of all...but they are pretty damn knowledgable when it comes to engineering and engineering is largely trial and error. You don't get to their level in their fields (each taking on very large clients before doing mythbusters) without acknowledging the scientific method. Unfortunately some guy in a beret comparing data sets doesn't make very entertaining television, and so that stuff either gets cut, or never filmed at all. And exploding cement trucks get put in instead.
Still, at best, I would say the Mythbusters are the Jesse James and Tuttles (OCC) of their genre...whatever it is. Sure Jesse James and the Tuttles make beautiful works of their own kind (hot rods and choppers, respectively), but their approaches are completely barbaric. Some of the best choppers take YEARS to build, and the creators never get a show. Why? Because no one wants to watch 6 years of building one bike, no matter how much they might like the show.
Re:Does anyone get the impression.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bust nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me or is the "scientific method" these guys employ full of it.
I watched all of three shows, and each of them had incredible experimental flaws in them. If it wasn;t so long ago, I'd recount exactly the flaws I saw, but I forget.
Is it entertaining, perhaps, are they busting myths, no way.
They work under a logical fallacy of "if we can't do it, then group X couldn't possibly have done it. And they often confuse scientific concepts like "heat" vs "temparature" when trying to make a steam cannon. It was entertaining but bothered me that two geeks could get that so wrong.
Re:Does anyone get the impression.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)