5 Things Hollywood Gets Wrong About Smart People
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 09. 2017
- There are a lot of things we don't expect Hollywood to understand: technology, relationships, how the common person lives ... but you'd think they'd at least know how represent smart people, right? (Spoiler alert: wrong.)
SUBSCRIBE HERE: goo.gl/ITTCPW
For more movie over-analysis, check out Obsessive Pop Culture Disorder, with Daniel O’Brien: • Andrew Jackson: Most T...
CLICK HERE for more HONEST ADS spoofs - goo.gl/xHchf2
CLICK HERE for GALACTIC WAR ROOM - goo.gl/kStvEN
CLICK HERE for WE'RE NOT ALONE - goo.gl/cC9L5o
CLICK HERE for ROM.COM: The Series - goo.gl/5mabAx
CLICK HERE for AFTER HOURS: goo.gl/Nrg6Jh
CLICK HERE for CRACKED ANIMATIONS: goo.gl/bSD2Sf
CLICK HERE for TODAY'S TOPICS: goo.gl/1jxB44
CLICK HERE for ESCORT MISSION: goo.gl/19YnL7
CLICK HERE to Subscribe to THE CRACKED PODCAST: goo.gl/qmdLnT
On iTunes: goo.gl/MYjkoi
See more www.cracked.com
LIKE us on: / cracked
FOLLOW us on: / cracked
FOLLOW us on: / cracked - Komedie
Lol, I'm a chemist and people keep asking me to help fix their computers for them, and I'm like "It appears to run on some form of electricity."
Well normally scientists like to learn so they would assume that you would learn new subjects
I understood that reference!
@@fastandadrift4858 I understood that reference!
well, youre not wrong
good doggo
Avarage people often confuse highly educated individuals with really intelligent individuals.
When I was a kid, everyone would teach their dogs tricks, and all would say, what a smart dog! I would point out that it was merely a trained dog.
lazy homebody That is exactly the same thing, yes!
I like that!
Having a PhD does not make one intelligent is a pretty simple concept.
@@Fridaey13txhOktober Not inherently, but most intelligent people have an intrinsic desire for knowledge and are willing to go great lengths for it. Acquiring a PhD is by no means easy, so it's reasonable to assume that most people who have a PhD are indeed intelligent.
@@user-we2vv4wv9h i think it's probably highly dependent on the type of degree and especially the external benefits (wealth, prestige, etc.) to be gained by acquiring it. in my experience, there certainly doesn't seem to be any shortage of shockingly retarded humans possessed of sufficient wherewithal to become a practicing physician or psychiatrist.
“Never memorize something that you can look up.” ― Albert Einstein
David Misner I tried using that line at school but it didn’t work.
@@meganlukes6679
At school if you learn to understand , find the patterns, etc... you need less work of memorization, and it helps you to adapt to new situations .
If you get a school exercise about a subject that nobody had memorized in the class, of you have trained understanding, you can work from the subjects you already know and adapt to the new problem, while if you make only memorization, you are doomed, all what you have memorized for this exercise is wasted.
In real life, you will never have the carbon copy of exercises you have learn at schools, what you need is to finding general rules, patterns, etc... for being able to answer different situations.
@@meganlukes6679 Not surprising
jean-louis pech Depends on the area. Biological sciences requires memorization, no escaping it. No form of pattern recognition or general understanding will allow you to remember the symptoms or prognosis or mode of inheritance of Li-Fraumeni Syndrome, the difference between the PMS2 and BRCA1 mutation, or the applicable federal and international regulations for drug testing on humans. Yes you can look them up, but you’ll look like an incompetent idiot who faked their credentials, and the employer will be left asking why they bothered hiring you if you spend half your time looking up the information your colleagues already know.
That may be true but I think the point was that just because one can memorize something does not make them smart.
It doesn't help that most education systems grant success by the ability to recite rather than problem solve
One scientists in germany said about that once:
Our students e.g. don't learn to read anymore, they learn to know were they can learn it. (which is true for most topics, but obviously not reading)
Observer675 until you get to uni. Where you have to express your own opinion by giving good arguments for them. Which assumes you know about the other opinions and know how that thing you’re having an opinion on works. In other words reciting is not enough.
Smart people are sometimes made to look like fools by other less intelligent people who act confident and like they always know everything and never make mistakes, and what they know is for sure, that it will happen. The kind of people who never second guess themselves. If you really want to know how smart someone is then you have to see how they solve a problem. Not how confident they act or talk, or how charismatic they are, or how much they have memorised.
@@ifstatementifstatement2704 Absolutely right.
So they know what a wrench is but not how to use it.
"Life hack: you don't have to be smart to be mean to people "
u need to be mean to be smart..... by god ive solved it! i'll be like rick sanchez
Really ? You mean this Ph.D. was for nothing ? Shucks buster.
They keep making shows like that because there is a significant percentage of the population that fantasize about being able to be assholes to other people with impunity.. and you can find every single one of them in the CZcams comments. (Yes, including me Mr. Cleverpants HA!! Beat you to it!)
yeah im like that too lel cant deny it
lol!! nailed it kleo
smart characters are written by writers who aren't as smart as the characters they're writing
exactly! The dumb writers tend to see everything in a simplified manner because they are lazy and don't do research on any subject. To be a scientist you just have to put a white lab-coat on and say the word "quantum" a few times. Enough for the average suspension of disbelief..
Just as the non-musicians don't understand what is like being one, with all the minor details that come with it, they don't know how the geniuses think and they'll never will (probably we won't either), but of course, some of us are more sceptical and tired of the stupid stereotypes
Accurate.
cf. also test-taking strategies for smart ppl, like learning how not to overthink multiple choice questions
Yeah, no writer can create a interesting hard tee like me
That's called Vinge's principle and is generally true, although it can be dodged to a degree with some creativity and effort.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is actually... Oh...
yes that way they remember.
Is that the thing where if you die in a dream, you're dead for real?
.
.
.
Nevermind that's the Freddy Krueger Effect :)
it was a particularly insidious lie he told about dunning-kruger, specifically designed to make people want to correct him, by pretending those people are showing their stupidity by doing so. it's a clever form of circular logic, but it still falls flat if you understand what he did.
@@nonplayablenpccharacter What's wrong with his statement of the D-K anyway?
@@hunterketch989 everything.
1. d-k does not say anything about intelligence. it's a study on knowledge. this video presented it as a study on how smart ppl act vs how dumb ppl act. it's not. it's about how much people think they know about a topic.
2. more importantly, he misrepresented the findings, which say that (excluding ppl with essentially zero familiarity with a concept) the people who give the lowest estimate of their amount of knowledge are--on average--people with an average amount of knowledge. this video implied that experts underestimate their knowledge, and the only people who think they're experts are novices. that's totally untrue. in reality, experts generally know they're experts, and both novices and experts will highly value their own perspectives. it's people with an average amount of knowledge who are more likely to underestimate themselves.
You missed my favorites: the geniuses who need to hack into something, anything, and with ten keystrokes (one for each finger), "I'm in!"
The only exception was the one-season show Limitless, based on the movie. When the hero needed to learn to hack, he admits it took a couple of days before showing us "I'm in!"
And he was on NZT so he could quickly hack
I loved that show...thought it was very clever, funny, and original.
Limitless was such an amazing show but not enough people watched it because of the shit movie
Hacking is done by typing as fast as you can and having windows pop up on your screen at warp speed. The best hackers can do it on two computers simultaneously.
also who needs a mouse when you already have a keyboard
sdfogs wgs gwrg ergoergner .... i'm in!
Picard knowing Shakespeare isn't showing his intelligence, it's showing his love for Shakespeare
Yeah, I took it to mean he was well-read/cultured rather than simply intelligent.
It's just like quoting dialogues from a favourite TV show. It's not hard to do.
Daniel Brownson yeah, it's unbearable, though (in a kind of funny way)
Mino Lee lol
Yeah Picard is more of an educated man than a smart guy.
They don’t say “think think think” to themselves when they’re thinking
Well...
SOME of us do.
[ducks, scampers off, stage far-left]
Winnie the Pooh reference.
Oh, bother.
in reality, saying "think" while you're thinking is very distracting cuz now all you can think about is "think" and not the thing you were thinking about before you started chanting "think"
Victoria Magallanes exactly what i meant
The dunning-kruger effect has destroyed my life. Every time I feel smart I instantly turn it around and feel dumb because if I think I'm smart I must be dumb.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is suddenly quoted everywhere.
It has been for the past few years. With the internet around even the lower classes can learn big words now.
@@Mad_S then you are smart because most people who suffer from the dunning-kruger effect aren't actually aware of it. They live blissfully live in their own arrogance.
The effect is fresh air talk. Everyone wants to be right if they think their ideas are better and can change the world, reconsidering your stance isn't necessary a sign of intelligence if you fail to realize you aren't presented with enough proof. The difference is that a person who is right can explain to the one who's wrong, but in order to do so we need a jury. And that's the paradox, the higher levels of truth will be always detained by a minority per definition, any democratic system will only be able to produce middle level truths. Aristocracy will be never chosen to represent the community, that means that the jury will fail to identify those superior to them. You would need someone who possesses the higher levels of truth but in order to demonstrate that you would need another jury and so on. That means the effect applies to a dumb person and the most clever people, both will think they are right and both will be dismissed by the majority. Its existence serves no functional purpose
You've completely misinterpreted the effect. If you are dumb, then you probably think you're smart, but that doesn't mean that if you think you are smart, then you are probably dumb.
As a teacher once told me: "You don't have to know everything, you just need to know how to look it up." Add the ability to apply the stuff you learned/looked up to the problem you are trying to solve and that's what is called smart.
Holy crap. My professor said the same thing. This was pre world wide web ( for those who want to be pendatic and state internet has been around for 40 50 years ) .
Or you could just pay someone to do it for you if your good at making money because ain't no one got time for all that
actually that's called being a technician. Intelligence is the ability to figure things out/solve problems
That’s quoting Einstine.
Exceptionally smart people tend to have an exceptionally good memory. What's the use for a big brain when you have no reference points to draw conclusion from, anyway? If you resort to looking up any and all pieces of information, you're in for a long scroll-down to actually realize anything in general.
The way smart people act in movies/tv has always bugged me. I have this one friend who is really smart, but he just likes to read, he doesn’t go out of his way to ridicule stupid people, or memorize whole books just to show off.
Ikr. i know a fewsmart people in real life too (people say im one of them lmao) i didnt see one them cocking about how they can do something like solving problems quicker and easier to make other people feel dumb. Their ego isnt bigger than them either.
.
Because he's really smart and he's into his one thing. What other people think about him is irrelevant.
This is a tv show. Also the characters are basically smart people like in normal real life who have gone through some terrible things and end up an ass. They need interesting backstories, you wouldn't be as interested in watching some super smart person that everybody loves, at least in my opinion. Not that it's always uninteresting, like The Good Doctor. Do you expect every character to be exactly like people you know? That would get boring.
Kelli Suzuki the video is called “5 things Hollywood gets wrong about smart people”. It’s about how wrong they are. About smart people.
Back in school there was a girl in my class, who could remember lots of stuff from the text books even years later. But she wasn't quite able to understand the concepts in a way that she didn't need to memorize the text describing them. She also failed to draw conclusions from that. Simply memorizing stuff doesn't make you smart, just knowledgeable.
Well it's a good starting point, no?
Something people seem to fail to realize is there are different branches of intelligence (smart). Football players are physically smart - they can figure out the angle/degree of the ball, how fast they need to go, how they need to move to get to the ball and do the deed. Socialites are socially smart. They can read people and manipulate people. Then you have people who are numbers smart vs English smart. Global knowledge (understanding things as a whole) vs memorization smart. The girl you are referring to is very good at memorization. She is very smart in that sense. She just isn’t that type of smart where you understand things as a whole. Classifying one person as smart and another as dumb is short sighted. Me for example - I am very smart when it comes to global knowledge but dumb as a rock when it comes to memorization.
@@scottishflower8010 that's not really a correct description of intelligence as it's known technically, such as cognitive ability. great memory i believe correlates with cognitive ability as in people who are more intelligent tend to have better memory and vice versa but it isn't cognitive ability which is more like problem solving, thus you can have dumb people with great memory.
the other things you describe are completely different, one being simply knowledgable which is a function of memory and studying, the other being physical talents, sportsmen tend to be quite dumb but rather have exceptional control of their body among other talents, how they are going to kick the ball isn't consciously calculated it's rather a function of their body control and practice which taught them how hard to kick and such for a given result.
none of these are intelligence just talents and abilities.
@@xXJeReMiAhXx99 To build on your comment... A very basic definition of intelligence is the ability to *accurately* process, organize/retain, and apply information. So memory is definitely a great tool used and practiced by intelligent people but not a requisite :)
p0rt3r that’s why so many people interested in real intelligence and education have issues with using standardized testing methods. Any child can memorize a math fact or quote someone from their history textbook but reciting word for word texts doesn’t necessarily mean they learned anything from it, just that they can repeat something they read enough times to memorize it. People need to understand what the quotes from history truly meant and what really happened and why to prevent repeating history and to learn from it all, and memorizing one answer to one math fact doesn’t teach us how to figure out all the different answers to the millions of other questions and math problems we will run into in life. But standardized testing mostly only tests a child’s memory of facts and quotes.
Ok there's something about the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies that has always bothered me: Peter Parker consistently refers to his college major as, "science." That is not a college major.
You major in physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, molecular biology, biophysics, chemical biology, etc., etc.
good point
But SCIENCE
IKR ! Finally I found Someone Who shares my thought
Or When he meets Otto and his wife says "he was majoring in Science" , it wouldn't kill them to say " Majoring in Physics " or something
Many schools offer a general science undergrad stream for people intending to go into things like IP law
I scienced in science
To be fair, Picard makes a point of spending time reading and studying art. He's such a great character because it isn't just movie shorthand... they earn those moments in TNG.
Games and zrt is important to be considered wise.
The more you know, the more you know how little you know.
I am going to steal your comment. And it will become my quote when I become famous. Hope you don't mind.
Arnab Paul you realise this is already a famous quote
Alycia Goode pretty sure
Yes it is... a greek philosopher's quote... don't remember whose it is but...
I tried to explain that to my mom once and she didn't get it at all.
What pisses me off about the Imitation Game is that (the real) Alan Turing was described as a likable person, not some closed-off genius asshole as the film would have us believe. He was described as having a sense of humour, being approachable, and his collegues were fond of him. I enjoyed the film, but I wish Turing's actual personality was used, instead of the Hollywood genius trope.
If you can memorize entire books easily, then you’re *some* kind of smart.
I know someone very close to me, who is extremely booksmart (way more than I am) and much smarter in other ways than I could ever hope to be.
That being said, this individual also has absolutely no survival or practical knowledge whatsoever. I've taught him to work on his car, he still knows nothing, I've taught him various survival skills, he still knows nothing.
But I'll be damned if he isn't a fucking king of political and sociological knowledge of bygone times.
That’s why we can’t call anything “AI” until it can make decisions for itself, and self-program and self-evolve, without limits. It would be a technology god to us.
I have horrible memory but if im in a situation where i need to know then the memory comes back then disappears when im done
@@dantastic044 There's multiple types of intelligence, and political and sociological knowledge is just as valuable as learning how to fix a car. It's just that the specific value is to be found in a different domain of life.
This is all perfectly fine, and so long as we agree that "smart" =/= "knowledgeable in literally every topic", there really isn't a problem. But I guess that's still the stereotype.
@@vibesanm I wouldn't call that impossible at all. It just requires a ton of technological progress and planning.
I'd in fact say the onset of Artificial intelligence is dangerous on multiple levels, both humanitarian as well as technological and economical.
I’m more worried by the “lonely crazy scientist”. We constantly see these crazies being proven right in the movies/books/tvshows and that’s a very dangerous thing, because people start believing “misunderstood” scientists in real life and completely ignore the way actual science field works. Each idea and theory is checked and rechecked not only by the author and his colleagues but also by anonymous reviewers, experts in this particular field. It’s an important process, but in the movies it’s always the crazy lone weirdo with his crazy laboratory hidden somewhere being right against the whole world.
I thought the way science worked was you made up something, made up evidence to support it and then paid to publish it in a scientific journal and then that journal would pay people to say they had examined your idea and found it legitimate.
@@ribbonsofnight you're wrong. The journal only takes money they never give
Nikola Tesla was a misunderstood scientist wasn’t he?
@@Jarod-te2bi he was a 1 in a milion, what the commenter is saying is that people might be tricked into thinking that the average guy who likes to screw with their "intellectual capabilities" is right, even though he's clearly not and every respectable expert says so. Nikola Tesla was misunderstood, but he wasn't a random guy who appeared out of nowhere, he actually had quite a lot of reputation.
"Science is actually like a whole bunch of different things."
Dani I know right? But a couple hundred years ago, having a degree on almost any subject was actually enough to be considered qualified in almost any other field. Like the guy from the movie ideocrazy, having a basic understanding of the world was enough to revolutionize farming, cause he knew that energy drinks are not good for crops.
proclarushtaonasat Just think you understand math so well you could be asked to operate on someone. Scary, but it appears we haven't changed much since. Smh
I'm just a computer science major but I'd autopsy an alien head any time!
in certain regions of Tibet, knowing how to play Beethoven's 'Fur Elise' can actually get you knighted as an official master of the closest mountain village. True factual fact
JustForComments Thats insane, I wonder if its more of a figure head position rather than in charge of an area or people. I'll have to look into that one.
The asshole genius trope tends to come from Sherlock Holmes types, which is dumb because Doyle's Holmes was only mean to arrogant and powerful people, if a character was a good person then he was very nice to them. But of course the good people in Sherlock Holmes stories tended to be women or servants or women and servants whereas the rude people tended to be the well off men he encountered, and who do you think tv and film producers identify more with? So of course they forget about all the times Holmes is nice and only remember the times Holmes is mean to a character that they identify with. Therefore tv and film Holmes becomes an absolute arsehole.
ArtemisScribe i
Which finally explains exactly why my favorite adaptation of Doyle's works is still _Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century._ 'Cause he wasn't an arsehole.
also isn't he a sociopath in most incarnations
sociopaths tend to have a pleasant demeanor... it's what makes them dangerous. They use their lack of empathy to play on people's emotions.
All of this. Sherlock Holmes is frequently very kind and known in the stories to have a way with people of all class levels and education in order to get information from them. Whether or not this is because he's manipulating them could be up in the air if you really must play it that way, but he's quite soft-hearted in the books unless you're arrogant or evil at which point he's witheringly ruthless.
You missed chess, supposedly smart people must be great at chess right?
I always laugh when the character is deep in thought for like five minutes to finally find a checkmate in one...
It's really hard to show a chess game in a way where the average audience can tell the difference between a good move and a bad move without it being checkmate though.
Like, you have better odds of getting elected for President of the US than winning a chess match in less than five moves.
I've always found it frustrating in chess that you're not allowed to literally think outside the box. Anyone can simply memorize a set of moves designed by someone else and you don't necessarily need to be really all that smart to utilize them.
@@mikitz That's defiantly not true. No one can possible memorize all possible branches and positions without a computer. You make it sound like tic tac toe
“Quoting stuff sounds smart” -Einstein Circa 1027bc
"Being smart means memorizing stuff" I feel like this is how society generally feels about actual intelligence. Ugh.
0rnami It really is what a lot of people think and it pisses me off.
A friend of mine told me this expression, “being smart isn’t about what answers you know, it’s about how you found those answers.” This is the best way I’ve heard what being smart actually means in one sentence.
Exactly. Did you find the answers on your own, or were they handed to you in a textbook? "Learning" in today's society(especially in our modern school system!) is more of an exercise in obedience as it serves to prepare you for the status quo than it is a challenge to your intellect.
It would be inefficient to use the space you have on words when you can spend it on functional heuristics. First you see words, then you find their meanings, then you can integrate them in your general belief system. Actual words are really useful only when conveying these meanings to other people and you can decompress heuristics into words on the fly.
But being smart at a specific topic is literally only possible by memorising and practicing. It's fact. But, it's what schools teach you. They don't teach you the little things that are important in life. Some schools do, however.
School do teach you little bits that are important among the most paths in life, while you're young and you can't figure out where to go in life. Personally, healthy eating, and exercise should be a more important topic in schools.
So... Does intelligence would come to be "how to find the answer" and then "to memorize the answer" plus "how to question the answer to find its flaws and logic"?
So true intelligence would be... Being able to research and find the answer, being able to memorize said answer, but also being able to question the legitimacy of said answer to then improve the answer?
It comes from a simple bias : We think smart people are weird, because we don't notice normal smart people.
Arnaud DSM what about weird stupid people?
We? Speak for yourself.
This is a trope in *fiction*, since an autist is more memorable and distinct from other characters than an ordinary educated or intelligent person.
Taxtro Autism doesn't even equate intelligence. Sure, there are branches of autism that make it so that a person is a fucking genius in one crucial area and can't comprehend a slight amount of another. And that is a different label altogether, although I can't remember the name of it. Autism doesn't make you smarter, most cases it just sets you back in most areas of social and educational systems.
You're both wrong, but since I am one of those freakish high IQ autistic people, I'm going to stick to my stereotype and not bother to explain.
Maybe some of the writers identified with this trope, because they themselves are like the guys they portray but also they think they're 'brilliant' so they can get away with it? lol
You forgot the last, most popular one: That all geniuses are nerds and all needs are geniuses.
I am sure we all know really dumb nerds as well as smart people who are very far from nerds
Honestly Picard reciting Hamlet is 100% on character and wasn't done to show how smart he is like this video talks about. Picard was a major Shakespeare fan and it came up many times throughout the show. Him knowing famous lines from it absolutely makes sense and fits with his personality.
“The smarter you are, the more aware you are of your own shortcomings”. That’s a fundamental truth, since the times of Plato. Great video
Don’t they have smart people write on glass because it looks cooler than writing on a notepad?
Not even necessarily cooler, just easier to put to film. On a notepad you'd have to either be shooting over their shoulder and the lettering would be hard to see for the audience, or you shoot the notepad close up and you can't see the writer, or you have to jump cut a lit which can be annoying. I suppose there are a few workarounds like say a mirror on the desk, but that would get a bit stale pretty quickly I guess.
Exactly. Just like hacking scenes that show complex graphical GUIs with countdown times and random numbers flying around. It makes for a more interesting scene.
I work in a physics department. You'd be surprised how frequently people want to write on a whiteboard/blackboard/window just for some maths for themselves. In part I think it's just from movies and shit. But it's also because sometimes it's really nice to use something novel. I go to a blackboard when I have a really new complicated idea *because* 90% of the time I just use a notepad... same reason I go write in a bar from time to time.
@@160p2GHz many of us think better when standing up
@@santiagoferrari1973 agreed
Tinkering with ideas always works better standing
There was a episode of House with a women with hyperthymesia, she remembers everything, but she says it does not make her smart. She makes the good point that just because she remembers something does not mean she understands it.
An another unrealistic thing:
*When smart people say something smart, stupid people get impressed.*
In real life, stupid people always think they're right and you can't change it.
Like in of *"Lie To Me"* I always easily spotted any liar since I was young (just looking at their unnatural reactions), still when I call liars out, explaining the reasons, they keep shouting their version, denying all the flows that makes it impossible.
But in movies: they immediatly give up with a surprised face, thinking *"Oh my god, this guy is outsmarted me, I can't lie anymore!*"
Missed one ☝️ All smart people are robots with "photographic memory".
I am so sick of "normal" characters having to explain to these geniuses what emotions are. And photographic memory is now the go to ex machina
1. They are mostly depictions of people with Aspergers to whom, yes , emotions are distractions from logic. 2. Nobody remembers a literal 'photo' with their brain but you can have a perfect memory after reading something once if the material made sense to you.
*Looks at the personal life of Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein*
Yup, no emotional issues with geniuses.
Eric But I mean, I've MET people with multiple PH.D's, and in this video there was a point about that. Not all geniuses have emotional dissonance, not even the majority, so it's still a valid point
I have photographic memory, but I’m useless. Give me a photo I won’t remember it but I’ll remember a place I went to collage in for a visit down to the tiniest crack in the wall which is completely useless to me in Vet school but here we are haha
It's because normies can't grasp that someone can be both smart and emotionally and socially competent. Because then what is their excuse.
Writing on glass with a wax crayon is for cinematic purposes. Most scientists still use chalk or dry erase boards but you can only film someone from the back while writing on them. Which also makes it hard to see what they are writing until they step back. The glass gives film and TV directors a reason and angle to film the actors' faces and what they're writing.
Geoffrey Peterson we know that.
You missed the joke there buddy.
The last lab i worked at a very large portion of calculations, formulas, etc were written in dry erase on the glass panels that cover fume hoods. It's not completely out of the ordinary, just more out of the ordinary when it's written on say a glass window lol.
But i mean, we had a small conference room that was completely surrounded by white board material as the walls so scientists and engineers seem to enjoy writing on anything.
The study rooms in our library have walls made completely out of dry-erase boards, and the glass front walls are also dry erase, and they are frequently absolutely covered in scribblings and such.
Also, clear dry-erase boards exist. I really like them because you can see the one you're using and the one behind it at the same time.
My physics teacher writes on glass, i gues that he thinks it makes him look smart or something.
It also conveys the idea to the audience that the ideas are "clear".
I relate a lot to Will Hunting... As in, I know a guy with a near photographic memory... And it's frustrating, but amazing.
The guy can regurgitate anything he has been exposed to, and at the same time, can think for himself.
He will take a topic that he previously had no interest in, and if he sees you have an interest in it, will be able to talk to you about it, at an understanding level it may have taken you a lifetime to get to.
He's one of the most social people I know, though. So, yeah, he's not a House or Sherlock type of character.
Anyway, the point is, these people actually exist, and the characters can be extreme, but believable.
Bingo!
"It" may not be him, but just maybe a spirit entity aiding him just like the ones aiding fortune tellers that can reveal life facts about strangers to their marks/customers. Many people don't know much about these "occult" talents.
@@squirelova1815 Actually, fortune tellers use "cold reading", like Sherlock Holmes in "Sherlock." He can accurately make an educated guess of quite a lot about people by observing minor details about their clothes, walk, speech, etc., by his natural intuition, instinctively reading body language and lots of research on various subjects.
@@darlalathan6143 The "Fortune Teller" mediums that my aunt was stupid enough to consult and then even sent my mother to for herself knew very hidden personal details about my aunt and her daughter too. Demonically possessed people can tell you not only about your personal life but exactly the contents of your wallet and pockets. My mother made the sign of the Holy Cross and prayed Dominion of Christ above the medium "Fortune Teller"'s tarot deck. When the "Fortune Teller" Witch came out from behind her curtain to perform she suddenly became very pale, disturbed and was shivering and said she did not feel well and could not perform! Coincidence? Maybe they're not all in league with Demons but that profession goes back to ancient Oracles like Delphi were the Prophetess of the "gods" would get stoned on "herbs" and Prophecy by communing with them; the "gods" really being DEMONS as St. Paul wrote = the Ruthless, Uncaring "gods" of the ancients.
The way Hollywood does it, makes intelligence look like some freak attribute, where the answers to equations pop up floating in front of you, instead of having to work them out a step at a time. Or, as the video mentions, being a "genius" means being equally great at all that smart-guy stuff, rather than someone who spent 10 years studying for their PhD in a ridiculously narrow field, and knows as much about how his computer works as anyone else.
The point is, intelligence in shit films is a "gift". You're either born with it, with optional flashbacks to rewiring the family cat when you were 6, or you don't have it. Study and hard work don't come into it. Geniuses in films get their qualifications as easily as the ordinary person would make a common or garden sandwich.
This completely dismisses the idea of work and study. Sure, grunt work, sweating for a living, is lionised in films, because The Man needs people to sweat in his factoriess. But also because much of the audience probably do that sort of work. The average man doesn't do anything "smart", and doesn't want to feel his own laziness might be a factor in why he isn't a genius too, why he doesn't know stuff.
Sure intelligence probably isn't evenly distributed, but I think it's fair to say most people could be smarter if they put the effort in. They don't want to, and if they saw smart people in films having to study, it would be like blaming them for not doing the same. So instead it's some crazy "gift" and life is incredibly easy if you have it. You're born a genius, and once you are one, life's a complete piece of piss, no difficulty whatsoever, you're destined for rocket science from the day you're born.
The reason smart people are all arseholes, and unable to get on with other people, is the other side of this. It's the price they pay for their genius. They get this gift, completely unearned, and in return nobody likes them. Except possibly one special filmstar-beautiful girl, depending on if they're the protagonist or not. Q in James Bond spends all his time wanking in VR, when he's not on the clock. Maybe one day the right girl will take a shine to his nerdish charm, and he'll realise, "by jingo, tits and fannies are actually pretty wizard after all!"
Yet more ways in which Hollywood feeds you lies, and absolutely should not be watched by anyone under 40. After 40, you've probably lived enough to figure out that it's all bullshit and take it in that context. As a kid, nobody takes 5 minutes to point out that TV only exists to sell advertising, and presents a vision of a completely different world, bearing only a visual resemblance to life as people actually live it.
Fixed mindset vs growth mindset. Hollywood wants us to be dumber.
There is a nice mention of a capabilities earned as some sort of a gift in your comment. I believe noone is given anything. Yes, smart and intelligent people understand things faster/better, often can learn faster. But a lot of people get this talent wrong. Even the smartest people must work to achieve something and must learn things. It is most obvious in playing musical instrument. When someone can do it well, some strange kind of aura pops around him. He seems to have a lot of talent, good pitch, it just looks so easy for him. The truth is that noone can pick an instrument and play it. They dont see the years of tedious practice and they get solid opinion that they are not capable of learning it, because of their lacking talent. But everyone can learn to play an instrument to some point. Unless they are missing like 7 fingers and have their brain damaged. Talent and pitch has nothing to do with it.
Ploutvonozec Exactly, same with art! "Oh, you're so talented, I would never be able to draw anything more than a stick figure!" When in reality, it has almost nothing to do with talent and almost anyone can be fantastic at drawing if they just sit on their ass every day and learn it and practice. Something Michael Gross (who's won several Olympic gold medals and is now a philosophy professor) once told me: that there had always been tons of people who had more natural talent than him, better body composition, and so on. He attributed all of his medals to the fact that he was always the first to start practice in the morning and the last guy still in the pool in the evening. Now we don't need to win medals or be "the best", but so many people underestimate how good they could be at stuff and how they could enrich other people's lives with it.
Someone called Thomas Edison Professor Edison although Thomas never graduated from High School.
@@Maren617 Inspiring. Screenshot.
Number five is definitely my biggest pet peeve. For example, just because the person is presented as a "Harvard graduate" does not make them an expert on a subject. They may have "graduated from Harvard" with a BA in art. These are not adequate "credentials" for writing a book on Belize's foreign policy strategies or economic theory.
You're correct, but going to a university, you do learn a decent amount of information from other fields. Because you have friends that do other subjects, and they'll often like to talk about their subject. And in the course of a conversation you can pick up a lot of information. And then in return they may ask about what you do and if they're interested they may ask you to elaborate on certain points and explain things they don't understand.
I can speak from experience when I say you learn a lot more than your own subject when you go to university/college
Jordan Gilbert that is my experience as well. However, I am referring to when people present themselves on TV, in the media, or write a book portraying themselves as an "expert" on the subject. Sometimes people will be on tv talking about a subject. Their credentials are that they are a "Harvard graduate." It doesn't mean they know enough to assert their opinion as a reliable "expert" on a subject. Why should someone listen a "Harvard graduate" art student's opinion on foreign relations in the Congo in 1900? Why should you take their "expert" opinion over a Congolese historian's, or even your own? I am just saying when you read source material, look at the author credentials. Does he/she have the background to warrant your trust in what they say. Anyone can say anything about anything. What makes them a "valid source"
One more example: say you have a friend who is getting a BA in say Philosophy. In an academic setting you learn things from them about philosophy. Does that mean you know enough to be a source in a documentary on German 20th Century philosophy?
I have one bachelor's degree and two unrelated minors so I have confirmed education in 3 separate fields of study, but because of how restless my mind and how difficult it is for me to sleep, I spend a lot of my time learning as much as I can about as many things as I can. There are a lot of fields out there that you can learn simply because you want to and don't require a formal education. Plus aside from the classes I took for my degrees I took a lot of extra classes about subjects I was interested in just to expand knowledge base. For example I took a class on medical ethics despite having no intent to ever be involved in medicine just because the concept interested me. Of course a few years later when I changed directions because I couldn't stand a life in politics since I wasn't as self serving as most people in it and decided to go back to school to purse medicine I came in handy.
Also, there are people who are formally educated polymaths (not amateur ones like myself). I went to high school with a guy who in college simultaneously obtained 3 bachelors degrees in only slightly overlapping fields and 4 minors in completely unrelated ones. I know 2 of his bachelors were in Aerospace Engineering and Quantum Physics. He had minors in Business, History, Philosophy and I think Education. I had never felt dumb until I met him. Not that he would ever allow someone to feel dumb, he was one of the nicest people I have ever know.
Bunny Girl2448 but at the same time if someone is graduated in a fucking subject people should stop arguing with them about their personal theories on how the subject works because they have seen a bunch of CZcams videos.. so shut the fuck up
Also, I knew a Harvard student who had never heard of Wyoming, had never heard "to be or not to be," and called plays "poems". He was from a famous prep school and was a history major planning on law school. Money and the right parents= ivy league.
Actually Cracked, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is- oh shit he found me out! Abort condescending comment!
45931-458954 ask for "The Drummer"
Lucas Ariel Navarro Garcia
Oh, shit, Drummy's workin' tonight? I should head out there.
Advent3546 😂😂
Advent3546 that's what THEY WANT YOU TO THINK
Advent3546: Cracked started out in the 70's as a Mad Magazine wanna-be.
1:09
I don't like using this example in this video. In this moment, Picard was talking to Q who was trying to make themself appear learned and beyond human comprehension.
Picard was calling him out because what Q was boasting about was what Picard did on his spare time. Kinda like "That's not supernatural that's my hobby".
So true, a really intelligent person would never try to impress anyone with their cleverness, I imagine a lot learnt early on in life to even hide their intelligence if they were in the gifted top 1%, so they didn't get picked on as children. Also anyone who belittles someone else is dumb, whatever their IQ, there's a difference between intelligence and wisdom.
Chris Gray as the smart kid, I got bullied for it a lot. As hard as it was to make friends, dating was even worse. To make friends, I had to dumb down 5 notches, but for dating about 20. When I decided I wanted to break up with a guy, I’d be me and quit hiding it. I’d tell him about a great documentary I just saw, or bring the book I was reading, instead of pretending to look at a magazine. He’d be gone in 3 days or less.
Chris Gray Agreed 110%!!
IMO, it's one of the , if not THE , earliest lessons learned about interacting with peers. But I'd say the top 10%, not just the top 1%.
I think in some cases it's totally believable for genuinely smart people/characters to try and impress others with their cleverness. If they're trying to convince someone of something, the person they're dealing with will probably be more accepting of the smart person/their input if they make some kind of non-condescending display of wit/intelligence. And some people are even the type to only listen to a more stern challenge. Smart people adapt.
But I still agree with you in general.
I've actually met a few people like this. My first boss acted like he was a total kid and that he was totally in awe of my explanations. Then someone told me he was a scientist/physicist. He was really sweet though, probably the best supervisor I ever had.
Gina Hall, lol this is why I joined robotics, everyone there are nerds and you can be smart and normal cause that is normal for all of us. Let's just say also that lots of relationships happen.....but in my experience people who are smarter than some are superrrrrr nice and polite, much more so than an average person.....but that could just be my experience. Also that part that you aren't great at everything if you are smart is true too soooo, I love math and science, but please don't make fun of my grammar and spelling hahha
I've noticed that in sitcoms, "stupid" characters are always SO stupid that even the stupid people who watch these shows would find them stupid. Characters who are actually a normal kind of stupid would remind the audience of themselves so much as to come off as insulting. Actually intelligent characters would similarly feel insulting to the show's stupid audience by talking over their heads and by making connections that stupid people wouldn't understand. Unless you want your show to be canceled, you have to treat the audience like the idiots they are while pretending that their intelligence is something to be comfortable with.
Wow. Brutal and accurate. unfortunately, nothing happens in a void, and the sanctifying of stupidity by hollywood promotes it, while also demonizing actual intelligence. thus, money (via it's need to produce something popular) destroys the world!
That's some big talk for someone who watches shows for idiots.
People are a lot more intelligent than the media and pop culture gives them credit for. The entertainment industry can pander to a demographic that they assume is stupid all they want, but it won't make it true. And we may consume the content, as that's largely what's available to us, but our actions reflect a different reality altogether.
@@avamasquerade oh it'd surprise you how stupid people are
It's simply a matter of pandering to the lowest common denominator. If they target those at the lower end of the intelligence spectrum, they're more likely to find a large target audience, whereas if they target those with a higher intelligence, they're only going to get a small percentage of the population who "get it".
I like the " Wish I knew how to edit." Proceeds to cut to close up.
I love how every commenter thinks this video is about them.
Me too! my actual name is literally smart people johnson
Dunning Krueger effect lingers in he background watching waiting
No. I know I'm stupid and I'm fine with it until we can genetically remodel ourselves.
It's not about me. I barely watch movies
Bruh... I'm a fucking genius God.
Not a narcissist...
The last one always bugged me because I am considered gifted when it comes to Literature and did well in English courses. Because of that I love to study subjects like History, Psychology, Philosophy, and other Humanities.
But I am an idiot in Math and many sciences. I frequently failed those classes and getting my undergraduate degree was put off until I earned my Math credits.
Most people I know are usually one or the other not both.
In fact the only person I ever heard that was gifted in both fields was Lewis Carroll. He was a Mathematics professor who wrote several treatises on difficult problems but he was also a brilliant linguist who wrote nonsense poems that had extensive word play and of course his Alice books are brilliant satire and clever language.
I'm not an expert in any field but I do better than most other kids in my high school in all subjects. It's easy for me to get concepts and memorize things and that is how most of the kids I met are. Some people take school seriously so they are good in all subjects and others don't take it seriously and do bad in subjects. Some people are naturally good in a subject and lazy so they don't good in others. Knowledge is memorizing the more you learn the better you will be. If you are good at remembering but bad at problem solving then remember problem solving skills
Ion Barbu (the pseudonym of Dan Barbilian) was a great mathematician and Modernist poet from Romania.
On the other hand, it's very easy to pretend to be smart. solve a rubrics cube, memorize a chess open for instant win, "read people" by simply quoting a random horoscope, avoid using big words
Kjleed13 :)
"it's very easy to pretend to be smart", when you're not around any actually smart people.
Lol, you just proved your point by saying "memorize a chess open for instant win".
I get the impression that it is extremely difficult for a writer to convincingly write a character more intelligent than themselves, so create unrealistic mental superheroes like Holmes and House.
This is definitely true.
The Netflix series Ozark does a good job of showing a more realistic portrayal of someone very intelligent and good at thinking their way out of seemingly impossible situations. At least they are brighter than me!
Hate to be the smart dick here but cracked should've pointed out that Holmes and House are the same character just repackaged. You do all know that right? Lol mind blown
you just described so much of the problem with modern entertainment of all kinds. morons trying to write genius level work can only copy and paste. but aren't smart enough to know what the important aspects are to steal, so they jack it all up, into a non-coherent babble of idiocy and prestige whose fame won't last out the week, never mind decades. everybody's trying to do the same thing, because it's tried and proven, but they aren't smart enough to know what made it work in the first place to copy. they're picking all the wrong things!
Screenwriters can't even write realistic banter between friends, and presumably they've DONE that
Also, the great majority of billionaires aren't that cerebral.
The way one becomes a billionaire is generally to sacrifice all other dimensional nuances to the relentless pursuit of financial profit. Cerebral people who see all the angles tend to be strongly disposed not to do that. And more to the point they would find it intensely, painfully boring to attempt, and so would not persevere with anything like the conviction required to be a billionaire.
In terms of psychological profile, billionaire has a far stronger correlation with psychopath than with polymath.
@michael gove This guy would probably find your presumptions as assuming as I do.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Simons_(mathematician)
Hence why I say 'the great majority' rather than 'all'. Jim Simons is a proper mathematician - no debate - who's been able to parlay an interest in quantitative modelling into a successful hedge fund. But you'll see in the article you cite a quote from Ed Witten - another first-rate geometric topologist - "It's startling to see such a highly successful mathematician achieve success in another field". Which, I think, bears out the general point I'm making: for every one Jim Simons, there's a groaning gym-hall full of Donald Trumps, Vince McMahons, Howard Schultzes and - God help us - Eike Batistas.
@@michaelgove9349 Your responses remind me of some of the veiled snobbery I encounter at Mensa functions.
General Semantics is a hobby of mine. When I see things like "the great majority" occur in statements it raises an eyebrow, especially if the person making the statement fancies himself as intelligent.
This is what your original post should have said:
"It is my opinion that the great majority of billionaires aren't that cerebral. I say 'opinion' because I would have to be an immortal mind reader to ascertain the cognitive function of every billionaire who will ever live,which is patently absurd.The way one becomes a billionaire is generally to sacrifice all other dimensional nuances to the relentless pursuit of financial profit.(That is also my opinion.) Cerebral people who see all the angles tend to be strongly disposed not to do that,in my personal worldview. It also seems to me that they would find it intensely, painfully boring to attempt, and so would not persevere with anything like the conviction required to be a billionaire. I think that,in terms of psychological profile, billionaire has a far stronger correlation with psychopath than with polymath, which I say because I wouldn't expect a rational person to accept what I say without verified credentials".
That's an example of E - Prime. It's a bit baroque, but that's a small price to pay for accuracy in communication.
Consider adding it to your repertoire in the future.
Well just read "the great majority" as a more nuanced version of "some but not all".
I kind of like the idea of Korzybski (via Robert Anton Wilson) but on balance I think it's better to concede human discourse is intrinsically freighted, rather than maintain an artifice of impartiality.
Having said that, how about if Trump were allowed to continue posting on Twitter on condition that all his tweets were filtered via an E-Prime translation engine? I could get behind that. xD
But as far as using GS in casual conversation, life is wayyy too short.
Same applies to Mensa of course - but I guess you learned that lesson for yrself. ; )
They seem to think that greatness in certain areas comes from genius and talent rather than work and study.
When in reality greatness in certain areas comes from genius and talent AND A HELL LOT OF WORK AND STUDY
I think the glass writing thing is purely an aesthetic because it's easier to film through glass and get different angles from, day, a chalkboard. And - shrugs- it looks cool.
NerdinRealLife boom. I’ve seen this called out so many times and all I think is ‘would you prefer to see their work and their face, or just them hunched over a wad of paper?’
NerdinRealLife actually i have seen mathematicians doing this very often at home, when running out of Space on their White board.
Really? Cool! Thanks for sharing this. :)
I studied physics and mathematics and the only time i saw this was when the whole campus was doing a protest so the students had to use the windows in the building to continue with their studies. Most physicists and mathematicians i know (including me) have huge whiteboards in their houses and/or office and personally i mostly use pen and recycled paper, markers are way more expensive and they ran out faster
NerdinRealLife Maybe they like to focus their gaze on objects at different distances with minimal movement necessary to avoid becoming near sighted as one would otherwise.
This is so true!
I think this messes with us so hard because it gives us the impression that either you have talent or not, either you are a genious or you are not - when actually, working and learning makes us experts at what we do. This is why many people don't even try to continue when they're not great at something from the start - and miss out on chances.
Nicole Collignon not to be a tinfoil hat wearing preper or anything, but isn't that what people in power want? A confident and competent population is hard to control.
Chesus Jrist Yea but that would also make no sense because smart people exist and not all of them work for the government. Also take your hat off
You either have talent or not. A bulk of academic work gets retracted later, but electricity, the telephone etc only had to be invented once. Now most things we do are derivative and forgotten as soon as we retire
@@silurtenr.3309 art is also kind of subjective. I don't have a food critic telling me what isn't and is good food, I just simply eat what I think tastes good art is kinda the same way. I would gladly have random fan art of say boulverk hanging on my wall because it looks cool but I wouldn't pay $2 for the Mona Lisa
Einstein: one day people will say stuffs that I didn't said
I remember that Tweet!
Your video has a VERY professional appearance, perfectly clear but strong looking like a movie. I wish every youtube video people put out had such an air. I guess Cracked can afford a bit more than many. Good job also on the subject material.
Raising one eyebrow makes one smart.
dav ep Raising two makes one look surprised.
Raising 3 makes you look Martian (according to The Twilight Zone -- TV show and Rush song.)
If you smell what the Rock is cookin'?
Does it count if I only have one eyebrow?
Raise an eyebrow while taking off your glasses and biting one side of them; you may stare off in any direction.
The wise are full of doubts while the unwise are full of confidence.
(and confidence is prized in western society for leadership above every other quality)
R.J. Writes
That sounds like something you memorized. You must be extremely smart :)
Great but being uncertain means doubting yourself not doubting the official story simply because it is the official story.
Must be why we have anxiety
R.J. Writes To begin with, that's quite the broad stroke. Second of all, I don't know what you expect, humans are emotional and social animals. No amount of smart people will change the need for people who are confident in directing other people.
There are some things that can beat smartness and foresight? Awkwardness and stupidity can. The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn't do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn't prepared for him; he does the thing he ought not to do; and often it catches the expert out and ends him on the spot.-Mark twain. I feel this is more fitting. XD
5:00 when u became an expert in thermonuclear astrophisics?
Tony: last night
Intelligent people generally don't act like arrogant, condescending d*cks to others (there are exceptions, as in any group). Actually, intelligent people often like to explain their fields &/or interests to others as a topic of discussion, generally taking into account the preexisting knowledge base of one's audience and explaining necessary background information first (rather than deprecating the audience for not having knowledge of a specialized field). Sadly, even when the audience has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the necessary background information, an explanation of that background information often elicits a criticism of overexplanation or unnecessary explanation (or "mansplaining"), even if that was not the intention nor is the criticism warranted given the context. If, after being baselessly criticized for overexplanation, one then calls out the critic for displaying baseless arrogance &/or stubbornness in spite of his/her already demonstrated ignorance or misunderstanding of the topic, one tends to be accused of being arrogant or condescending. Even those who attempt to politely edify others without belittling the audience often are met with a harsh reaction from those who feel threatened by reminders that they are not on equal footing with others (in terms of intelligence &/or knowledge).
Generally they're too busy with their work to bother trying to impress anyone. You won't find too many geniuses in comment sections on any website, the people desperate to be thought a brain are the people who don't have any.
@@toddjones7919 Nah! Everyone in the comment section is a genius! Except me, of course, I am exceptional in many ways, including that.
@John Smith agreed. People can be so touchy.
Yes they do!
I must not be smart, I'm having trouble reading this comment
Yeah, the Capt. Picard thing is not the same thing. Picard not only knows Hamlet but also understands it because he's a fan. Therefore he uses that (rather famous) quote in that particular context. He's not saying it to show that he knows it, he's making a point from something he understands very well, which is not quite the same thing.
Dhaval Anjaria But the inference made through the quote, even within that context, still defines him as intelligent Not many dumb ppl are into Shakespeare.
+Oxyrisen But it doesn't require a high intelligence to be into Shakespeare either. In fact, anyone, regardless of their intelligence, can be into Shakespeare. It's not actually an indication of anything besides that the character has read Shakespeare before and liked him, or at least that one work or part of it, enough to memorize certain parts. (And gets into the lucky situation that quoting that part actually fits the situation, maybe)
Also a fun fact: Patrick Stewart performed Hamlet with David Tennant.
Thank you for saying that about the Rubik's cube. People just arent adjusted to the idea of "two steps forward, one step back". Ive simplified solving the rubiks cube into about 4-5 procedures. I taught a friend it on the side at a Halloween party. IT IS NOT FANCY.
Real "smart people" come up with their own philosophy and point out their own observations instead of quoting another's.
I feel like people like the mean smart guy because it "justifies" being mean if youre on a completely different level of intellect. Thats just an opinion on a possibility.
Like that is a possibility but not the only possibility.
Glass is just to give a cool angle with both the actor and the writing
Agreed. No filmmaker would ever say, "can we have our hero hunched over a desk, writing in a spiral-bound notebook?"
ThatRandomGuyGaming and it's also fun to write on :)
@Trevor I was gonna agree, but then I remembered Death Note, which is exactly that...
@@MarcLucksch What makes the death note writing great is the anime editing. Sadly you can't have that kind of camerawork in irl acted films due to the laws of physics not approving of those kind of shenanigans.
he's looking at stuff with a magnifying glass... for no reason!
The Rubik's cube thing always bugged me too. My friends were the sort of colossal dorks that learned how to solve a Rubik's Cube in idioticly fast times; one of them could even do it behind his back in under 20 seconds. But this friend of mine was no genius. He was actually sort of an idiot with too much free time to learn trivial bullshit like that.
As for the "mean genius" bit a lot of those guys are meant to be on the spectrum of autism somewhere. House even had an episode about him having aspergers.
I feel like that's almost worse somehow, the autism part. Because people on the autism spectrum aren't automatically abrasive and rude because of it. Some of them are very aware of their limitations and are just kind of socially awkward in figuring out how to do the various social rituals. House, from the bits of the show I've seen, doesn't seem like an accurate aspergers portrayal at all. He seems like a guy who understands social protocol perfectly, but chooses not to follow it because he can't be arsed to do it.
TransparentLabyrinth while that is true, it's also an added hassle to have to choreograph your demeanor around what will make everyone happy when you can't just be blunt and take the route that cuts down the opposition's ego enough where the logic you present is considered more so than it would have been
If you can solve a Rubik's without looking at a manual, then it's like solving a puzzle really quickly which would make you smart.
yeah, aspergers and autism does not equal mandatory genius. but it can mean 'different and unrelatable'. thanks Rainman.
I'm guessing you can't solve a Rubiks cube?
thank you for correcting Bill Nye, He is an engineer and entertainer, he has no background in climate science.
@Kay never said he was, but he is treated as if he has some kind of expertise in climate science when in reality he is as much a climatologist as Niel Patrick Harris is a doctor.
Good point. It is unfortunate that Bill Nye relies on the "appeal to authority" fallacy to persuade people to agree with him on subjects he has no background in.
He is a proselytiser for science. He is a very good advocate for science and needs no qualifications other than an ability to communicate ideas.
when someone like bill nye screams "climate change!" and "butt stuff!" in the same breath i tend not to take any part of the message seriously...
@@vizagothx7294And when 98% of the scientific community calmly states "climate change" on the basis of empirical evidence, how seriously do you take it? Or do you somehow think the reality of climate change stands or falls on the word of an enthusiastic layman?
Eloquent. This is the first of your videos that I have watched. I liked your manner and presentation. Keep them coming!
Big problem its that 90% of you consider that smart and educated are same
Sure cuz a Math PhD From Princeton isn't Smart , he's just educated.
It depends on the subject, that's why so many people study things like English and Philosophy, or something Media related, easy. I doubt you'd get very far at, say, MIT or any other elite school unless you've got some brains. You probably went to DeVry.
I got an educmashun! I got an educmashun! Am smarter than u!
Not the same, but when you don’t exercise your mind, it degenerates.
@MeMelonTV I'm a C-B Student with Good Knowledge in Economics , History , Mathematics , Philosophy , Computer Science and few others , although I'm superior to my peers who have higher grades in Subjects that I don't care about , i don't go around screaming " I'm SMART " , Having straight A+'s in high school doesn't make you educated either , if you're " Well Educated ; Meaning you have a good knowledge in a couple of subjects and deep knowledge in few , maybe even have a graduate degree of some sorts " you probably are smart .
About memorizing though: Several generations ago (my parents? - memorized a bunch of poems), education focused on memorizing. So no, not 'smart,' but 'educated.' And it's a useful shortcut to show those in those generations that
the person is educated.
It is outdated though. And maybe unhelpfully used to conflate 'smart' and 'educated.'
Smart and educated are highly correlated. But education doesn't emphasize memorizing literature/philosophy quotes anymore (there is still memorization of facts and theories of various fields though). So yeah it's a very outdated trope. Plus education has been getting narrower & narrower (because the totality of human knowledge is so big no-one can hope to understand more than a small faction of it), so the whole "knows everything" trope is also awfully outdated. Nowadays knowing literature & historical quotes is more a class/culture thing than an education/intelligence thing.
Depends on your values. Personally I think most "educated" people are dumb as bricks. They just think they are smart because they believe in athority figures that feed them information. Let'sn't confuse "consumption of knowledge" with "the ability to reason through problems"... for example a learned person would say "let'sn't isn't a word" but a problem solver would consider "let'sn't... let us not... why don't we use that contraction more?"
Probably because that contraction doesn't cut down on the number of syllables any more than "let's not" (which is pretty much the entire point of contractions) and only results in one less keystroke, and that keystroke is a space probably one of the fastest keystrokes out there.
but it does remove a pause... like every other use of "n't".
What exactly do you mean by "pause"? I doubt you pause after every word you say.
Jonny Kim by the time he was 35 had become a Navy SEAL combat veteran, an M.D. and was selected to become an astronaut.
Is he genius or a subject matter expert in three different fields?
With so much information so accessible, memorising stuff isn’t so useful. Drawing connections between ideas and fields is what makes a genius.
Yup. The application of knowledge matters.
Here's an idea for an episode:
WHAT MOVIES GOT WRONG ABOUT HOW KIDS AND OR TEENS ACT
^^^
This needs to happen
Olaoluwapo Williams
Oh God, yes! YES!
One thing they got right is the fact that teens always think they're misunderstood , and this comment proves it
stranger things is pretty goood and spot on in that regard, a bit ideal, but still believable and fun
A smart person knows how little they really know.
If you were smart, you'd realize that's fundamentally impossible.
A smart person knows that they know little, just slightly more than the average human being. A religious person thinks they know everything because they read a popular fantasy novel.
@@brianriddle8389 A smart person doesn't call religious texts fiction because it is cool and sounds intelligent.
@@accomplisheddiplomat4091 Yes, he does, because he doesn't do a fucking special pleading for those stories and thus come the reasonnable conclusion that follows : there are fantasy stories, not that well written
@@tesseract2144 it's a lot more complex than that, only an immature person would call thousands of years of writings, traditions and philosophies fantasies and laugh it off.
Thank you for genuine entertainment, and thought provocation!
them showing them repeating a "smart sounding" quote isnt showing how well they can memorize, its showing that "wow, these people are smart and read a lot of informational books, and can retain the information. They devote their time to reading and studying", not just reciting.
the thing with devoting your time to something is, you actually have to do it. now, yes, most of that can happen off-screen, but not at the same time they are on-screen doing something else.
Also, if you devote your time to memorizing smart sounding quotes, you didn't devote it to studying something you can actually solve problems with. So you'll be a cocktail party philosopher, and that's it. You won't also be an engineer, or whatever it is that they're supposed to be.
Oh boy, before even watching the video I can think of a couple that crop up *everywhere*.
1) They're usually not all in-your-face about how smart they are
2) They're usually perfectly well adjusted people with normal hobbies and social engagements
3) They are... just smart, without it driving them nuts or causing nervous ticks and stuff...
What else we got, bring it on!
Oh don't worry, smart people aren't hiding anything. Anything at all.
The secret meeting is still on, right?
Matea Zovko I dunno, I hid my yugioh cards pretty well ;)
Yeah but "The Donald" is coming
Comrade Vladimir Lenin I thought you took care of the duck.
The blue duck howls at midnight.
One of my fav’s so far. Good job.
The smartest people I've ever met are often also the hardest working people I have ever met. They're smart enough to know that hard work is the only thing that actually gets you anywhere. Also, if you're actually a genius you go so much farther on so much less work, it doesn't make sense to be lazy.
I sure would like it if cracked started saying it was reckless disagreement in the title, I've probably missed a few of them because I didn't know
Brian Dupuis Same. I remember seeing the first video a while back, happened upon another one recently and went "Oh, yeah, this exists." It would be nice if they actually labeled their series.
Yea, I skip poorly titled videos from cracked all the time. Some of them can have any stupid title they want, like this series here, and I'd check it out.
Same thing happened to me
There are more of these? Time to do some youtube-digging
And while they're at it, tell us if the After Hours is the good one or the one with people we don't care about.
Today I learned… That CZcams is swarming with geniuses and IQ Test acers
@Cool Dude That is average
One time...i was smart like that. It got me nothing. I'm quite unhappy. You're welcome, internet.
100 is the only IQ that it makes some sense to quote. Say any other number and you invite the question, "on which scale?". Either be damned sure you know which scale (Wechsler, Stamford-Binet, AH-4, etc.) or relate it to a percentile as the various scales use different Standard Deviations. Even then it only makes *some* sense because experts can't agree what intelligence is or how to test it and all IQ tests are riddled with assumptions - the biggest one being that the person being tested is actually motivated to try their hardest
@@gregorwalton very good points. In my experience, i find IQ tests, when properly done, are a fair indicator of "intelligence". If anyone out there is worried about their IQ, don't be. Determination, drive, the desire and ability to work are all much better indicators (and tools) for success. Raw intelligence has much less practical effect than most people realize. I'm a complete failure.
@@Amateur0Visionary Same here. I have an IQ of 140 and I barely passed high school. I can't maintain a minimum-wage entry-level job.
Love your point how movies (or entertainment in general) skew society's perception of how things truly work, such as a "genius" understanding multiple fields of study. I recently had a debate with someone who said I was just being overly nitpicky over the portrayal of certain professions on television series (in the discussion I specified medical and law enforcement based shows) and how the fictionalization in these programs tends to bleed over in real life, resulting in critique of how certain things truly work. For example, the whole development of the "csi effect" is a great example. really loved this video, thank you!.
I disagree with that Tombstone scene being on a list, because it concerns education, not intelligence...
those two not to be mixed and to be honest education really is all about learning things, not being smart...
hence the "Good Will Hunting" scene that also tells a message about education... not intelligence...
or like how Will Hunting says "do you have your own thoughts on the matter..."
or like how that dude from Finding Forrester exposes his literature teacher to be just another guy in a suit who thinks he's highbrow cause he can recite his poetry...
All of these are used to portray how awful pretending to be smart is... not to show how much of a genius the main character is. In fact, these scenes are very relatable, not because the viewers all think they're genius, but because those scenes talk to the side of us that really hates snobs who think reading makes them smart. Yeah, it is tacky and it happens a lot, but it's not about being smart.
You missed one of my biggest pet peeves in fiction: genius characters with half a dozen advanced degrees. Three or four PhDs doesn't make you accomplished, it means you're a hobbyist and not contributing anything of note to any one field (probably).
I very much agree with this. I mean it does make you a genius but only one of those skills is actually useful in jobs.
The smartest person I know personally has no degrees. Yet he gets requested to do lectures at universities. He worked for NASA for over 30 years, starting when he was just out of high school.
Yet one of the most useless people I ever met has four degrees in Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Philosophy, and I forget the fourth. He was incapable of holding a coherent discussion about any of those topics.
I spent decades in electronics without a degree, repairing and designing. I've only recently gotten a degree because 1. No HR department will even schedule an interview without a degree and 2. I had an opportunity to have tuition paid for by the Displaced Worker Retraining program.
Ruaridh Purse You literally have to accomplish something/some form of research that contributes to something in respective field in order to get a PhD.
I get your point but making random false statement to prove your point isn’t gonna help
I dont see what being accomplished has to do with a persons intelligence?
Intelligent people tend to have more diverse interests in general, so why wouldnt they also study different fields?
Also isnt it true that by being knowledgeable in multiple areas, that means you have a better understanding of how the world works? And therefore a person might come up with a more creative angle/ different perspective when solving problems.
I do agree that you can be intelligent without multiple university degrees though. (there are genius people without any at all)
I don't think the point is that intelligent people won't know a lot about a lot of things. I think the issue is the trope that the genius has 6 or more PhDs when that is a tremendous outlay of time. Many smart people just get on with working in their field.
I think the whole, "smart people in one area is smart in multiple areas" is a holdover idea from the 19th century and before when you did have people who were well versed in multiple fields of science, philosophy and humanities. However, even back then it was rare and it's nearly impossible now because you need to learn a lot to become an expert in one area. That's why new discoveries usually happen in teams.
Indeed! The "genius times" :)
There's also the whole renaissance man thing. It's easier to be revolutionary in multiple fields when the field is less developed and require less specialized knowledge.
1:20 "expensive sounding words" thats a nice description ^^
After memorizing the rubics cube pattern, I used to mess with people at my call center by solving it in a couple of hours. Of course there were a few people that knew it only actually takes less than 20 minutes.
People can solve it in a few seconds. You can't even follow what they are doing. It looks crazy.
Matt Damon's character in Good Will Hunting isn't just good at math. The whole point is that he was a prodigy with a photographic memory.
Yes he was a polymath who happened to be a also mathematical genius, though that tree problem he solved wasn't actually that difficult if you understand the underlying principles. I watched a video where a college professor explained it and stated it it would be considered slightly advanced undergraduate level work.
I’m so glad someone said it
Kirinin Kiri
Stephen Wiltshire? The guy who drew New York to scale in perfect detail after 15 minutes in a helicopter, with the numbers and proportions of windows and other details perfect?
Fuck off eidetic memories aren’t real... your limitations aren’t everyone else’s
N.1 They watch rick and morty
G_Boy finally
Looool 😂😂
G_Boy hdhddh
To be fair, you have to have an high IQ to understand Rick and Morty.
KingofKings 😂😂 Lmao.
Best quote:
"Those are _three_ very specific skills that require a lifetime of study, and the third one isn't even a thing!"
Surprisingly interesting! Well done
I have an older brother who is extremely intelligent, and also seems to have an eidetic memory. He was pretty much an ass the whole time we were growing up. He hated having to "dumb" stuff down for us normal mortals, and generally refused to. He went into medicine, and is now a doctor. Imagine my surprise when I learned he's praised for his bedside manner! He's also the best Uncle and Father you can imagine, always patient and encouraging. So I think maybe geniuses might have a tenancy to be superior assholes, but can learn to overcome that superiority complex with time and experience.
He decided to adopt children who needed a family rather than add to the population.
jelestra
Good man right there. Being intelligent also means learning to enjoy life and people around you.
jelestra So all smart people are just huge dicks to everyone because they think "I'm so better than you it hurts"? Yeah. This is exactly what repelled me when I was little about "normal mortals". I stayed indoors and played my ps2 half the time.
The other kids were always distant from me and talked behind my back "he thinks he's so smart" "he's a stupid dork", so I was backed into my little corner for 8 years of school because everyone's assumptions about me were just like yours, and only because I always answered the questions and gave my best. It got a little better in high school but instead of ostracizing me they ignored or called me an arrogant prick, without giving an explanation.
Have you ever tried to see things from his perspective?
Sounds like he ate some humble pie at some point in his life. Can't think of anything else that could have changed him
no bad he should have a kid we need more smart people all the stupid people have multiple kids on accident and all the smart people don't have kids the best way to save the population is to pass on your high iq
Smart people write on glass in movies for the sole purpose of exposition. This is done so we, the audience, can see the progression of their work, which is more difficult when they are shown just writing on a piece of paper.
Star Brand it's like a monologue. People never monologue that hard but inner monologues get kinda stale
Big example was The Accountant, where writing on glass shows just how much information Affleck's character is going through in a day.
I'm not saying I'm smart, but I write on glass all the time. And not just me. Most modern labs have this "lots of glass" aesthetic, and it's easy to carry an expo and just write down a though process on the window your desk is next to or on the glass wall. I'm not saying everyone does that, but a lot of people when trying to work out problems in correct setting do it sometimes.
Officially subscribed 😂
Intelligence is just a superpower in Hollywood movies. A dumb and basic excuse to explain the difficult things. Once you think of it like that you can just enjoy the Cumberbatch stuff.
I mean, "enjoy" is a strong word...
But you're right, Sherlock's "intelligence" in BBC Sherlock is just clairvoyance without magic. It's an aesthetic of intelligence without the substance of anything actually intelligent happening. We're just given the result of the unseen work and told to be impressed.
Cue: Engineer fixes every problem.
That's an interesting take on it.
I think the memorizing of classic lines and poetry was an aspect of the classic education system, especially in England. So recalling poignant lines would be a sign of education and whit. But the intent of this was like lost and oversimplified to “smart people memorize stuff”.
Some of the fun in PG Wodehouse' novels is that his protagonists, like Bertie Wooster, are idiots but quote English and Latin literature, in a vaguely accurate but off kilter way. It is implied, though not I think actually stated, that Bertie attended Oxford and may even have graduated.
I think that the first trope actually is more of a historical sign of wealth, education, and learning that became a mark of intelligence. If you went back even just a hundred years, education had a more uniformed approach, one that traced its roots back to the middle ages and the renaissance. Its known as classical education now, and put simply, it has students learn a large sum of facts and information, as well as familiarizing themselves with a variety of different arguments and theories in a variety of fields.
As the student moves into higher education, they would start doing there own independent research and study, but were still expected to be a renaissance type; knowing a variety of subjects well and being skilled in a variety of areas. This is why you hear these stories of people like Teddy Roosevelt being able to right a Naval history of the War of 1812 as an undergraduate at Harvard, or nearly anybody with any education being able to quote Latin verse. If you could not, your education was considered a sham. But being able to memorize and quote a variety of information implied things about who you were and your social status.
There was a social incentive, as well as a genuine academic incentives, to flaunt your "intelligence" and show how much you have memorized. Before the age of the internet, and especially before the prevalence of libraries, you would need a lot of money to be educated -being able to just sit around and memorize old books all day. Wealth is a clear sign of status, and anyone would want to indicate that they have it. This does not undercut a clear academic purpose that comes with a vast memory bank of knowledge either. While modern society does not emphasize this ability, or particularly need it because of the internet, anyone can testify that there are some things that simply must be memorized and learned as one ascends in academia and life, with basic multiplication tables being a clear example. When there is no internet, and finding something in a book takes a lot of time, memorizing is a clear way to speed up the process of academic work.
As education changed through out the 20th century, as well as the geo-political atmosphere and societal hierarchies, the incentives for this skill lessened or nearly evaporated. "Why do I need to remember when the Magna Carta was memorized when I could just google it? "
But, meanwhile, literature and film had already made this a trope and continued to use it as an easy shorthand. Film makers are inspired by others works, and iconic shots or scenes are often remade or re-shot to reference those works. So, no surprise to see that it continues on as a trope, even if it is a culturally dated or has become an antiquated idea about intelligence.
I actually have memorized a significant quantity of information... This is in the form of lectures that I can deliver word perfect. I don't think this makes me a smart person, I thinks it means I put in the time and the effort to memorize this stuff, I can imagine the person on the receiving end would have a high image of me because of such concepts and vocabulary...
This explains so much, especially how for even wealthy women who lived in societies where educated women were shunned, were sent off to be educated in women's colleges like in the US around the 1800's. Even rich women had to flaunt their intelligence,even if they weren't going to use it because their job was to be a trophy wife.
A well thought out analysis.
I have trouble finding a movie to watch out of ones I've already seen because the second I see the titles I've already watched it in my head.
"Look on my works, ye mighty and despair." - Shelly.
Am I smart now?
Cs i just memorized that from Watchmen and Alien Covenant.
I would say, as others have pointed out, that modern society has created the necessity of focusing on one field. I was interested in a lot of things growing up, but only a select few of those skills learned actually make me any money now. The rest have become casual hobbies.
Exactly. I wanted to do engineering but also wanted to do something in Law so I end up choosing Law to be a lawyer. And I'm still doing law in college (I'm only 16 so i'm pretty much just starting), and I am already deciding which type I want to specialise in for university. I chose constitutional law since I am also a right wing constitutionalist lul.
In swedish there is a word for general surface level knowledge about multiple subjects. Allmänbildning, translated as general knowledge. This does not mean intelligence per se but generally seen as desirable and advantageous to social environments. You could easily fool someone that you're intelligent by demonstrating the width of your knowledge though. Intelligence is hard to show in movies. We usually don't really have a clear cut way how to define it seeing as at it as very bound to the circumstances one is in.
Nice script, nice editing, nice delivery - quite entertaining!
Very entertaining and it is definitely nice to see this pointed out considering the image entertainment almost always give to the most intelligent characters. :) Thank you. :)