Removed

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Epitome]

Its the Media man, they are concerned with mass appeal and selling stuff. A Negative portrayal by media terms is one which lowers ratings. They have no reason to care about misrepresentation because the intelligent thing for them to do is to abuse stereotype and stay in the boundaries of convention. Not going to shatter any public perceptions but it will generate profits.
You could argue that their portrayal is unfair, but its the act of the minority challenging the minority. (btw im arrogant and believe most of the general populus to be less-than-intelligent)

On the subject of what the nature of intelligence is i dont classify recollection to be a definitive characteristic of intelligence. My calculator can recall things its not smart. Inellegence as i see it is an umbrella term for several differant thinks. The ability to learn (not at astronomical speed either) if you study quantum mechanics for a decade and wrap your head around a portion of it i would consider that intelligent, Also the ability to engage in debate and more importantly to learn from it i.e believing there is no God is cool, refusing to listen to those that do because your theory is differant is'nt.

Edit: To say what im trying to say more simply I would consider intelligence to be the ability and willingness to learn

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Mr Media Man doesn't "get" intelligence. In the same way he doesn't "get" Science Fiction, The Internet, Memes, Black Humour or a number of other things that are "Nerdy".

So, he goes to Google and types in his keyword, presses "I feel lucky" and copy/pastes what he finds.

But he adds a cute woman just in case.

Then they cut/paste in the usual "fish out of water" script, and look for specific points to insert "intelligence".

ANTI-WATER CHARACTERS: Oh no, we've ran into [UNREALISTIC SITUATION] and we don't know how to fix it.
FISH CHARACTER : [INSERT FISH CHARACTERISTIC HERE]
ANTI-WATER CHARACTERS: Wow, that's so insightful, [FISH CHARACTER]. You've made us look at [UNREALISTIC SITUATION] in a totally new way.
FISH CHARACTER : Will you like me now?
ANTI-WATER CHARACTERS : As if!

Everyone laughs.

See also Forrest Gump, Rainman, Police Academy 2-10 and most Sitcoms.

Unless it's a woman, then she just takes off her glasses, lets down her hair and is suddenly stunningly attractive, at which point she is swept up by the Evil Corporate and giggles airheadedly as her brains were obviously holding her back from being a "real woman".

And the worst thing is that these get held up as Oscar Nominees for their "realistic portrayal of a downtrodden group", which then gets forgotten about.

This then gets exaggerated by the Internet Hate Machine which churns the fans into fanbois/grrls, gets it cancelled, floods the 'net with petitions and then gets it brought back with a "Edgier" new look. Which the fans hate and proves to Mr Media Man that he was right in the first place, who goes back to making films of men getting hit in the crotch by a football.

Bitter, moi?

 

[JacobCO]

Really, to understand the "use" of intelligence in humorous programs, one simply has to look at the "Serious" television (Say, the news)

Take Fox for example, that channel is so heavily saturated with anti-intellectualism (Glen Beck, Bill O'RLY) that they almost seem to be pushing some kind of agenda...

Intelligence, real intelligence anyway, scares the vast majority of Americans. Look at how intellectual individuals are portrayed, as ludicrously quirky, nerdy, etc (Bones, Goren of CSI) or as outright arseholes (Dexter, House). Ultimately, in any show, an "Intelligent" character will be hopelessly, and often unrealistically, flawed, in order to make them less threatening to Joe "Can I get drunk off of rubbing alcohol?" Six-Pack.

Futurama said it best, TV Viewers don't want to be challenged, any change from the norm is "Strange and Scary" to them.

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Unfortunately, people don't tend to appreciate the wide variety of kinds of intelligence. The bloke sitting next to you may not be able to find Tibet on a map, but he can tell you what's wrong with your engine just by listening to it. Don't tell me he's not smart. The traditional "book learning" model of intelligence is the one that most people hold up as being a hallmark of "brains" and therein lies much of the problem. The vast majority of the population is of average intelligence. They're not geniuses, they're not dumb, they're just ordinary, but they're at least bright enough to recognize when someone is "smarter" than they are (or at least has more book learning). And they tend not to like it, it makes them feel inferior, and so they tend to react negatively to it. (These are, of course, broad generalizations.) So let's all make fun of the brainiacs together so we feel good about being ordinary. Ha ha ha.

But let's be honest about something -- the stereotype of the superbrainbox who can't function in society didn't just come out of thin air.

 

[Labyrinth]

*Snip*

You're so cute when you get cynical. Coochi-coo.

I don't think anything gets a fair portrayal in media. It's like using a fish-eye lens to measure straight lines. Intelligence is one of those things that the media often fears portraying in certain ways because it talks down to the audience so much. If it's a woman, she'll be beautiful so they're too busy oggling her, or being jealous of her looks, to give a damn about her mental capacity. If it's a man he'll be geeky lest he make the Alpha Males scowl for being too attractive.

Intelligence is comprised of a whole raft of different things, from the ability to solve complex mathematics, to art, to linguistics and a keen knowledge of the physical surrounds of ones body. IQ, I feel anyway, is a limited measure of these.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The reason I picked intelligence to be my example is because, well, us Escapists proud ourselves for being intelligent and so I thought it to be a good example.

This is the first error of judgement. Whoops, that was a bit harsh There's no evidence to believe that we members are any more intelligent than the vast majority. In fact if you took any group of people, they'd say they have above average intelligence.

The question I'd like to discuss exactly how this system works though, but how it changes things.

Frankly it doesn't change things. Intelligence is far more fluid than a simple set of characteristics shared but is related to your ability to adapt to situations that you've not come across before.
For an example, who is the most intelligent member of the Simpson family?
I'd guess that a large amount of viewers would automatically say Lisa (or perhaps Professor Finklestein) and why? Because they've been Flanderized [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.Flanderization] to the Nth degree. Lisa and the Professor's main characteristic is societal outcast and that's what's linked to Intelligence.

So the portrayal of Intelligence is actually reinforcing the boundary against "their sort".

Even worse is the shoddy premise that Homer and Bart can't be intelligent because they're popular. And Marge is just seen as "The Home Keeper" when she's able to juggle all five's problems.

Hell, Maggie stays the hell out of the way and that shows intelligence.

So rather than allowing people to accept intelligence, they teach that intelligence is a crutch to social life. Which JUST ISN'T TRUE.

Whether you believe this skewed portrayal has negative effects and should be changed or whether it doesn't bother you at all.

Yes, it does bother me. You may be able to tell.

Of all the "intelligent" shows, even "intelligent" cartoons like Animaniacs (which self-references, parodies and is generally anarchic) have been pushed to the side to deal with LCD programming. The mere act of wanting to improve yourself mentally has been beaten out of us until they're ready to sell us back on Sudoku and Brain-Training.

Exactly as has been done with Mobile Phones, Ready Meals, Bottled Water and Reality TV.

"You don't need to do this because it's hard. Pay us to do it the easy way."

"Intelligence means you can't be social. Be stupid and have lots of friends."

Seriously. Read a book today. It's still basically free and it's not that hard.


I'll shut up soon I promise
I'd disagree with your perception of "The L Word" as well. I'd say it allows pr0n on TV under the heading of a serious drama, similar to Tipping The Velvet. Attitudes towards homosexuality have changed a lot more by homosexual people being more prevalently "out".

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Unfortunately, people don't tend to appreciate the wide variety of kinds of intelligence. The bloke sitting next to you may not be able to find Tibet on a map, but he can tell you what's wrong with your engine just by listening to it. Don't tell me he's not smart. The traditional "book learning" model of intelligence is the one that most people hold up as being a hallmark of "brains" and therein lies much of the problem. The vast majority of the population is of average intelligence. They're not geniuses, they're not dumb, they're just ordinary, but they're at least bright enough to recognize when someone is "smarter" than they are (or at least has more book learning). And they tend not to like it, it makes them feel inferior, and so they tend to react negatively to it. (These are, of course, broad generalizations.) So let's all make fun of the brainiacs together so we feel good about being ordinary. Ha ha ha.

But let's be honest about something -- the stereotype of the superbrainbox who can't function in society didn't just come out of thin air.

I am ready to recognise the skill and ability of anyone who can hear what's wrong with my car just by hearing it. That's a form of intelligence. So far however, while all the intelligent (dang I said it again. What I meant was what you called the people who have "book learning") people I've met are willing to give people credit for being able in a different field, most "avarage" people (who all have their talents and quirks and all that) don't like admitting that "intelligent" people are intelligent, as if it would make them inferior.

Very true. Because it does make them inferior -- but being inferior isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some people are taller than others, some more athletic, some better dancers, some are smarter. No matter what you're like, someone is almost assuredly better than you in some way. If people were more comfortable in their own skins, more confident in their own worth, they wouldn't care if someone was smarter than they were.

(Also, it's perhaps worth pointing out that "smarter" in practice usually means "better educated," which makes it all even more silly. Some folks get the benefit of an excellent education and some don't. Though I do find fault with those without even a desire to learn, I can't possibly knock someone for not having the advantage of a superior education. That stuff's damned expensive.)

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Epitome]

Very true. Because it does make them inferior -- but being inferior isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some people are taller than others, some more athletic, some better dancers, some are smarter. No matter what you're like, someone is almost assuredly better than you in some way. If people were more comfortable in their own skins, more confident in their own worth, they wouldn't care if someone was smarter than they were.

(Also, it's perhaps worth pointing out that "smarter" in practice usually means "better educated," which makes it all even more silly. Some folks get the benefit of an excellent education and some don't. Though I do find fault with those without even a desire to learn, I can't possibly knock someone for not having the advantage of a superior education. That stuff's damned expensive.)

On the better educated subject I do think its appaling that people who have such potential can see it squandered because they cant afford the thousands of dollars it would cost to give them the formal education they require. Unfortunately in my country while education is free until third level, that is you can go all they way to a Bsc Honors degree and the most you pay is a registration fee of 1500 euro a year because we had a housing bubble burst at the same time as the global economy hit recession our government finaces are doing so bad they are looking at reintroducing fees. Which of course with rising unemployment become doubley hard to pay and we risk a generation of talent squandered.


The problem I see with many people who do not wish to feel inferior to intelligent people is that professions are seriously geared towards the intelligent people. If you have an average man who is 6 foot 2 and a man wth an IQ of 130 its not hard to guess whos going to get the better paying job in majority of instances,short of the tall guy being a pro basketballer. Tv is food for the masses and most people are working class, they enjoy seeing the nerdy stereotypes because in real life those are the people who drive the fancy cars and work the cushy jobs in their eyes. Media man wont challenge this perception because its something the average Joe takes comfort in. (btw im from a working class family but i qualified in time for free fees so im hoping to graduate in two years with my Bsc)

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Actually, since I don't live in America nor have access to recent american tv-shows i was just mentioning the L-word since I heard of it.

Whoa mule whoa. You're using something as an example that you haven't even seen???

As for the rest, i gotta say you're moving on thin ice when mentioning The Simpsons since the show does not only feature comedy but also a fair dose of social criticism, so this portrayal could mean that they'd like to see it otherwise.

But they're one of the foremost promoters of it. Ned Flanders used to be just a nice guy, now he's the Bibley-Dibbly-Ibleyist. That's not social commentary, that's exaggeration for lulz.

I know. And if you check you'll notice I said I picked intelligence as an example because we proud ourselves

*twitch*
pride ourselves.

with being intelligent not because we are intelligent.

Who says we're not? I just said that everyone thinks they are.

I picked it because since we believe to be intelligent people would rather notice this than a thread about the portrayal of homosexuality or religion or video games or whatever (actually video games might have been a good idea too).

What would have been a good idea? The media portayal of N where N is a sub-group? That's a topic for a forum, not really a post.

I'm a bit confused about how you say it doesn't change things when you claim it would reinforce the boundary againt "their sort".

You're confused. I don't even say where I said that?

Maybe it's my fault for not being exactly clear, but I wanted to know how the system changes the way we see intelligent people, not so much how we see intelligence

Ok.

Slow down.

First of all, try and bring examples that you can compare and contrast.
Second, limit your scope to a general principle.
Thirdly, define your terms.
Forthly, "What do you think of this?" is an invitation for most of us to go "Buh?".

You've not even defined what "intelligent" people are and now you're saying it's not how we see this? I'm out 'til this starts making more sense.

 

[Xvito]

I think that Intelligence is a very fluffy word. Since there are a lot of different ways to interpret it; I always get confused when people are talking about it.

Oh, and for the record: I'm much smarter than everyone else.

PS. The Big Bang Theory is awesome!

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[El Poncho]

I guess there are some people who find it difficult to learn but want to learn and try there hardest to learn also, I will class these people as inteligent for the fact that they want to learn and I respect that.