[ SECRET POST #2549 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2549 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Perry Mason]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Johnny Weir / Thor fandom]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Swedish Chef/Gordon Ramsay]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Hannibal]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Big Bang Theory]


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Lion King]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Billy Madison / Happy Gilmore]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Caitlin Moran, Sherlock]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Tales of Vesperia]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 021 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, I cannot speak for this character because I don't watch this show. However, it's theorized that there are nine types of intelligence that can be measured. Someone can be considered a genius in any of these types of intelligence depending on how high they rate in it. For example, even though Ludwig van Beethoven might get a low score on the math or writing section if he took the SATs, he is most definitely a genius when it comes to Musical Rhythmic Intelligence. Likewise, Tiger Woods is a genius when it comes to Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence. Geniuses are basically defined on being able to accomplish things that the average human being cannot, and also did not show signs of being skilled in at an early age.

Someone who is above average in any of these intelligence doesn't have to reach genius level to be considered smart in them. As long as you're above average in any of these types of intelligence, you are considered smart. This is because you possess a skill that the average person does not. The more we study people and all they can accomplish, these types of intelligence are becoming clearer to define and understand. So a preference for the orthodox version of what was defined as "smart" is being viewed as more hackneyed as time goes on.

Here's a summary on the different types of intelligence if anyone's interested: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/education/ed_mi_overview.html

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, what I don't like about BBT is that Leonard and the guys mock her for not being up on the hard science stuff, whereas she has waaaaay more social intelligence than they do.

[(Anonymous)]

But... isn't that the whole point? I haven't watched the show in years, but I thought that was exactly what they were saying. That Leonard & co. are book-smart but severely lacking in knowledge outside of science/science fiction (and other "geeky" things), and that Penny was street-smart and had a lot of general knowledge/was more physically apt/etc. than they are, though she lacks general book smarts. Which is what made it funny (or "funny") to see them criticize each other, because their own flaws are all glaringly obvious.

[(Anonymous)]

That's what I always thought. It is something of a culture clash between the book smart but seriously lacking in common sense or pop cultural knowledge geeks/nerds and the street smart/knows pop culture but not very knowledgeable about book learning Penny.

[(Anonymous)]

LMAO social intelligence is just a way for stupid people to feel better about themselves. The "different types of intelligence" is a theory, yes. but doesn't have enough hard evidence.

[(Anonymous)]

I highly doubt you could produce the work that Hans Zimmer can or win a gold medal by the age of 13 like Fu Mingxia. Your refusal to acknowledge the talents of others because you want to be a special snowflake who is smarter than all the dummies is laughable.

[(Anonymous)]

The teaching and engineering colleges at my university would like to disagree with your ill-informed statement.

[jaybie_jarrett]

Pshh. Take it for someone who is seriously lacking in the "social intelligence" department, it is important. When I was younger, (and sometimes still now) I had a bunch of "booksmarts" about English, and a very huge vocabulary and I could read a huge book in the space of an afternoon.

But because I had little to no understanding of how to interact with people my own age, I still came across as being stupid or at least naive. A person who knows how to interact with their peers and has a lot of social "street smarts" may not know a bunch of SAT words or know how to break down a story into plot structure....but they would still be able to succeed when dealing with people.

Neither of us is stupid.

(sorry if I came across as braggy)

[(Anonymous)]

Well, you for one sound like plenty of evidence of what is it like to lack social intelligence...

[(Anonymous)]

LOL WHUT.

"Social intelligence" is a real thing, and it has a lot of applications. There's the observation, which can feed into skillsets needed for everything from writing/humanities to philosophy to social sciences, and there's the application, which can be used for public speaking, teaching, communications, politics, or any number of careers that require networking or presentation. I find it baffling that having the ability to observe and/or navigate social settings is for "stupid people". And you will not get far without it, because your ability to do the work, even very stereotypically "solitary" work like programming, is only going to get you so far if you cannot *communicate* about the work you do. And, frankly, people who do fit this stereotype of the obsessive, antisocial geek rely upon others who are able to communicate *for* them or *to* them in ways particular to their needs and the needs of those in their network. That is social intelligence, and that shit is valuable; we all depend on it in some way or another, whether or not we have it. Sheesh.

[(Anonymous)]

"whereas she has waaaaay more social intelligence than they do."

I really question that. I know that ostensibly, the premise of the show is that the guys are book-smart whereas Penny has common sense and good interpersonal skills. We, the audience, are told again and again that this is the whole premise of the show.
I really do not believe that Penny has these much-lauded social skills, or if she does, then the show doesn't do a good job of demonstrating it to us.

She deals with conflict by kicking or punching people, she can't support herself without asking Leonard or Sheldon for a large loan, she hates her job but seemingly puts little effort into improving her situation, and she appears to have no close friends or confidantes. She has groups of people who come over to watch a ballgame and drink, but we never see her having meaningful one-on-one interaction with a close friend, at least not in the earlier seasons. She also appears to have no real hobbies or interests, or curiosity.

This show keeps telling us that Penny is the psychologically normal one, but what we're shown is that she's rude, angry, lazy, and aggressive. She seems barely able to perform the basic functions of everyday life: paying bills, buying her own food, cleaning her apartment.

She knowingly and unapologetically mooches off the guys. She also sends them to do her dirty work for her (retrieving her stuff from an ex-boyfriend, et cetera.)
I'm not trolling, and I'm not hating on the character just for the sake of hating. I'm not a hardcore BBT fan; I have no horse in this race. But something about this character's portrayal has always seemed "off", to me. I'm female, and I have never related to Penny, nor does she resemble any other young woman that I've met, in her behaviors and reactions.

The four young men are eccentric and neurotic, yes, but they are also tremendously accomplished and successful. You don't reach that level of achievement by being a total screw-up. And yet, we are asked to believe that *they* are the pathetic losers who need to "get a life"?

Drinking and fighting is more "normal" than playing chess or flying kites? That's pretty sad.

The guys are neurotic and have their share of personal problems, which are exaggerated for the sake of comedy, but Penny's the only one who is *dysfunctional*, or close to it. She has very little room to be criticizing them or looking down on them.

She is not a sympathetic character, to me. Watching Star Trek doesn't make you a loser, being irresponsible does. Lacking an interest in high-level math and science doesn't mean you're stupid, but I see very little evidence of Penny's "emotional intelligence."

Penny is a female Kramer, the slacker neighbor who comes wandering into the apartment uninvited, eats your food, and disrupts everything.

[(Anonymous)]

I think she does have more social intelligence in the terms and understanding of the show. But I think what social intelligence pretty much amounts to in the world of BBT is "ability to get laid w/ conventionally attractive partners". So most of her social intelligence comes down to the fact that she's pretty.

I don't agree with that view, but I honestly think that's the internal logic of Big Bang Theory - when they say that Penny has social intelligence, they mean that she's pretty and normal. The guys are not conventionally attractive, and they care about weird things, so they're losers with no social intelligence. QED (in the logic of the show).

[(Anonymous)]

Ahhh, thank you. I've had a difficult time putting my finger on exactly why Penny's character never really gelled with me and why it just seemed... off. You explained it a lot better. :)

[crunchysunrises]

I liked Penny's character in the very earliest part of the show, when she is capable, not particularly violent, and polite but kind of bemused by her neighbors.

Originally, she's shown to save money (having about 2-3K in her bank account as a cushion), mentions that she's been able to rebuild engines since her early teen years, and can assemble her own furniture. She's self-sufficient and takes that seriously, her terrible decision to loan her ex-boyfriend money notwithstanding. She takes acting classes to improve her craft (which is curiosity/dedication, even if she lacks natural talent) and is shown having long phone conversations with friends (that make Sheldon irritable with their inanity.) Her apartment is disorganized but not unclean. And yeah, she is used to using her looks to get her way but it comes across more as a thoughtless flaw than the ginormous horror that it becomes later.

The problem is that such a person wouldn't need the main characters, much less put up with their nonsense. And, for whatever reason, TBBT requires its female characters to desperately need the for male nerds. With the exception of Leslie Winkle, who gets written out anyway, every woman that the guys have a relationship with - regardless of the nature of the relationship itself - ends up having to organize her life around the four male nerds.

So they tossed out most of the more interesting (and less irritating) parts of Penny's initial characterization, replaced it with alcoholism, apathy, and sleeping around and, as you said, eventually "evolved" the character into a violent, female version of Kramer.

So while I certainly don't like Penny as she is, I like the idea of her initial character design. Original!Penny could probably survive a zombie apocalypse. Later!Penny would probably let the zombies eat her to get it over with.

[(Anonymous)]

And she mocks them for that just as well. So it's pretty even, and the audience has the jokes to laugh about.

[(Anonymous)]

Aghhh, "different types of intelligence" is such bullshit study and research. Just a fancy way of trying to sell "everyone is special in their own way."

[(Anonymous)]

So...how would you explain people having different kinds of intelligence? No one can be a genius at absolutely everything.

No two people are alike; everyone IS special in their own way. So...?

[(Anonymous)]

"Everyone is special in their own way" - that's cute, but not everyone is smart. (and that's okay)

I'd say that "kinds of intelligences" such as artistic ability, athletic ability and musical ability are not actually intelligences, but skills or abilities. And that real intelligence is overwhelmingly interrelated by field. It's a wishy-washy theory, with little evidence and bad research. It exists as a philosophy in, I suppose, equality, but not reflective of intellectual aptitude.

[(Anonymous)]

It's accepted as fact in at least two colleges at my university - the engineering and education colleges at my undergrad. And yeah, it ranks highly within the U.S. universities.

Perhaps you should look at the research (and not just that PBS link) before commenting.

[(Anonymous)]

Uhh, I do know about the theory. And the criticism of multiple intelligence theory is enormous.

One: There is a huge correlation between different "intelligences", unlike what the guy who invented the theory theorized. Smart people are generally just smart in every field of real intellect, "general intelligence" is far more evidence-supported. Evidence suggests that smart people are good at math, and science, and history, and have good vocabs, not just one.

Two: The guy who made the theory tries to redefine intelligence to mean "ability". The theory would call athleticism or "motor skills" or artistic aptitude intelligence. That is wishy-washy and, pardon me, stupid.

Three: His tests have been equally wishy-washy and subjective.

Of course lots of schools love this stuff - "everyone is special" theories are in fashion. That doesn't make them right, or evidence supported.

AYRT

[(Anonymous)]

Except...not everyone can qualify as a genius or even smart? As all theories go, it needs more research before it can be law. But the facts are there to support it. And hell, even though I got into college at an early age and could read and understand physics books by the age of eight, I won't pretend to be a musical genius like Beethoven was or think that his work can be created so easily.

You seem a little mad by the way your first sentenced is phrased. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. :/

Re: AYRT

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, I have a tendency to be really snarky and direct with anon comments - don't mean to come off as rude or angry. My disdain was fully reserved for the theory, which I disagree with, not your comment or you at all. In the end, I think, most of it probably comes down to how you want to define intelligence.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, as one person above pointed out - this is pretty false. Everyone does have a different type of intelligence. I define 'intelligence' as an instinct to achieve in different areas thus someone who is technically inclined does not have to rock at languages (after all, there are many people who suck at voicing their own ideas).

As a personal example - yup, my social intelligence sucks - I learn it all automatically, but I have no instinct towards it. I might know what to do in a situation because I'm repeating what I memorised but it doesn't come naturally to me. I'm an ace in languages and have a natural predisposition towards those ... however I don't have any ambition in this field. I love technological stuff, however you wouldn't say I posses any intelligence in this field - same as with social stuff - really harsh learning.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, I think the theory is absolutely flawed, but I don't think the general understanding that different people excel at different things or different combinations at things (and some moreso than others) is really that faulty a premise.

Though I never read it as "we're all special in our own way" as much as "listen, some people are good at things you would find impossible, and that doesn't make either of you lesser/greater than the other".