• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why so much negativity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
200.gif


This is borderline trolling.
This is just poor logic. So poor it borders on trolling.

First of all, it's not anywhere near trolling, but falsely accusing people of trolling is trolling. So knock it off.

Second, anytime I see someone making appeals to "objectivity" when it comes to art/entertainment, it makes me laugh. It's ludicrous.

:lol:


People just like what the like and dislike what they dislike.

Can't we all accept this?

Have you lost your mind?!?!?!

;)
 
Nothing we do here represents the majority. It's art, not politics or science.

Broad sweeping generalizations don't make for good faith arguments.

The OP was asking a direct question about the broader trend of why the show gets so much intense negativity.

The person suggested that it is the trend that has continually existed to the 90s. And some directly stated that they were there they know.

This isn't the 1970s the narrative that art is subjective in the way people imagine art to be subjective is categorically not true.

A little bit of research into the work of people like Doctor Andrew D. Huberman, will conclusively show that people's reactions to visual stimuli with fit into certain behaviors.

There is no strong evidence that there is a separation between art and science. How someone experiences art can be radically different, but that doesn't mean it isn't grounded in very hard science.

Again if you quote science from the 1960s or 1970s that might hold up. But all the work of the last 5-10 years has completely circumvented that idea.

Subjective means people with ADD like Andrew Huberman/myself will experience things differently from people who do not.

If you're a person with ADD you're more inclined to seek out stimuli that'd create dopamine surges, flashing lights etc do this.

If you score low on some forms of reactive empathy you're not gonna be interested in peoples facial expressions when they act.

Those are subjective experiences.

Not noticing a persons facial expressions doesn't mean the actor does not have an objective talent for manipulating those expressions.

You can like something because of how your brain is constructed, and what you looking for when you watch something.

I love McDonald's, but that doesn't invalidate the science of nutrition.
 
This isn't the 1970s the narrative that art is subjective in the way people imagine art to be subjective is categorically not true.
By all means, please present evidence. Because the experience of art is highly subjective, as demonstrated repeatedly just in this small sample.

I love McDonald's, but that doesn't invalidate the science of nutrition.
No one said it does. However, in nutrition I can measure the impact. I cannot measure the impact of art in a objective fashion. It would be a qualitative study, at best. Highly subjective, and the generalization of such studies would be limited to the larger part of the population.
 
Supposed great works of art sometimes land with a complete thud to some viewers while other, more abstract and confusing pieces are very popular. I've seen realistic landscapes that get shrugs or polite nods while a Picasso gets unfiltered and lavish love.
 
All those TNG-era aliens with the weird coloring on their heads like the Kaelon or the Barkonians---all art?

Are those reused matte paintings of cities and starbases art?
 
Exactly. $7 million or more goes into each episode of DSC and you can tell the producers lavished a lot of time and love on creating their vision of Star Trek. Doesn't mean that episode isn't hot garbage.
 
By all means, please present evidence. Because the experience of art is highly subjective, as demonstrated repeatedly just in this small sample.
There's hundreds of hours of discussion about how our brain reacts to our environment done by Andrew D. Huberman, he is an American neuroscientist and tenured professor in the Department of Neurobiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, if you're a person who is curious, I promise you recent research might radically transform your world.

He's not the end all authority on the topic. But he has a direct connection to many of the worlds experts of the topic. What spofify/youtube podcast achieve is more along the lines of carl sagon, only he's getting text messages at the speed of light from the worlds top researches, instead of having to travel to and meet up with other experts.



No one said it does. However, in nutrition I can measure the impact. I cannot measure the impact of art in a objective fashion.

A) You need 1000s and 1000s work years worth of nutritional research to come to those conclusions.

B) One of the exact things the Huberman lab has does, very successfully, is do exactly that. Stick electrodes to your brains, and quantify your reactions.

What other researches have done at other ends of this research have developed abilities to do predictive testing, and where they can predict your reaction to this stimuli by simple filling out a questionnaire. Obviously there's a mountain of statistical calculations that go along with it. There are rates of error but there is also radically conclusive results.

Your eyes respond to flashing lights, shades colors, etc, to the point that a massive part of your thinking is, is directly what you see. In additional the tempo of a story, how fast it switches from event to event, narrative to narrative, is also relatively easy to notice.

Shows like discovery, objectively fill your brain with stimuli.

The reasons for this are not exclusively known to neuroscientists. Marketers etc are well aware of how flashing lights, fast transitions between narratives etc will trigger dopamine kicks.

They know that this behavior is most common in younger people. It is also highly tied to your environment i.e. how much time you spend on your phone etc.

This is all intentional as that demographic is where marketers make most of their money.

It's quite a conscious choice to throw other demographics out the window.






It would be a qualitative study, at best. Highly subjective, and the generalization of such studies would be limited to the larger part of the population.

Are we not talking about the larger parts of the population?

The OP isn't asking why you don't like it, he's looking why it has so much negativity, especially in contrast to other properties?

Do you think the Mandalorian has a line around the city of people hating it? I hate Disney with an intense passion, and it's impossible for me to say it wasn't the best sci fi I ever experienced it, while the sequels were the absolute worst.

EDIT: I ignored it for years, was more neutral on the concept of the show in either direction.

Watched it on a free trial and couldn't turn it off.

I introduced it to me wife is also instantly loved it, despite not being a fan of violence and all that.
 
Last edited:
There's hundreds of hours of discussion about how our brain reacts to our environment done by Andrew D. Huberman, he is an American neuroscientist and tenured professor in the Department of Neurobiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, if you're a person who is curious, I promise you recent research might radically transform your world.

He's not the end all authority on the topic. But he has a direct connection to many of the worlds experts of the topic. What spofify/youtube podcast achieve is more along the lines of carl sagon, only he's getting text messages at the speed of light from the worlds top researches, instead of having to travel to and meet up with other experts.





A) You need 1000s and 1000s work years worth of nutritional research to come to those conclusions.

B) One of the exact things the Huberman lab has does, very successfully, is do exactly that. Stick electrodes to your brains, and quantify your reactions.

What other researches have done at other ends of this research have developed abilities to do predictive testing, and where they can predict your reaction to this stimuli by simple filling out a questionnaire. Obviously there's a mountain of statistical calculations that go along with it. There are rates of error but there is also radically conclusive results.

Your eyes respond to flashing lights, shades colors, etc, to the point that a massive part of your thinking is, is directly what you see. In additional the tempo of a story, how fast it switches from event to event, narrative to narrative, is also relatively easy to notice.

Shows like discovery, objectively fill your brain with stimuli.

The reasons for this are not exclusively known to neuroscientists. Marketers etc are well aware of how flashing lights, fast transitions between narratives etc will trigger dopamine kicks.

They know that this behavior is most common in younger people. It is also highly tied to your environment i.e. how much time you spend on your phone etc.

This is all intentional as that demographic is where marketers make most of their money.

It's quite a conscious choice to throw other demographics out the window.








Are we not talking about the larger parts of the population?

The OP isn't asking why you don't like it, he's looking why it has so much negativity, especially in contrast to other properties?

Do you think the Mandalorian has a line around the city of people hating it? I hate Disney with an intense passion, and it's impossible for me to say it wasn't the best sci fi I ever experienced it, while the sequels were the absolute worst.
You are taking this too seriously, and you seem to be misconstruing some of what they are saying.
 
Exactly. $7 million or more goes into each episode of DSC and you can tell the producers lavished a lot of time and love on creating their vision of Star Trek. Doesn't mean that episode isn't hot garbage.
You're not gonna get me saying that Discovery isn't objectively stunning to look at.

You're not gonna hear me say that the actors themselves aren't for the most part objectively talented and likable.

EDIT: That isn't why it is hated, in part this is why it is hated.

It has so much unbelievable potential and yet it has such deep seeded flaws.
 
There's hundreds of hours of discussion about how our brain reacts to our environment done by Andrew D. Huberman, he is an American neuroscientist and tenured professor in the Department of Neurobiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, if you're a person who is curious, I promise you recent research might radically transform your world.
Do you have specifics relevant to this discussion to demonstrate this objective standard related to the topic at hand? If not, then sending me to do my own research doesn't prove anything. Art is subjective, and value taken from different shows is in no way comparable to nutrition science.
Do you think the Mandalorian has a line around the city of people hating it? I hate Disney with an intense passion, and it's impossible for me to say it wasn't the best sci fi I ever experienced it, while the sequels were the absolute worst.
Probably, yes. I don't like it much, and I know a couple of people who don't care for it, find it annoying or boring.

It's subjective.
 
I'm passionate about Star Trek to the point where I write fan films and have spent more than 20 years posting on a Star Trek message board. But I try to avoid going too overboard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top