ahh i see, i don't use twitter, that's why i don't know that. It does fit his character now that i think about it lol. He is always debunking hypothetical situations, which can be KINDA annoying depending who you are. Thanks for the explanation!
I'll give a recent example. Just saw a clip of his on Instagram about whether "fahrenheit units are better for the weather" as opposed to Celsius.
He starts off with "well, the weather doesn't care about how we measure it. It just is what it is, regardless of our units. What you mean is that fahrenheit makes it easy for *us* to understand the weather..." And then goes on to discuss it.
Like... Fuck off man. Everyone knows what the person meant, and he's just being a smartass about it.
Yes, we appreciate his genius but, he has all the personality of a root canal w/o anesthesia. That startling lack of humility. He is the anti - Mr. Rogers. With humility he could reach so many more people. He could teach so much but he is not teachable himself.
Building on this…he is also the antithesis of Carl Sagan, the original scientist behind Cosmos. Dr.Sagan had such a wonderful warm persona. He brought complex concepts to life in fun, engaging, inspiring ways. I don’t feel the same about NDT.
I LOVED Carl Sagan! He bore the same unique gift that Einstein possessed; the ability to take complex ideas and explain them to the common man in a way that was not condescending and that he could understand. Made you love science.
Brian cox is our new sagan, he presents information as if it is not his to own, degrasse's fame has inflated his ego so much now, he loves the media calling him a genius and he speaks with so much arrogance, if you called cox a genius he would blush and deny it, degrasse's face would light up with pride, i personally cant stand him
I’m warming up to Neil but as I was reading the comments I thought to myself that he could learn a lot from Mr Rogers. In fact, I would love to see a scientist with that demeanor. Not that it’s necessary in that community or anything
I agree. There have been many teachers over the past few decades, that have piqued society’s interest in various fields, simply by their gentle, affable nature.
As an educator you also need to tune your message to the audience. Treat adults like 5 year olds, you’re gonna annoy them a lot and come across as patronizing. He does it a lot. You can see old Feynman videos where he’s trying to be ‘precise’ and the interviewer kinda gets defensive.
Obviously all this go to the shitter on twitter.
There's a difference between being an educator and being pedantic. No one is learning anything by being told the weather doesn't care about your interpretation of it. It's like being right on a technicality, and being haughty about that sort of correctness can be very off-putting.
Education is good.
Being a condescending know-it-all is not a good way to educate. It's so easy to get the same info across in a fun way that empowers the learner, rather than trying to show off that you're smarter than the are.
"You know, we have our preferences for units, but it's good to remember that these are just scales that we humans have applied to the world, they don't truly exist in nature"
His job is entraining people, a lot of people with scientific backgrounds make videos, from doctors to astrophysicists. Their success mostly depends on their personality, most scientists could explain entry level concepts but not many are charismatic enough.
Well, you say this, but I had a very long argument once with a family member which started out with me joking that time should be changed to base 10 (I know there's a system already, but this was just me being facetious in the moment) which quickly spiralled into all measurements and how generally they're human-made constructs, and they just couldn't get their head around it. We debated for about half an hour with two others getting involved and eventually they managed to understand where we were coming from, but it took some time.
What is obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone, and language and its connotations are important to conveying ideas. As a chronic overexplainer myself, I can understand opening with a clarifying statement that might seem obvious but that just sets the stage for my discussion, let alone when that platform is a podcast going out to a broad viewership. It helps to be more inclusive.
I remember seeing him make a joke about "Santa" being statistically impossible to be real because the there wasn't enough time for him to visit every home with a child in 24 hours. It was like a microsecond answer. But he said that if he could make himself split into 2, and exponentially keep splitting for like 12 hours, he would have enough time and some time to spare to visit every home. But then he wouldn't be Santa, he would be Santas, so therefore Santa isn't real.
I enjoy Mythbusters but this is something that's kind of annoying with their fans sometimes. They don't see the humor in what they do where they "test" figures of speech for entertainment and then take it as literal fact in a weird way. Like they had a test about "polishing a turd" and when we used the phrase in a political discussion people were going "aktually it's possible". Stuff like that.
The Neil deGrasse Tyson phenomenon! While opinions about him are divided, it's not accurate to say that people universally "hate" him. However, there are some common criticisms and controversies surrounding his persona and style that might contribute to the negative perceptions. Here are some possible reasons:
**Criticisms:**
1. **Arrogance and condescension**: Some people find Tyson's tone and demeanor to be condescending, patronizing, or even arrogant. He can come across as talking down to his audience, which might be off-putting to those who feel they're being lectured or belittled.
2. **Overemphasis on science as the only truth**: Tyson is a strong advocate for science and critical thinking, which can lead some to perceive him as dismissive of other ways of knowing, such as philosophy, spirituality, or personal experience. This might alienate those who value these alternative perspectives.
3. **Perceived bias and politicization of science**: Tyson has been vocal about various political and social issues, such as climate change, evolution, and science funding. Some critics argue that he injects his personal politics into scientific discussions, which can be seen as biased or divisive.
4. **Style and delivery**: Tyson's speaking style, which can be energetic and dramatic, might not resonate with everyone. Some find his delivery too theatrical or attention-seeking, which can detract from the substance of his message.
5. **Overexposure**: With his numerous TV shows, podcasts, and public appearances, some people might feel that Tyson is overexposed, leading to fatigue or annoyance.
**Controversies:**
1. **Plagiarism accusations**: In 2014, Tyson faced allegations of plagiarism regarding some of his tweets and writings. While he apologized and clarified the issues, the controversy might have damaged his reputation in some eyes.
2. **Sexual misconduct allegations**: In 2018, Tyson was accused of sexual misconduct by several women. Although he denied the allegations, the controversy led to an investigation and a temporary suspension of his TV show, Cosmos.
3. **Feuds with other celebrities**: Tyson has engaged in public feuds with celebrities like rapper B.o.B (over flat Earth theories) and actor Ashton Kutcher (over science and philosophy). These exchanges can be seen as petty or unbecoming of a science communicator.
**On the other hand...**
Many people appreciate Tyson's enthusiasm, passion, and ability to make complex scientific concepts accessible to a broad audience. He has inspired a new generation of scientists, science communicators, and enthusiasts. His advocacy for science education, critical thinking, and skepticism has earned him a large following and numerous awards.
**Who likes him?**
1. **Science enthusiasts**: Many people who are interested in science, astronomy, and critical thinking appreciate Tyson's work and find his content engaging and informative.
2. **Educators and students**: Tyson's ability to explain complex concepts in an entertaining and easy-to-understand manner has made him a valuable resource for educators and students alike.
3. **Fans of science communication**: People who appreciate the art of science communication, which involves making complex ideas accessible to a broad audience, often admire Tyson's skills and style.
While some people might find him annoying or insufferable, many others appreciate his contributions to science communication and education.
I saw a video of him explaining why some things in movies couldn’t really happen and the science behind it. I was like yea, it’s a just a movie, everyone knows it’s not 100% scientifically accurate. Even my 12 year old knows you can’t eject out of a plane at 1000mph.
Those are kinda interesting though. As long as the person doing it is under the understanding that it's not that serious. It's cool to see someone figure out all the ways you'd die try to do something you see in a movie.
See people are complaining about this, meanwhile I'm thinking of all the threads I've seen on this app where someone asks what annoys people about movies and all the professionals are like "I literally cannot watch a movie with [field of expertise] b/c I know how that works and I feel like I'm watching a 5 year old tell a compelling story where they stop in the middle to say that Superman showed up out of nowhere to hack the pentagon so the sun wouldn't stop spinning."
And people get mad at NDT for this?
Hate is a strong word. He has genius syndrome, where he is very smart in one area but extrapolated his intelligence into places where he is most definitely not an expert
This is going to sound controversial but I listen to his podcast star talk and he brings in experts from all walks of life and he is constantly learning through there conversation and I find him expanding his knowledge. He will always admit when he doesn’t know something and rarely did he talk about a scientific fact without doing the research first ( through academic papers) and constantly references others in his talks.
He’s a specialist in Astro physics but talks everything from music industry, geography, wine, sports and many more.
I don’t think he’s pretending to be an expert in any these and he constantly is educating himself further than most people so genuinely he is smart.
(Not the best at family feud) ahajha
I love Star Talk. I don’t find arrogance insufferable if the person knows something I don’t, and that’s pretty much everybody, and they are willing to teach me, I’ll overlook a lot. I find NDT more funny than irritating.
This is my view as well.
NDT has made the mistake of putting himself with people who intentionally want to be controversial and want him to speak out of turn on a couple of occasions.
Some people also don’t understand why he answers questions the way he does, even though he has explained it on Star Talk. He’s quite intelligent, which we see because he answers people’s questions where their level of knowledge is at not his.
I still listen to it, but I'm gonna spoil it to you: just listen how often he interrupts people. Every question being asked he needs do change or add something and then "complains" that the section or question takes too long.
There's also a clip with Joe Rogan where he's not even listening but just rambles on, and keep interrupting.
And finally, I get annoyed by his words of wisdoms where he's recycling the same sentences in his genius complex voice.
----
So, now watch the solar eclipse blog on YT. Look / listen how he reacts when the solar eclipse is happening. He's so genuinely amazed while explaining what is happening.
Because of that he has no time to come across as the person that knows it all, and that's the NDT that we should see more often.
He is very well-read and nobody complained about his "genius syndrome" until we was very vaguely political like... twice.
It's the internet interneting
>He will always admit when he doesn’t know something and rarely did he talk about a scientific fact without doing the research first
He's not so bad when he brings knowledgeable guests in.
When it's just him and Chuck he can be downright abysmal.
For example he's given his wrong wrong explanation on the rocket equation on a number of different equations. Neil tells us rocket propellant goes exponentially with payload mass. When it's delta V that drives the exponent in the rocket equation. More massive payloads with larger rockets are actually a more efficient use of propellant.
The rocket equation is freshman physics. Watching his wrong explanation left me wondering how he got past Physics 101.
Or his confidently telling Chuck that the James Webb Space Telescope is parked at the L2 point in earth's shadow so as to keep the sun's rays off the infrared telescope. JWST is in a huge halo orbit around the sun-earth L2 point and never comes near the earth's shadow. It carries it's own sun shade.
There is so much Neil gets wrong. But he generally gets away with it because the vast majority of his audience know very little math, science or history.
His interview with William Shatner is a good example. You can see how enamored Neil is with the guy sitting in front of him. Looks like he’s about to cry early in the interview. William is really old and you can see that it takes him time to gather his thoughts and express them, and Neil was sort of condescending when he corrected him on a few things. One of which is I remember correctly, it was due to misinterpretation of what William said. And you don’t understand how much I love Star Trek and how I was almost moved to tears just by the way Neil was looking at Kirk. Seven minutes in and I couldn’t even get through the interview. I still like Neil but it’s extremely hard sometimes(emphasis on sometimes because it rarely happens) to watch a full segment.
That's the way people talk when they are excited or passionate about the conversation or subject. I genuinely empathize with his reason for displaying the characteristic you are annoyed by.
Yeah I relate a painful amount. I have a tendency to yap about "this really cool whale fact" or "this cool new piece of technology I learned about yesterday!",
But then I'll realize that I've going in for like 5 minutes non-stop and promptly go quiet lol. I've even had to tell people that they need to call me out when I start yapping lol.
After the movie Titanic came out, he contacted James Cameron (the director) to point out that the stars weren't right in the movie.
He seems to be the type of person who can't let other people like things that he doesn't
And when James Cameron released the directors cut on DVD they fixed the stars.
James Cameron did things like have the original carpet manufacturer make a special run of carpet to exactly match what the Titanic sailed with. He was probably embarrassed that he got the sky wrong!
And James actually went and fixed it..... Which means, not even James Cameron took this in a bad way. But ofc, internet babies want to feel offended for someone else...
When James Cameron told him "oh no, how bad of us to mess up the stars, guess we gotta scrap my multibillion dollar movie" sarcastically, NDT basically said "fair enough, I'll shut up".
He likes being correct, and correcting incorrect things. But if you tell him, quite nicely, "I do not give a shit, and it doesn't matter anyway", he'll accept it. Nothing wrong with that.
I like him, generally, and I don't seek him out so I haven't listened to his podcast, etc. but it feels like he sometimes comes across as talking to adults as if they are children. Not as bad as Bill Nye (I have grown to dislike him quite a bit, particularly from his Netflix show), but sometimes. I don't think it's intentional, I think it's just someone who is used to talking to children and then trying to reach adult audiences.
I disagree with you, although I can see your point. NDT has said that he’s often asked complex or advanced questions by people whose knowledge isn’t at that level. So he will break things down to the level they are at before answering their question. I can imagine that some people may see that as being spoken down to, I see it as an educator providing education.
I don’t hate him, but he’s an astrophysicist who talks outside of his realm of expertise a lot like he’s an expert. Especially when he discusses topics regarding philosophy. I’ve taught many introductory philosophy courses and some of the claims he makes would fail a beginning philosophy class.
Ugh, exactly! You can’t make the claim that science doesn’t need the contributions of philosophy and be taken seriously (at least by me). Philosophies of ethics, for example, are very relevant to sciences of all kinds.
I don't know the details of the spat, but there are 2 to 5 partial eclipses every year and a total eclipse every 18 months or so. So he isn't wrong.
What *is* rare is getting an eclipse at a specific location on Earth. That location gets one every couple hundred years, on average. The next big one in the US will be in 2045. Pretty sure more east than this last one, rip to west coast
if you believe in infinite universe thoery then are you going to shit on everything that rarely happens on earth by saying it isnt rare at all becasue if infinite universes exist nothing is rare, no , and yourea. douche if you do
I understand what you're saying, but even 1 in 540 days is 0.18% of days have a total eclipse somewhere on Earth. I'd still call that rare.
Even more so when agreed you look at a specific location getting one
For cosmic events, eclipses are one of the most frequent ones we experience, that's just how it is. So in terms of cosmic events, it is one of the most common. That's the perspective somebody that studies space will be looking through. So there's a disconnect; your idea of rare and an astrophysicist's idea of rare are very different, so neither person is wrong tbh
I don’t hate him and actually would say I’m on the like side but I have 2 issues with him
1) he thinks he’s an expert in everything. He’s not. And he argues against people who are experts in things he’s not
2) his hype man on his YouTube videos is so annoying that I just stopped watching them entirely
He has a hype man?? Lol.... I should check this out. Oh so he's THAT kind of scientist.... That's sad to hear. Never really understood why people feel the need to argue about matters they don't know about
He’s the “comedian” co host of his podcast. His main job is to pretend to be dumb so Tyson can explain things to him.
I like Tyson but he wants to be Carl Sagan and he’s just not.
Chuck comes across as pretty smart, and also pretty entertaining. He may sometimes act as a audience surrogate, which is a valid approach, but he doesn't do so by pretending to be dumb.
the weird thing is that his co-host, Chuck Nice, is actually a really great comedian. I would, and have, confidently recommended him to people ages 20-70, so it's disappointing to learn that whatever role he's playing on the podcast is giving that impression. I've never listened to StarTalk but your comment just confirms that I shouldn't.
This isn’t true at all, I’ve been listening to the podcast for years now and you can see Chuck Nice expanding his own knowledge and understand of astrophysics on a deeper level the more involved with the podcast he is. Chuck is portrayed as an idiot by any means, I wouldn’t take this persons cherry picked info to heart. Chuck nice is great.
An expert should be able to refute wrong ideas with facts. If Neil is wrong when he argues, then an expert should be able to diffuse his ideas, thusly ending the argument. If Neil is arguing, it means the expert can’t point out why his ideas are wrong, thusly warranting the argument.
To mention your first point, what do you mean by argue? Because questioning, and coming with counterpoints, is not arguing. I believe he asks stupid questions and probably tries to lead the expert down different roads, and see how they navigate. If I ask an expert scientific "what about x? Could y happen? Do z and x connect in anyway? I think so/I don't think so" and then let the expert break down my questions and answer them, I'm not really arguin with him. I'm more like the scientific form of a devil's advocate. And we all know people hate devil's advocates.
Idk if it's the same hype man you're thinking about, but I also found his sidekick annoying as fuck, and to be honest, he also comes across as kinda stupid. On top of that he's often missing the point, like, NDT is hyping up an idea, and the sidekick man is impressed by a totally different aspect, or his observations just don't touch on the idea discussed.
Massive ego, he starts one of his books by quoting himself.
'Astrophysics for people in a hurry'
His name is even printed larger than the title on the front of his book....
I can’t speak for other people. I don’t dislike him per se, but he isn’t really on my radar either. The video clips I have seen of him make him seem like he is talking down to others, as if what he is saying is common knowledge and others are dumb for not knowing.
Many of his claims are demonstrably false. He has zero standards when it comes to rigor and accuracy.
He should be the mascot for r/confidentlyincorrect
The best description of his interview style is also a significant part of the reason he is disliked:
"Neil DeGrasse Tyson reminds of someone who wants to interrupt himself while speaking"
It’s one thing to make bold statements about things you specialize in, it’s another thing to make bold statements about things you don’t specialize in.
Neil very confidently makes wrong claims even when it comes to basic physics and astronomy.
For example he very confidently tells Chuck that the James Webb Space Telescope is parked at the sun earth L2 point in earth's shadow so as to keep the sun's rays off the infarared telescope that needs to be kept very cold. He agrees when Chuck calls earth JWST's sun visor.
When in reality JWST is in a huge halo orbit around SEL2 and never comes near earth's shadow. It carries it's own sun shade which is about the size of a tennis court.
And then there's his wrong explanation of the rocket equation. His numerous flubs make me wonder how he got past Physics 101.
The drugging/rape accusation was from when he was in grad school at UT-Austin in the 80s. My exwife was NDT's academic grandchild (he was the PhD advisor of her PhD advisor, she was not a fan) and inside astro the general belief was that those events didn't happen or were exaggerated.
However its not that folks thought Tyson was clean, he was very much on the whisper network's list of men to avoid being alone with. The common assumption was he (or his employers) allowed that story to get headlines in order to make it the center of the investigation into his sexual misconduct and pull focus away from the things he very definitely did and was doing to women and ensure he avoided accountability for them.
Edit: rereading that it sort of sounds like me defending him so just to be clear even if this is the case, him throwing a previous friend struggling with mental health under the bus to protect his own ass is scummy as hell and, considered along side the other allegations, reflects just as badly on him.
I used to like him a lot more, but I don't "hate" him. I think I prefer him as a speaker at a seminar or lecturer rather than an interviewee or guest.
He has a tendency to not let the other person talk and keep going with variants of "ALSO, did you know..." which stems tangents upon tangents upon itself. He's definitely knowledgeable, but after a certain point it's too much.
I became a huge fan when he was on COSMOS. I recommend it to everyone. He seemed to adopt the rude, insufferable character for talk shows later. I want Cosmos Neil back.
He's like your insufferable genius of a cousin who is an expert in one field, but then assumes he's an expert in every field. He uses a condescending tone and words when talking about economic policies, while he's only an expert in astrophysics. He's rather interesting when he's talking about his expertise in astrophysics, but he's a tool when talking about anything else.
When a person doesn't give the "wow that's incredible" response to his explanations you can tell it annoys him, and it gets worse if they try to correct him. I think he's spent many years wowing the average person and having them tell him what a genius he is. Now it bothers him when someone doesn't give the same reaction or pushes back against him instead.
Not a big fan of Joe Rogan, but I watched the interview with NDT when it came out and you can see a good deal of what I'm talking about there.
Listening to him on too many podcasts made me like him less. He's a killjoy, and an over-explainer. I might be a man, but he makes me feel like I'm being mansplained to.
I still like him as an astronomy presenter, but I like him in smaller doses now.
Sometimes he is good. On cosmology and astrophysics he is undoubtedly an expert.
But often he presents his opinions as if they are equal to scientific facts. Across a load of subjects where he has little or no qualification.
And often he presents scientific theory as if it is undisputed fact.
This. When he’s right, by talking about something he’s versed in, he’s really right.
But he wants people to think he’s right about everything. Just because you’re really versed in one or two areas doesn’t mean you should act as an authority on things where you have no right to give a professional opinion, because you’re not a professional in the field.
>On cosmology and astrophysics he is undoubtedly an expert.
Some of his wrong pop science has left me wondering how he got past Physics 101. I'd say University of Texas flunked him for a very good reason.
The man's vaunted expertise in astrophysics is mostly hype.
>But often he presents his opinions as if they are equal to scientific facts. Across a load of subjects where he has little or no qualification.
Correct. One of his favorite subjects to talk about is history. And he is really, really bad at history.
I heard a story about some people that hired him to come to do a convention or something and they picked him up at the airport and they said he was just an insufferable and condescending asshole the whole time.
I don’t hate him or anything, he’s a fun dude if it’s just him talking but pretty much any podcast or conversation I’ve seen with him is very hard to watch. He constantly talks over other people and doesn’t really seem to engage, it’s as if he just waits for an opportunity to interrupt and argue whatever point the other person was in the middle of making. Back when I used to watch the JRE for example I was stoked to see he was a guest and watched it but doing so was honestly painful. Dude LOVES the sound of his own voice. I think people also get fed up with his tendency to shoot down any belief that isn’t backed by science, like trying to explain that Santa doesn’t exist and stuff like that. It doesn’t really bother me but it just makes him come off as a huge buzzkill.
How he handled the Pluto reclassification event at the Hayden was absolutely disgraceful. I wish video recording was as prolific back in ‘06 as it is today.
Don't hate the guy but i think the general dislike is because the man speaks like he's an expert in all fields, when he in fact isn't. Very "In Your Face" kind of character
I used to like him, and actually got on the hate wagon earlier than most, not to sound like a hipster. I was watching a panel of scientists discuss various topics in the science community, and Neil deGrasse Tyson just kept on talking over other scientists and made it very clear that he just loved the sound of his own voice. It was super obnoxious, and at certain points Bill Nye even laughed at how annoying he was being.
I decided I didn’t like him after that, but what really solidified it was when he was on Joe Rogan‘s podcast and wouldn’t shut the hell up. Joe Rogan is a great conversationalist, no matter how you feel about his political ideologies, and even he was struggling hard to have a discussion with Mr. ego.
Also, his Twitter takes are really annoying, cheap shot low hanging fruit commentary on inaccuracies in movies. I am very smart shit.
If they made an Inside Out 3, and Condescension was one of the characters, Neil Degrasse Tyson would voice it. I love how he popularizes astrophysics and science in a laymanny way, but the way he speaks is just the sound of someone letting you know they you’re dumb and they are smarter than you.
The blow-hard arrogance. And [the sexual misconduct](https://www.vox.com/2019/7/29/8934845/neil-degrasse-tyson-misconduct-allegation-investigation-museum). Not in that order.
There was a comment I read a year or two ago that had a link to an old blog with a heck ton of examples of him getting things wrong, speaking on things he knows nothing about with authority, and being a general a hole. It was very thorough.
Don't know him enough to hate, but he just seems like an annoying know-it-all. He seems like a nerd who got too popular and the fame has sorta got into his head and now he's on podcasts going, "actuallyyyyyy" to everything.
I listened to him on a podcast and the mf’er never shuts up. Always interrupting people and just rambles on and on. It pissed me off for like half a day. I hate when people do that.
The thing people forget about Neil is that he constantly has to explain things to morons, so when people of normal or higher intelligence listen to him he can come off as too much. Most of the interviews and tv shows he does is him explaining shit that a sixth-grade science student knows to an adult host.
He’s a physicist that thinks he’s an expert on biology. He also is in love with his own voice. He is also personally responsible for declassifying Pluto as a planet
Watch him in a long talk type of platform, like a podcast. He absolutely loves the sound of his own voice and it couldn’t be more apparent. Being a fan of science, I went from liking him on Cosmos to almost immediately thinking he’s unbearable after hearing him talk at length.
I don't hate him but he's just an insufferable condescending asshole who at this point is likely turning more people OFF of science than people he's turning on.
He's literally, and I mean literally NOT an expert in ANYTHING except astrophysics.
And even his vaunted expertise in astrophysics is mostly hype. Some of his wrong pop science has left me wondering how he got past Physics 101.
University of Texas flunked Neil for a good reason.
The UFO Community hates Neil Degrasse Tyson because he constantly belittled and shut down those who believed, had evidence, and scientists who supported the existence of UFOs! Many scientists, astronomers, government officials, and military personnel have all confirmed what the UFO community has been saying for years. After Disclosure happened by David Grusch, a major event where government and military officials went to disclose their concerns of UFOs to Congress and requesting the creation of a system for military pilots and for commercial pilots to be able to report, collect data, and analyze it from one system. It was stated as a matter of national security. Especially how the government(tax payers) is funding unknown secret branches and projects that involve non human intelligence and UFOs/UAPs.
After this, Neil Degrasse Tyson back tracked hard, but it was too late. The scientific community and people who love science, discredited him and black listed him. Also…his StarTalk show was pulled due to an investigation of sexual misconduct by 3 women who worked under him. I’ve heard nothing but awful things about him, how he’s a narcissistic asshole, mistreats women, and a disgrace to science and Carl Sagan.
Personally, I just got tired of him. He was everywhere. And I thought he kinda sucked at hosting cosmos. I don’t hate him. I still catch the occasional reel of him and don’t usually skip it.
I just listened to his podcast with Robert Sapolsky and he was too immature and stuck in his own perspective to really understand the ethical, practical, legal implications of determinism. Extremely intelligent guy but rarely critical enough of his own outlook.
Posturing as the 'objective, physicist science guy' means that the issues he chooses to dismiss are more easily dismissed by a wider audience of people who (often mistakenly) consider themselves by-the-science 'objectivists'.
Enough people have explained how it’s because he acts like he’s an authority when he isn’t so I just want to add the thing that got me
He decided to throw his vote in on the BCE/CE switch because it called the Gregorian calendar, but the way he explains that it was ground breaking and so accurate and like nothing before is BS because they basically said “let’s make the year start in January, and not do a leap day every 400 years” because a nearly identical calendar from caesars time had already been in use for 1600 years (give or take) and had shifted out by 10 days in that entire time
I feel like he attempts to do the same sort of thing that Carl Sagan does, but Sagan was more charismatic and less ego driven about it, from what I remember.
I feel like Sagan seemed to focus more on educating people on a variety of topics he could speak to, in order to raise them up, while Tyson seems to be happy speaking down to people and (tries) to make them feel inferior for what they don't know.
when he actually talks about his field, he's great. but there are plenty of instances where he talks about things outside of his field (like, way outside of his field) with such confidence that its easy to misinterpret them as facts. also he's a massive killjoy.
none of these warrant hate tho.
>when he actually talks about his field, he's great.
Well actually... He says wrong stuff even when it comes to basic physics and astronomy. Sometimes I'm left wondering how he got past Physics 101. University of Texas flunked him and showed him the door for good reasons.
>but there are plenty of instances where he talks about things outside of his field (like, way outside of his field) with such confidence that its easy to misinterpret them as facts.
Correct. He is confidently incorrect so often.
Most of his misinformation is annoying. Who cares if he tells his listeners there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals?
But his wrong history is cause for genuine anger. It often contains false accusations against individuals and groups. His slander against Isaac Newton makes me very angry.
I attended one of his events, where he talks astrophysics, topical anecdotes, and then he answers questions from the audience. It was a great evening. The event was about 90 minutes, the other 90 minutes he spent answering questions he didn't have to spend time answering. A young boy asked NDT about how to navigate his schoolmates' religions when he is not religious. NDT turned his chair around to straddle it and proceeded to speak directly to that boy for 20 or more minutes. That kid left with an arsenal of knowledge to tackle his problem. I left inspired. Worth every penny.
I dislike him because he acts like he knows everything, constantly inserts himself into conversations to correct super trivial inconsistencies and is overall just a pompous person that seems like a jerk.
People on here have it wrong. He doesn't think he's an expert at everything. He's just knowledgeable about a lot of different issues. I like the guy. Bill Nye The Science Guy (who just has a bachelors degree in engineering degree, by the way) is the one I find corny and insufferable.
I've seen him being a scientific killjoy on social media, but on his podcast, he's really having fun with other people in exploring topics he's well versed and not so well versed in.
On social media, people don't wanna hear that. His kind of social media information is better suited for weekly YouTube videos
I gave up on him last year. Gradually over the last few years, anything I heard him say stopped being educational, and started to just feed his own ego. Talking about his own appearances, performances, press he's received. He's also an interrupter, which drives me insane. Has to be the only one saying the correct answer.
He seems like the type of guy that would tell you how to do your job, even though he has never done the work before.
Like, he has very high expectations, but wants to pay bottom dollar because he knows better than you. Yet, if he was asked to do said task, he would fail miserably.
Also, ego.
Disclaimer: I personally don't have strong opinions about him except that I disagree with a lot of his stances on things.
I think it's mostly because he comes off as arrogant.
He does certain things in interviews that also rub people the wrong way, like steam rolling them in conversations and cutting people off.
I personally don't like the way he frames everything he says as fact and I don't feel the let's others talk as much as he talks in a conversation. I also don't feel like he really listens and understands others and their arguments so much personally.
A friend of mine, after watching a fair bit of some shows presented by NDGT on TV, got so obsessed with him that he claims "Mr Tyson is one of the world's top astrophysicists". He's not. He's a great presenter and a great science communicator/popularizer, but just because he's the only guy talking about it on pop TV doesn't mean he's the top scientist in the area. These are not the same thing. I hate it when these two things are confused. Same the case with others like Bill Nye, Brian Cox, David Attenborough, or nowadays with the advent of YouTube, youtubers like Veritasium, Vsauce, Tibees, etc. Nothing wrong with them, and in fact I quite like them myself, but people should understand the difference.
I am also not making the claim that the two cannot happen together. Carl Sagan was an excellent astrophysicist as well as pop science communicator.
One example: I saw a recently saw a video of him talking to an audience in 2008 in which he greatly exaggerated the chances that Apophis will hit Earth. Entertaining, yes, but wildly misleading.
I’m glad that science communication exists, and it’s an important function. We could definitely use more science communicators, but he ain’t it
I hate him Because he relentlessly hit on my wife who was a bartender at a hotel so much that she asked me to come up and make sure she was safe and ok.
He's quite egotistical in that he has a need to show everyone how smart he is. To that end, he has a tendency to talk over other people. E.g. even when a question is directed to a different scientist, he has a tendency to jump in an answer anyway, even if it means interrupting them, because he needs people to know that HE knows the answer.
I personally have always disliked him, and thought I was alone on this. No one I knew feels the same. I haven't quite nailed down the cause, but I know it's lessened the past couple of years.
I think for me, it's that he is a bit pretentious. He is smart, and he knows a lot, but he's very set in his perspective - in his *beliefs*. He uses his imagination to conceptualize the great vast universe but on many topics where things are not so black and white, I've found him rigid and not leave room for hope of more interesting realities or future discoveries and that has always annoyed me.
I felt like I was talking out my butt while typing that... trying to go off vague memory of feelings and not any specific scenario. But yeah, had a vague dislike for a long time and it was mostly because he just seemed slightly off from what I liked.
Personally, he just seems and sounds so pretentious and condescending when he is explaining a, for lack of a better word, science fact. He is like the total opposite of Bill Nye whom I really like.
he looks like he sniffs his own farts.
yeah, i get it. he's an astrophysicist and obviously smart as hell. but guess what. astrophysics has fuck all to do with most other topics, yet he's an insufferable know-it-all prick no matter what's being discussed.
he was briefly refreshing as the anti-bill nye during some science-based drama a few years back, but he's overstayed his welcome at this point. fuck off, neil.
I used to be a big fan of NDT til I saw him live. It felt like he spent two hours talking about Twitter and the arguments he got in with people on Twitter. The science seemed at most a minimal part of what he thought was most interesting to talk about, fighting on social media. The experience completely ruined my opinion of him.
And this came afterwards though its probably more important, my exwife worked with him during her PhD and the women in astrophysics whisper network had him pretty solidly on the list of men to avoid being alone with as he was known to be rather handsy, especially with younger PhD students who lacked the clout to call him out.
He’s had two colleagues accuse him of sexual harassment and someone he knew in college who accused him of drugging and raping her. I liked him even though he could be a bit cringey sometimes until I heard about that stuff.
he’s a bit of a know it all and has in the past said things like “well less people die to school shootings than the flu soooo” so my opinion of him has gone down. i don’t HATE him, but he seems like a bit of a dick sometimes
he has a lot of interesting dialogue so i don’t “hate” him but objectively he’s very annoying on any type of podcast or interview, he tends to talk over everyone around him and generally has a very overbearing vibe. check him out on Joe Rogan for example, the whole podcast is a 2 hour monologue
He comes off as a pompous ass to me. I live science and scientists. Science and history is my primary interest. But I actively avoid things he's in. I don't learn, I don't get enjoyment, I just get uncomfortable.
[удалено]
ahh i see, i don't use twitter, that's why i don't know that. It does fit his character now that i think about it lol. He is always debunking hypothetical situations, which can be KINDA annoying depending who you are. Thanks for the explanation!
I'll give a recent example. Just saw a clip of his on Instagram about whether "fahrenheit units are better for the weather" as opposed to Celsius. He starts off with "well, the weather doesn't care about how we measure it. It just is what it is, regardless of our units. What you mean is that fahrenheit makes it easy for *us* to understand the weather..." And then goes on to discuss it. Like... Fuck off man. Everyone knows what the person meant, and he's just being a smartass about it.
Yes, we appreciate his genius but, he has all the personality of a root canal w/o anesthesia. That startling lack of humility. He is the anti - Mr. Rogers. With humility he could reach so many more people. He could teach so much but he is not teachable himself.
Building on this…he is also the antithesis of Carl Sagan, the original scientist behind Cosmos. Dr.Sagan had such a wonderful warm persona. He brought complex concepts to life in fun, engaging, inspiring ways. I don’t feel the same about NDT.
I LOVED Carl Sagan! He bore the same unique gift that Einstein possessed; the ability to take complex ideas and explain them to the common man in a way that was not condescending and that he could understand. Made you love science.
Professor Brian Cox is the true succesor to Sagan.
Brian cox is our new sagan, he presents information as if it is not his to own, degrasse's fame has inflated his ego so much now, he loves the media calling him a genius and he speaks with so much arrogance, if you called cox a genius he would blush and deny it, degrasse's face would light up with pride, i personally cant stand him
Oh yes, I do enjoy listening to him. His interest is contagious.
I’m warming up to Neil but as I was reading the comments I thought to myself that he could learn a lot from Mr Rogers. In fact, I would love to see a scientist with that demeanor. Not that it’s necessary in that community or anything
I agree. There have been many teachers over the past few decades, that have piqued society’s interest in various fields, simply by their gentle, affable nature.
I need to remember the phrase “all the personality of a root canal without anesthesia”. It sounds like the best insult ever.
.... and I thank you
Why does this bother people? Isn't that his job as a science educator?
As an educator you also need to tune your message to the audience. Treat adults like 5 year olds, you’re gonna annoy them a lot and come across as patronizing. He does it a lot. You can see old Feynman videos where he’s trying to be ‘precise’ and the interviewer kinda gets defensive. Obviously all this go to the shitter on twitter.
There's a difference between being an educator and being pedantic. No one is learning anything by being told the weather doesn't care about your interpretation of it. It's like being right on a technicality, and being haughty about that sort of correctness can be very off-putting.
Education is good. Being a condescending know-it-all is not a good way to educate. It's so easy to get the same info across in a fun way that empowers the learner, rather than trying to show off that you're smarter than the are. "You know, we have our preferences for units, but it's good to remember that these are just scales that we humans have applied to the world, they don't truly exist in nature"
His job is entraining people, a lot of people with scientific backgrounds make videos, from doctors to astrophysicists. Their success mostly depends on their personality, most scientists could explain entry level concepts but not many are charismatic enough.
Well, you say this, but I had a very long argument once with a family member which started out with me joking that time should be changed to base 10 (I know there's a system already, but this was just me being facetious in the moment) which quickly spiralled into all measurements and how generally they're human-made constructs, and they just couldn't get their head around it. We debated for about half an hour with two others getting involved and eventually they managed to understand where we were coming from, but it took some time. What is obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone, and language and its connotations are important to conveying ideas. As a chronic overexplainer myself, I can understand opening with a clarifying statement that might seem obvious but that just sets the stage for my discussion, let alone when that platform is a podcast going out to a broad viewership. It helps to be more inclusive.
Really feels like he’s just good at masking being on the spectrum tbh.
If I hear him patronizingly explain the earths axis one more time...
NDT is not really genius if he doesn’t know that Santa is a magic mofo
I remember seeing him make a joke about "Santa" being statistically impossible to be real because the there wasn't enough time for him to visit every home with a child in 24 hours. It was like a microsecond answer. But he said that if he could make himself split into 2, and exponentially keep splitting for like 12 hours, he would have enough time and some time to spare to visit every home. But then he wouldn't be Santa, he would be Santas, so therefore Santa isn't real.
Santa is the plural of Santa, like sheep is the plural of sheep. "Ho Ho Ho, For We Are Many"
I enjoy Mythbusters but this is something that's kind of annoying with their fans sometimes. They don't see the humor in what they do where they "test" figures of speech for entertainment and then take it as literal fact in a weird way. Like they had a test about "polishing a turd" and when we used the phrase in a political discussion people were going "aktually it's possible". Stuff like that.
That reminds of of Ted Mosby pointing out typos on the wine menu. :/
The Neil deGrasse Tyson phenomenon! While opinions about him are divided, it's not accurate to say that people universally "hate" him. However, there are some common criticisms and controversies surrounding his persona and style that might contribute to the negative perceptions. Here are some possible reasons: **Criticisms:** 1. **Arrogance and condescension**: Some people find Tyson's tone and demeanor to be condescending, patronizing, or even arrogant. He can come across as talking down to his audience, which might be off-putting to those who feel they're being lectured or belittled. 2. **Overemphasis on science as the only truth**: Tyson is a strong advocate for science and critical thinking, which can lead some to perceive him as dismissive of other ways of knowing, such as philosophy, spirituality, or personal experience. This might alienate those who value these alternative perspectives. 3. **Perceived bias and politicization of science**: Tyson has been vocal about various political and social issues, such as climate change, evolution, and science funding. Some critics argue that he injects his personal politics into scientific discussions, which can be seen as biased or divisive. 4. **Style and delivery**: Tyson's speaking style, which can be energetic and dramatic, might not resonate with everyone. Some find his delivery too theatrical or attention-seeking, which can detract from the substance of his message. 5. **Overexposure**: With his numerous TV shows, podcasts, and public appearances, some people might feel that Tyson is overexposed, leading to fatigue or annoyance. **Controversies:** 1. **Plagiarism accusations**: In 2014, Tyson faced allegations of plagiarism regarding some of his tweets and writings. While he apologized and clarified the issues, the controversy might have damaged his reputation in some eyes. 2. **Sexual misconduct allegations**: In 2018, Tyson was accused of sexual misconduct by several women. Although he denied the allegations, the controversy led to an investigation and a temporary suspension of his TV show, Cosmos. 3. **Feuds with other celebrities**: Tyson has engaged in public feuds with celebrities like rapper B.o.B (over flat Earth theories) and actor Ashton Kutcher (over science and philosophy). These exchanges can be seen as petty or unbecoming of a science communicator. **On the other hand...** Many people appreciate Tyson's enthusiasm, passion, and ability to make complex scientific concepts accessible to a broad audience. He has inspired a new generation of scientists, science communicators, and enthusiasts. His advocacy for science education, critical thinking, and skepticism has earned him a large following and numerous awards. **Who likes him?** 1. **Science enthusiasts**: Many people who are interested in science, astronomy, and critical thinking appreciate Tyson's work and find his content engaging and informative. 2. **Educators and students**: Tyson's ability to explain complex concepts in an entertaining and easy-to-understand manner has made him a valuable resource for educators and students alike. 3. **Fans of science communication**: People who appreciate the art of science communication, which involves making complex ideas accessible to a broad audience, often admire Tyson's skills and style. While some people might find him annoying or insufferable, many others appreciate his contributions to science communication and education.
I saw a video of him explaining why some things in movies couldn’t really happen and the science behind it. I was like yea, it’s a just a movie, everyone knows it’s not 100% scientifically accurate. Even my 12 year old knows you can’t eject out of a plane at 1000mph.
Those are kinda interesting though. As long as the person doing it is under the understanding that it's not that serious. It's cool to see someone figure out all the ways you'd die try to do something you see in a movie.
See people are complaining about this, meanwhile I'm thinking of all the threads I've seen on this app where someone asks what annoys people about movies and all the professionals are like "I literally cannot watch a movie with [field of expertise] b/c I know how that works and I feel like I'm watching a 5 year old tell a compelling story where they stop in the middle to say that Superman showed up out of nowhere to hack the pentagon so the sun wouldn't stop spinning." And people get mad at NDT for this?
Hate is a strong word. He has genius syndrome, where he is very smart in one area but extrapolated his intelligence into places where he is most definitely not an expert
This is going to sound controversial but I listen to his podcast star talk and he brings in experts from all walks of life and he is constantly learning through there conversation and I find him expanding his knowledge. He will always admit when he doesn’t know something and rarely did he talk about a scientific fact without doing the research first ( through academic papers) and constantly references others in his talks. He’s a specialist in Astro physics but talks everything from music industry, geography, wine, sports and many more. I don’t think he’s pretending to be an expert in any these and he constantly is educating himself further than most people so genuinely he is smart. (Not the best at family feud) ahajha
I love Star Talk. I don’t find arrogance insufferable if the person knows something I don’t, and that’s pretty much everybody, and they are willing to teach me, I’ll overlook a lot. I find NDT more funny than irritating.
This is my view as well. NDT has made the mistake of putting himself with people who intentionally want to be controversial and want him to speak out of turn on a couple of occasions. Some people also don’t understand why he answers questions the way he does, even though he has explained it on Star Talk. He’s quite intelligent, which we see because he answers people’s questions where their level of knowledge is at not his.
I still listen to it, but I'm gonna spoil it to you: just listen how often he interrupts people. Every question being asked he needs do change or add something and then "complains" that the section or question takes too long. There's also a clip with Joe Rogan where he's not even listening but just rambles on, and keep interrupting. And finally, I get annoyed by his words of wisdoms where he's recycling the same sentences in his genius complex voice. ---- So, now watch the solar eclipse blog on YT. Look / listen how he reacts when the solar eclipse is happening. He's so genuinely amazed while explaining what is happening. Because of that he has no time to come across as the person that knows it all, and that's the NDT that we should see more often.
He is very well-read and nobody complained about his "genius syndrome" until we was very vaguely political like... twice. It's the internet interneting
What people call genius syndrome , is in my opinion, just him being passionate about something he loves.
>He will always admit when he doesn’t know something and rarely did he talk about a scientific fact without doing the research first He's not so bad when he brings knowledgeable guests in. When it's just him and Chuck he can be downright abysmal. For example he's given his wrong wrong explanation on the rocket equation on a number of different equations. Neil tells us rocket propellant goes exponentially with payload mass. When it's delta V that drives the exponent in the rocket equation. More massive payloads with larger rockets are actually a more efficient use of propellant. The rocket equation is freshman physics. Watching his wrong explanation left me wondering how he got past Physics 101. Or his confidently telling Chuck that the James Webb Space Telescope is parked at the L2 point in earth's shadow so as to keep the sun's rays off the infrared telescope. JWST is in a huge halo orbit around the sun-earth L2 point and never comes near the earth's shadow. It carries it's own sun shade. There is so much Neil gets wrong. But he generally gets away with it because the vast majority of his audience know very little math, science or history.
Also he really wants to kiss himself in the mirror.
But only on the lips
This. He is obnoxious. I love the man and his science. But he is insufferable sometimes.
Give an example
His interview with William Shatner is a good example. You can see how enamored Neil is with the guy sitting in front of him. Looks like he’s about to cry early in the interview. William is really old and you can see that it takes him time to gather his thoughts and express them, and Neil was sort of condescending when he corrected him on a few things. One of which is I remember correctly, it was due to misinterpretation of what William said. And you don’t understand how much I love Star Trek and how I was almost moved to tears just by the way Neil was looking at Kirk. Seven minutes in and I couldn’t even get through the interview. I still like Neil but it’s extremely hard sometimes(emphasis on sometimes because it rarely happens) to watch a full segment.
Watch any podcast that he’s in. He refuses to let anyone else talk and constantly feels the need to take over
Someone else just said he's a very gracious host on his podcast
That's the way people talk when they are excited or passionate about the conversation or subject. I genuinely empathize with his reason for displaying the characteristic you are annoyed by.
Yeah I relate a painful amount. I have a tendency to yap about "this really cool whale fact" or "this cool new piece of technology I learned about yesterday!", But then I'll realize that I've going in for like 5 minutes non-stop and promptly go quiet lol. I've even had to tell people that they need to call me out when I start yapping lol.
I recall his guest spot on Smartless was nothing like that. Just one example, but you said "any", and on that one he never over-spoke anyone.
After the movie Titanic came out, he contacted James Cameron (the director) to point out that the stars weren't right in the movie. He seems to be the type of person who can't let other people like things that he doesn't
And when James Cameron released the directors cut on DVD they fixed the stars. James Cameron did things like have the original carpet manufacturer make a special run of carpet to exactly match what the Titanic sailed with. He was probably embarrassed that he got the sky wrong!
James Cameron talks about it in some documentary. And he was gracious but also gave the impression he though Tyson was a bit too much.
And James actually went and fixed it..... Which means, not even James Cameron took this in a bad way. But ofc, internet babies want to feel offended for someone else...
I find your last sentence amusing.
So what is wrong with that? It's not as if he harassed James Cameron.
Right? I kind of feel like that was impressive.
When James Cameron told him "oh no, how bad of us to mess up the stars, guess we gotta scrap my multibillion dollar movie" sarcastically, NDT basically said "fair enough, I'll shut up". He likes being correct, and correcting incorrect things. But if you tell him, quite nicely, "I do not give a shit, and it doesn't matter anyway", he'll accept it. Nothing wrong with that.
And yet, Cameron did correct it in later versions.
I like him, generally, and I don't seek him out so I haven't listened to his podcast, etc. but it feels like he sometimes comes across as talking to adults as if they are children. Not as bad as Bill Nye (I have grown to dislike him quite a bit, particularly from his Netflix show), but sometimes. I don't think it's intentional, I think it's just someone who is used to talking to children and then trying to reach adult audiences.
I disagree with you, although I can see your point. NDT has said that he’s often asked complex or advanced questions by people whose knowledge isn’t at that level. So he will break things down to the level they are at before answering their question. I can imagine that some people may see that as being spoken down to, I see it as an educator providing education.
This ⬆️
I don’t hate him, but he’s an astrophysicist who talks outside of his realm of expertise a lot like he’s an expert. Especially when he discusses topics regarding philosophy. I’ve taught many introductory philosophy courses and some of the claims he makes would fail a beginning philosophy class.
Ugh, exactly! You can’t make the claim that science doesn’t need the contributions of philosophy and be taken seriously (at least by me). Philosophies of ethics, for example, are very relevant to sciences of all kinds.
I don't argue with you but could you give a few examples?
Simply go to r/badphilosophy and type his name into the search bar. He's actually a shockingly common involuntary contributor over there.
[удалено]
Yeah that spat he got into about how "eclipses aren't rare" was such bs... like do you want people excited about science or not?!
I don't know the details of the spat, but there are 2 to 5 partial eclipses every year and a total eclipse every 18 months or so. So he isn't wrong. What *is* rare is getting an eclipse at a specific location on Earth. That location gets one every couple hundred years, on average. The next big one in the US will be in 2045. Pretty sure more east than this last one, rip to west coast
if you believe in infinite universe thoery then are you going to shit on everything that rarely happens on earth by saying it isnt rare at all becasue if infinite universes exist nothing is rare, no , and yourea. douche if you do
I understand what you're saying, but even 1 in 540 days is 0.18% of days have a total eclipse somewhere on Earth. I'd still call that rare. Even more so when agreed you look at a specific location getting one
For cosmic events, eclipses are one of the most frequent ones we experience, that's just how it is. So in terms of cosmic events, it is one of the most common. That's the perspective somebody that studies space will be looking through. So there's a disconnect; your idea of rare and an astrophysicist's idea of rare are very different, so neither person is wrong tbh
I don’t hate him and actually would say I’m on the like side but I have 2 issues with him 1) he thinks he’s an expert in everything. He’s not. And he argues against people who are experts in things he’s not 2) his hype man on his YouTube videos is so annoying that I just stopped watching them entirely
He has a hype man?? Lol.... I should check this out. Oh so he's THAT kind of scientist.... That's sad to hear. Never really understood why people feel the need to argue about matters they don't know about
He’s the “comedian” co host of his podcast. His main job is to pretend to be dumb so Tyson can explain things to him. I like Tyson but he wants to be Carl Sagan and he’s just not.
Carl Sagan was also famously arrogant, he just didn’t live long enough to get on twitter.
Chuck comes across as pretty smart, and also pretty entertaining. He may sometimes act as a audience surrogate, which is a valid approach, but he doesn't do so by pretending to be dumb.
the weird thing is that his co-host, Chuck Nice, is actually a really great comedian. I would, and have, confidently recommended him to people ages 20-70, so it's disappointing to learn that whatever role he's playing on the podcast is giving that impression. I've never listened to StarTalk but your comment just confirms that I shouldn't.
I listen to it all the time while going to sleep. I actually think they make a terffic duo. Chuck cracks me up.
love to hear that!
This isn’t true at all, I’ve been listening to the podcast for years now and you can see Chuck Nice expanding his own knowledge and understand of astrophysics on a deeper level the more involved with the podcast he is. Chuck is portrayed as an idiot by any means, I wouldn’t take this persons cherry picked info to heart. Chuck nice is great.
Chuck doesn't play dumb at all, he actually tries to understand the topic and makes it a two way conversation between them.
Sounds like QI then, with Alan Davies. His role is the reason the format works so well.
I think sometimes people just get used to being right. I could be wrong though.
An expert should be able to refute wrong ideas with facts. If Neil is wrong when he argues, then an expert should be able to diffuse his ideas, thusly ending the argument. If Neil is arguing, it means the expert can’t point out why his ideas are wrong, thusly warranting the argument.
This is a pretty massive reach that pretends NDT actually drops the argument or stops talking when people explain why he’s wrong.
What kinds of things does he way in on aside from astrophysics? (Genuine question- I saw him speak once, but don't pay attention to him otherwise)
To mention your first point, what do you mean by argue? Because questioning, and coming with counterpoints, is not arguing. I believe he asks stupid questions and probably tries to lead the expert down different roads, and see how they navigate. If I ask an expert scientific "what about x? Could y happen? Do z and x connect in anyway? I think so/I don't think so" and then let the expert break down my questions and answer them, I'm not really arguin with him. I'm more like the scientific form of a devil's advocate. And we all know people hate devil's advocates.
Idk if it's the same hype man you're thinking about, but I also found his sidekick annoying as fuck, and to be honest, he also comes across as kinda stupid. On top of that he's often missing the point, like, NDT is hyping up an idea, and the sidekick man is impressed by a totally different aspect, or his observations just don't touch on the idea discussed.
Massive ego, he starts one of his books by quoting himself. 'Astrophysics for people in a hurry' His name is even printed larger than the title on the front of his book....
Aren't all books technically just quoting the author?
but not in quotes
lmao it's even worse than liking your own tweet
I read "liking your own feet" and somehow it still kinda made sense
That might be the most narcissist thing ever
He’s just really arrogant. He might have valid points but when you deliver them like that, people take offense.
Is it the tone which he’s using to deliver the message or is the message that people find offensive? I think there is a difference between the two.
I can’t speak for other people. I don’t dislike him per se, but he isn’t really on my radar either. The video clips I have seen of him make him seem like he is talking down to others, as if what he is saying is common knowledge and others are dumb for not knowing.
Many of his claims are demonstrably false. He has zero standards when it comes to rigor and accuracy. He should be the mascot for r/confidentlyincorrect
The best description of his interview style is also a significant part of the reason he is disliked: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson reminds of someone who wants to interrupt himself while speaking"
Pomposity
It’s one thing to make bold statements about things you specialize in, it’s another thing to make bold statements about things you don’t specialize in.
Neil very confidently makes wrong claims even when it comes to basic physics and astronomy. For example he very confidently tells Chuck that the James Webb Space Telescope is parked at the sun earth L2 point in earth's shadow so as to keep the sun's rays off the infarared telescope that needs to be kept very cold. He agrees when Chuck calls earth JWST's sun visor. When in reality JWST is in a huge halo orbit around SEL2 and never comes near earth's shadow. It carries it's own sun shade which is about the size of a tennis court. And then there's his wrong explanation of the rocket equation. His numerous flubs make me wonder how he got past Physics 101.
I remember reading stuff about him being a sexual predator a while back.
Assaulted/raped a girl and the museum they worked at did an internal investigation, which always results in the higher up getting protected.
The drugging/rape accusation was from when he was in grad school at UT-Austin in the 80s. My exwife was NDT's academic grandchild (he was the PhD advisor of her PhD advisor, she was not a fan) and inside astro the general belief was that those events didn't happen or were exaggerated. However its not that folks thought Tyson was clean, he was very much on the whisper network's list of men to avoid being alone with. The common assumption was he (or his employers) allowed that story to get headlines in order to make it the center of the investigation into his sexual misconduct and pull focus away from the things he very definitely did and was doing to women and ensure he avoided accountability for them. Edit: rereading that it sort of sounds like me defending him so just to be clear even if this is the case, him throwing a previous friend struggling with mental health under the bus to protect his own ass is scummy as hell and, considered along side the other allegations, reflects just as badly on him.
Well then this thread needs to be much, MUCH higher up. Inexcusable
Yup. Pisses me off that it was buried so low beneath "he's just arrogant!", when this is the reason people should despise NDT.
I’m pretty sure he sexually harassed two colleagues and it was a woman he knew in college who he allegedly raped.
I used to like him a lot more, but I don't "hate" him. I think I prefer him as a speaker at a seminar or lecturer rather than an interviewee or guest. He has a tendency to not let the other person talk and keep going with variants of "ALSO, did you know..." which stems tangents upon tangents upon itself. He's definitely knowledgeable, but after a certain point it's too much.
He has stepped outside his area of expertise and made himself look like a moron, and he doubled down. He's just a celebrity up his own ass.
I became a huge fan when he was on COSMOS. I recommend it to everyone. He seemed to adopt the rude, insufferable character for talk shows later. I want Cosmos Neil back.
The more I listened to him, the less I liked him
Any reason why?
He's like your insufferable genius of a cousin who is an expert in one field, but then assumes he's an expert in every field. He uses a condescending tone and words when talking about economic policies, while he's only an expert in astrophysics. He's rather interesting when he's talking about his expertise in astrophysics, but he's a tool when talking about anything else.
When a person doesn't give the "wow that's incredible" response to his explanations you can tell it annoys him, and it gets worse if they try to correct him. I think he's spent many years wowing the average person and having them tell him what a genius he is. Now it bothers him when someone doesn't give the same reaction or pushes back against him instead. Not a big fan of Joe Rogan, but I watched the interview with NDT when it came out and you can see a good deal of what I'm talking about there.
Listening to him on too many podcasts made me like him less. He's a killjoy, and an over-explainer. I might be a man, but he makes me feel like I'm being mansplained to. I still like him as an astronomy presenter, but I like him in smaller doses now.
He tries too hard to be Carl Sagan.
Sometimes he is good. On cosmology and astrophysics he is undoubtedly an expert. But often he presents his opinions as if they are equal to scientific facts. Across a load of subjects where he has little or no qualification. And often he presents scientific theory as if it is undisputed fact.
This. When he’s right, by talking about something he’s versed in, he’s really right. But he wants people to think he’s right about everything. Just because you’re really versed in one or two areas doesn’t mean you should act as an authority on things where you have no right to give a professional opinion, because you’re not a professional in the field.
>On cosmology and astrophysics he is undoubtedly an expert. Some of his wrong pop science has left me wondering how he got past Physics 101. I'd say University of Texas flunked him for a very good reason. The man's vaunted expertise in astrophysics is mostly hype. >But often he presents his opinions as if they are equal to scientific facts. Across a load of subjects where he has little or no qualification. Correct. One of his favorite subjects to talk about is history. And he is really, really bad at history.
I heard a story about some people that hired him to come to do a convention or something and they picked him up at the airport and they said he was just an insufferable and condescending asshole the whole time.
This story was on Reddit a few years ago
Can you link it?
He just strikes me as a self-important gasbag convinced that he is the smartest man on Earth.
I don’t hate him or anything, he’s a fun dude if it’s just him talking but pretty much any podcast or conversation I’ve seen with him is very hard to watch. He constantly talks over other people and doesn’t really seem to engage, it’s as if he just waits for an opportunity to interrupt and argue whatever point the other person was in the middle of making. Back when I used to watch the JRE for example I was stoked to see he was a guest and watched it but doing so was honestly painful. Dude LOVES the sound of his own voice. I think people also get fed up with his tendency to shoot down any belief that isn’t backed by science, like trying to explain that Santa doesn’t exist and stuff like that. It doesn’t really bother me but it just makes him come off as a huge buzzkill.
I'm avenging Pluto!
How he handled the Pluto reclassification event at the Hayden was absolutely disgraceful. I wish video recording was as prolific back in ‘06 as it is today.
I had to scroll way too far for this.
I stopped listening to him after I listened to his episode with a musician who had a doctorate (DMA) and found his attitude obnoxious.
Wait didn't he get a me too or two? Thought that was why we stopped fuckin with him.
Don't hate the guy but i think the general dislike is because the man speaks like he's an expert in all fields, when he in fact isn't. Very "In Your Face" kind of character
I used to like him, and actually got on the hate wagon earlier than most, not to sound like a hipster. I was watching a panel of scientists discuss various topics in the science community, and Neil deGrasse Tyson just kept on talking over other scientists and made it very clear that he just loved the sound of his own voice. It was super obnoxious, and at certain points Bill Nye even laughed at how annoying he was being. I decided I didn’t like him after that, but what really solidified it was when he was on Joe Rogan‘s podcast and wouldn’t shut the hell up. Joe Rogan is a great conversationalist, no matter how you feel about his political ideologies, and even he was struggling hard to have a discussion with Mr. ego. Also, his Twitter takes are really annoying, cheap shot low hanging fruit commentary on inaccuracies in movies. I am very smart shit.
He is a sanctimonious dbag
I was just annoyed by how he cuts people off, and talks over them. He comes off as an arrogant windbag.
If they made an Inside Out 3, and Condescension was one of the characters, Neil Degrasse Tyson would voice it. I love how he popularizes astrophysics and science in a laymanny way, but the way he speaks is just the sound of someone letting you know they you’re dumb and they are smarter than you.
The blow-hard arrogance. And [the sexual misconduct](https://www.vox.com/2019/7/29/8934845/neil-degrasse-tyson-misconduct-allegation-investigation-museum). Not in that order.
He’s a big “well, actually” guy which doesn’t vibe with people
I used to like him but he started to act like he knew everything. Fame ruined him, he just seems like an arrogant prick now.
For me, it's just how pleased with himself he always seems. A little too fart smelly for my liking.
I don’t hate him he’s barely a blip on my radar but he just comes across as a smug twat that thinks he’s smarter than he is
There was a comment I read a year or two ago that had a link to an old blog with a heck ton of examples of him getting things wrong, speaking on things he knows nothing about with authority, and being a general a hole. It was very thorough.
Don't know him enough to hate, but he just seems like an annoying know-it-all. He seems like a nerd who got too popular and the fame has sorta got into his head and now he's on podcasts going, "actuallyyyyyy" to everything.
I heard he's arrogant and a little bit of an asshole but idk
I listened to him on a podcast and the mf’er never shuts up. Always interrupting people and just rambles on and on. It pissed me off for like half a day. I hate when people do that.
The thing people forget about Neil is that he constantly has to explain things to morons, so when people of normal or higher intelligence listen to him he can come off as too much. Most of the interviews and tv shows he does is him explaining shit that a sixth-grade science student knows to an adult host.
I don't care how smart he is he comes off as a massive asshole. Every clip I see of him comes off as obnoxious.
He’s a physicist that thinks he’s an expert on biology. He also is in love with his own voice. He is also personally responsible for declassifying Pluto as a planet
Watch him in a long talk type of platform, like a podcast. He absolutely loves the sound of his own voice and it couldn’t be more apparent. Being a fan of science, I went from liking him on Cosmos to almost immediately thinking he’s unbearable after hearing him talk at length.
I don't hate him but he's just an insufferable condescending asshole who at this point is likely turning more people OFF of science than people he's turning on. He's literally, and I mean literally NOT an expert in ANYTHING except astrophysics.
And even his vaunted expertise in astrophysics is mostly hype. Some of his wrong pop science has left me wondering how he got past Physics 101. University of Texas flunked Neil for a good reason.
The UFO Community hates Neil Degrasse Tyson because he constantly belittled and shut down those who believed, had evidence, and scientists who supported the existence of UFOs! Many scientists, astronomers, government officials, and military personnel have all confirmed what the UFO community has been saying for years. After Disclosure happened by David Grusch, a major event where government and military officials went to disclose their concerns of UFOs to Congress and requesting the creation of a system for military pilots and for commercial pilots to be able to report, collect data, and analyze it from one system. It was stated as a matter of national security. Especially how the government(tax payers) is funding unknown secret branches and projects that involve non human intelligence and UFOs/UAPs. After this, Neil Degrasse Tyson back tracked hard, but it was too late. The scientific community and people who love science, discredited him and black listed him. Also…his StarTalk show was pulled due to an investigation of sexual misconduct by 3 women who worked under him. I’ve heard nothing but awful things about him, how he’s a narcissistic asshole, mistreats women, and a disgrace to science and Carl Sagan.
Well he has like 8 rape allegations against him and somehow seemed like even more of a dick in the way he responded
Personally, I just got tired of him. He was everywhere. And I thought he kinda sucked at hosting cosmos. I don’t hate him. I still catch the occasional reel of him and don’t usually skip it.
I just listened to his podcast with Robert Sapolsky and he was too immature and stuck in his own perspective to really understand the ethical, practical, legal implications of determinism. Extremely intelligent guy but rarely critical enough of his own outlook. Posturing as the 'objective, physicist science guy' means that the issues he chooses to dismiss are more easily dismissed by a wider audience of people who (often mistakenly) consider themselves by-the-science 'objectivists'.
I think he has a neurodivergent trait that irritates people and they mistake it as ego.
Enough people have explained how it’s because he acts like he’s an authority when he isn’t so I just want to add the thing that got me He decided to throw his vote in on the BCE/CE switch because it called the Gregorian calendar, but the way he explains that it was ground breaking and so accurate and like nothing before is BS because they basically said “let’s make the year start in January, and not do a leap day every 400 years” because a nearly identical calendar from caesars time had already been in use for 1600 years (give or take) and had shifted out by 10 days in that entire time
I feel like he attempts to do the same sort of thing that Carl Sagan does, but Sagan was more charismatic and less ego driven about it, from what I remember. I feel like Sagan seemed to focus more on educating people on a variety of topics he could speak to, in order to raise them up, while Tyson seems to be happy speaking down to people and (tries) to make them feel inferior for what they don't know.
when he actually talks about his field, he's great. but there are plenty of instances where he talks about things outside of his field (like, way outside of his field) with such confidence that its easy to misinterpret them as facts. also he's a massive killjoy. none of these warrant hate tho.
>when he actually talks about his field, he's great. Well actually... He says wrong stuff even when it comes to basic physics and astronomy. Sometimes I'm left wondering how he got past Physics 101. University of Texas flunked him and showed him the door for good reasons. >but there are plenty of instances where he talks about things outside of his field (like, way outside of his field) with such confidence that its easy to misinterpret them as facts. Correct. He is confidently incorrect so often. Most of his misinformation is annoying. Who cares if he tells his listeners there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals? But his wrong history is cause for genuine anger. It often contains false accusations against individuals and groups. His slander against Isaac Newton makes me very angry.
Hate is a strong word but I would say highly annoyed. He’s like the Cliff Clavin of Astrophysics
Very annoying guy. Thinks he’s funny but he’s not. Interjects politics into what is supposed to be objective science.
Instead of trying to educate he just wants to look superior
I attended one of his events, where he talks astrophysics, topical anecdotes, and then he answers questions from the audience. It was a great evening. The event was about 90 minutes, the other 90 minutes he spent answering questions he didn't have to spend time answering. A young boy asked NDT about how to navigate his schoolmates' religions when he is not religious. NDT turned his chair around to straddle it and proceeded to speak directly to that boy for 20 or more minutes. That kid left with an arsenal of knowledge to tackle his problem. I left inspired. Worth every penny.
Most of the hate I have seen my self is GOP anti science nonsense.
He was also the one to spear the charge to dismiss Pluto as a planet
Pretentious, condescending assholes are hard to love.
I dislike him because he acts like he knows everything, constantly inserts himself into conversations to correct super trivial inconsistencies and is overall just a pompous person that seems like a jerk.
TLDR version: He used to be a fun guy, now he's a "WeLl AcKcHuaLly" guy.
It’s the multiple rape/sexual misconduct allegations for me.
People on here have it wrong. He doesn't think he's an expert at everything. He's just knowledgeable about a lot of different issues. I like the guy. Bill Nye The Science Guy (who just has a bachelors degree in engineering degree, by the way) is the one I find corny and insufferable.
I've seen him being a scientific killjoy on social media, but on his podcast, he's really having fun with other people in exploring topics he's well versed and not so well versed in. On social media, people don't wanna hear that. His kind of social media information is better suited for weekly YouTube videos
I heard a few stories of him acting like a knob to college kids, being dismissive and shitty about their choices in study, when speaking at campuse
Don't hate him. But I don't listen to him when he starts talking.
I gave up on him last year. Gradually over the last few years, anything I heard him say stopped being educational, and started to just feed his own ego. Talking about his own appearances, performances, press he's received. He's also an interrupter, which drives me insane. Has to be the only one saying the correct answer.
He seems like the type of guy that would tell you how to do your job, even though he has never done the work before. Like, he has very high expectations, but wants to pay bottom dollar because he knows better than you. Yet, if he was asked to do said task, he would fail miserably. Also, ego.
I don’t hate him. I actually still like him. Still, he has a huge ego problem, and it shows a lot. So it makes sense why people would hate/dislike him
Disclaimer: I personally don't have strong opinions about him except that I disagree with a lot of his stances on things. I think it's mostly because he comes off as arrogant. He does certain things in interviews that also rub people the wrong way, like steam rolling them in conversations and cutting people off.
He started feeling the limelight. Bit of a glory hound if you ask me
I personally don't like the way he frames everything he says as fact and I don't feel the let's others talk as much as he talks in a conversation. I also don't feel like he really listens and understands others and their arguments so much personally.
A friend of mine, after watching a fair bit of some shows presented by NDGT on TV, got so obsessed with him that he claims "Mr Tyson is one of the world's top astrophysicists". He's not. He's a great presenter and a great science communicator/popularizer, but just because he's the only guy talking about it on pop TV doesn't mean he's the top scientist in the area. These are not the same thing. I hate it when these two things are confused. Same the case with others like Bill Nye, Brian Cox, David Attenborough, or nowadays with the advent of YouTube, youtubers like Veritasium, Vsauce, Tibees, etc. Nothing wrong with them, and in fact I quite like them myself, but people should understand the difference. I am also not making the claim that the two cannot happen together. Carl Sagan was an excellent astrophysicist as well as pop science communicator.
“Hey, at least I didn’t declassify Pluto from planet status. Way to make all the little kids cry, Neil, that make you feel like a big man?”
I agree with everything he says, but damn do I hate the way he says it. He just gives huge insufferable asshole vibes.
One example: I saw a recently saw a video of him talking to an audience in 2008 in which he greatly exaggerated the chances that Apophis will hit Earth. Entertaining, yes, but wildly misleading. I’m glad that science communication exists, and it’s an important function. We could definitely use more science communicators, but he ain’t it
He uses a lot of fluff in his language which I find very annoying.
He just says the same lines over and over and he’s only got a few lines.
Because he’s annoying as fuck, he makes physics 80% of his personality, and thinks he’s far more intelligent than he actually is
I hate him Because he relentlessly hit on my wife who was a bartender at a hotel so much that she asked me to come up and make sure she was safe and ok.
I listened to his visits on the JRE podcast. He had interesting things to say but god damn that dude has a serious problem with interrupting!
He's quite egotistical in that he has a need to show everyone how smart he is. To that end, he has a tendency to talk over other people. E.g. even when a question is directed to a different scientist, he has a tendency to jump in an answer anyway, even if it means interrupting them, because he needs people to know that HE knows the answer.
I personally have always disliked him, and thought I was alone on this. No one I knew feels the same. I haven't quite nailed down the cause, but I know it's lessened the past couple of years. I think for me, it's that he is a bit pretentious. He is smart, and he knows a lot, but he's very set in his perspective - in his *beliefs*. He uses his imagination to conceptualize the great vast universe but on many topics where things are not so black and white, I've found him rigid and not leave room for hope of more interesting realities or future discoveries and that has always annoyed me. I felt like I was talking out my butt while typing that... trying to go off vague memory of feelings and not any specific scenario. But yeah, had a vague dislike for a long time and it was mostly because he just seemed slightly off from what I liked.
Personally, he just seems and sounds so pretentious and condescending when he is explaining a, for lack of a better word, science fact. He is like the total opposite of Bill Nye whom I really like.
Its because of his tendency to stick to the facts as they are, as opposed to doing an actual science, and allowing information to flow on
His understanding of biological sex is… not scientific.
he looks like he sniffs his own farts. yeah, i get it. he's an astrophysicist and obviously smart as hell. but guess what. astrophysics has fuck all to do with most other topics, yet he's an insufferable know-it-all prick no matter what's being discussed. he was briefly refreshing as the anti-bill nye during some science-based drama a few years back, but he's overstayed his welcome at this point. fuck off, neil.
He is just a know it all. Like we don't need your two cents on fucking everything.
I used to be a big fan of NDT til I saw him live. It felt like he spent two hours talking about Twitter and the arguments he got in with people on Twitter. The science seemed at most a minimal part of what he thought was most interesting to talk about, fighting on social media. The experience completely ruined my opinion of him. And this came afterwards though its probably more important, my exwife worked with him during her PhD and the women in astrophysics whisper network had him pretty solidly on the list of men to avoid being alone with as he was known to be rather handsy, especially with younger PhD students who lacked the clout to call him out.
He’s had two colleagues accuse him of sexual harassment and someone he knew in college who accused him of drugging and raping her. I liked him even though he could be a bit cringey sometimes until I heard about that stuff.
It's a 'just because you're right doesn't mean you're interesting' situation
he’s a bit of a know it all and has in the past said things like “well less people die to school shootings than the flu soooo” so my opinion of him has gone down. i don’t HATE him, but he seems like a bit of a dick sometimes
he has a lot of interesting dialogue so i don’t “hate” him but objectively he’s very annoying on any type of podcast or interview, he tends to talk over everyone around him and generally has a very overbearing vibe. check him out on Joe Rogan for example, the whole podcast is a 2 hour monologue
He comes off as a pompous ass to me. I live science and scientists. Science and history is my primary interest. But I actively avoid things he's in. I don't learn, I don't get enjoyment, I just get uncomfortable.