Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 65 (click to see context) from:
* Referenced in the ''ComicStrip/FoxTrot'' arc where Andy becomes obsessed with the film ''Film/{{Titanic 1997}}'', to the point that Roger worries about her. Jason begins describing production trivia to her ("Did you know the scenes with everyone drowning was filmed in a heated indoor pool, and their foggy breath was added by computers?" and so on). Andy accuses Jason of trying to ruin her enjoyment of the film. The final panel has Jason telling Roger, "She's onto us. Do I still get paid?"
to:
* Referenced in the ''ComicStrip/FoxTrot'' arc where Andy becomes obsessed with the film ''Film/{{Titanic 1997}}'', ''Film/Titanic1997'', to the point that Roger worries about her. Jason begins describing production trivia to her ("Did you know the scenes with everyone drowning was filmed in a heated indoor pool, and their foggy breath was added by computers?" and so on). Andy accuses Jason of trying to ruin her enjoyment of the film. The final panel has Jason telling Roger, "She's onto us. Do I still get paid?"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
This may well be reverted, but I've removed everything in the real life section that isn't either an example or a subversion of an example. This is "measuring the marigolds makes them seem meaningless" not "measuring the marigolds is great actually". The Trope Page already mentions that real life experts tend not to think like this, we don't need the entire real life section to be about it.
Changed line(s) 321,344 (click to see context) from:
* Experts in real life frequently invert this trope. These people chose these fields in the first place because they feel intensely about them. You don't get rich researching science. It is, almost by necessity, a labor of love.
** Ask any scientist about their field of specialty, and the ''last'' thing you'll get is a robotically dull answer.
** Try asking a botanist about flowers, or an astronomer about galaxies.
** Ask a philosopher some questions and grab a seat. There are philosophers who debate with all the zeal of the most devoted {{Fan Wank}}er. Philosophy, (systematic) theology and other exercises of raw reason are often enlightening once you've grappled with a particular problem and, as it were, solved the riddle, or at least contributed towards understanding it more.
** Ask a ''mathematician'' about their work, aka "[[EverybodyHatesMathematics the dullest thing in existence]]", and you're likely to get a whole lot of enthusiasm and excitement.
--->'''Creator/BertrandRussell''', ''Study of Mathematics'': Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty, a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry.
--->'''Galileo Galilei:''' Philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes – I mean the universe – but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written. This book is written in the mathematical language... without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.
** Mathematics, pure mathematics, is as much an art as it is a science. Theorems are astoundingly beautiful if looked at the right way. The way high-school math is taught does not foster this perspective.
** The very concept of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty "mathematical beauty"]] not only {{defie|dTrope}}s this trope, but [[InvertedTrope turns it on its head]]. People who aren't mathematically minded miss out on the beauty of something like Euler's identity, e[[superscript:iπ]]+1=0.[[note]]Think of it this way. When you start school, you learn about the number one, and about addition. Zero and multiplication come a little later. Then advance a few years and discover pi, and exponentiation. Finally, at the tail end of high school education, you learn about natural logarithms and e, and complex numbers and i. Then you discover this little identity that pulls together more than a decade of diverse mathematical studies into one essentially simple expression. That's mathematical beauty.[[/note]]
** Physicians can be particularly passionate about their field, sitting where it does at the intersection of cutting edge technology, the frontier of science, and a deep humanitarian mission. Dr. Atul Gawande's ''Complications'' is an excellent introduction to just how emotional the field is.
** Computer programmers love how they take thousands of simple commands and build them into something grand. Doubly so if they work on artistic-based programming, like game design, music, or graphics/animation.
** On a meta level, measuring the measuring of marigolds, a [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imjj9VB-8dQ 2022 empirical study of the role of beauty in science]] formally found that beauty tends to be important in science.
* You needn't be an expert to get the feel for the inversion, either.
** Take trees: If you know next to nothing about them, you'll probably be able to distinguish two general types (evergreens and deciduous, roughly those that don't go bald in winter and those that do), and maybe pick out a couple of specific types like maple and willow. Staring at the top of a forest is just a mass of green, nothing exciting or interesting about it. But start to study trees, to recognize the distinctions, to tell them apart from up close and then from farther away, and you start to pick out the fuzzy look of the longer needles on a pine, the bendy top and airy branches of a hemlock, the color of a Colorado blue spruce, the way the branches hang on a false cedar, the way the ground is littered with distinctive cones under a Douglas fir. And that's just the conifers/evergreens. When you have that much in your head, take a look at a forest again: still just a mass of indistinguishable green?
** Ditto if someone who's an amateur astronomer shows you a galaxy: sure, that faint smudge of light that looks as if were going to vanish in one moment or in another does not look very impressive... until they tell you it's an ensemble of stars so big that light needs tens of thousands of years to transverse it and its light had needed tens (if not hundreds) of millions of years through [[VoidBetweenTheWorlds intergalactic space]] to finally reach your eye.
** Same for an amateur geologist at something as simple as a roadcut. That small slice of Earth tells anyone who knows how to read it an incredible story in the formation of each layer, intrusion, fault, and unconformity, dealing with forces that move mountains and take place over stretches of time [[TimeAbyss far longer than humans could ever comprehend]].
* Brian Cox (the physicist, not the actor) has made a career of defying this trope, in much the same vein as Professor Sagan.
* Learning a language usually changes the way you perceive it. Some don't like how it sounds after their lessons and some come to like even more.
* Ever see a cool magic trick?
** Some people find they are not that amusing when you figure out how they work. If you're the kind of person who legitimately enjoys magic shows, better hope you don't find yourself sitting next to that one asshole in the audience who feels the need to explain how every trick is done to you, or if they don't know, decide to grumble and complain about how juvenile it is.
** On the other hand, some people find far more fascination in the intricacies of how the tricks are executed.
** Simple kiddie tricks may lose their awesomeness, yes, but more advanced tricks of master magicians can become even more amazing when you start to understand how much brilliance, hard work, and showmanship skill go into them.
** ''Creator/PennAndTeller'' had a show in the UK called "Fool Us." It was a competition. P&T would sit in the audience and see a trick one time from the audience's point of view. They got no help. No special camera angles, no tapes to watch, and only one performance of the trick. If they could not figure out how your trick was done on a single viewing, you won a trip to Vegas and the right to open for them. The acts were all top notch, and yet maybe only one in six got past them. That did not stop them from taking almost childish joy in each performer's tricks.
*** Performer Michael Vincent, in particular -- he was on the show twice, both times doing card tricks. Penn & Teller figured out how he did them easily, but they still not only raved about his performances, but you can tell that they're trying (without giving away how the trick is done) to explain to the audience just how amazingly talented the man is -- he may be "only" doing the real basics of magic, but he is doing them so phenomenally well that these two lifelong professionals are utterly in awe of his ability, since they know just how hard it is to do what he's doing and to make it look easy. At one point, Penn even knows exactly when and where he moves the cards to secretly get them somewhere else, and he ''still'' can't see him doing the move.
** Ask any scientist about their field of specialty, and the ''last'' thing you'll get is a robotically dull answer.
** Try asking a botanist about flowers, or an astronomer about galaxies.
** Ask a philosopher some questions and grab a seat. There are philosophers who debate with all the zeal of the most devoted {{Fan Wank}}er. Philosophy, (systematic) theology and other exercises of raw reason are often enlightening once you've grappled with a particular problem and, as it were, solved the riddle, or at least contributed towards understanding it more.
** Ask a ''mathematician'' about their work, aka "[[EverybodyHatesMathematics the dullest thing in existence]]", and you're likely to get a whole lot of enthusiasm and excitement.
--->'''Creator/BertrandRussell''', ''Study of Mathematics'': Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty, a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry.
--->'''Galileo Galilei:''' Philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes – I mean the universe – but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written. This book is written in the mathematical language... without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.
** Mathematics, pure mathematics, is as much an art as it is a science. Theorems are astoundingly beautiful if looked at the right way. The way high-school math is taught does not foster this perspective.
** The very concept of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty "mathematical beauty"]] not only {{defie|dTrope}}s this trope, but [[InvertedTrope turns it on its head]]. People who aren't mathematically minded miss out on the beauty of something like Euler's identity, e[[superscript:iπ]]+1=0.[[note]]Think of it this way. When you start school, you learn about the number one, and about addition. Zero and multiplication come a little later. Then advance a few years and discover pi, and exponentiation. Finally, at the tail end of high school education, you learn about natural logarithms and e, and complex numbers and i. Then you discover this little identity that pulls together more than a decade of diverse mathematical studies into one essentially simple expression. That's mathematical beauty.[[/note]]
** Physicians can be particularly passionate about their field, sitting where it does at the intersection of cutting edge technology, the frontier of science, and a deep humanitarian mission. Dr. Atul Gawande's ''Complications'' is an excellent introduction to just how emotional the field is.
** Computer programmers love how they take thousands of simple commands and build them into something grand. Doubly so if they work on artistic-based programming, like game design, music, or graphics/animation.
** On a meta level, measuring the measuring of marigolds, a [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imjj9VB-8dQ 2022 empirical study of the role of beauty in science]] formally found that beauty tends to be important in science.
* You needn't be an expert to get the feel for the inversion, either.
** Take trees: If you know next to nothing about them, you'll probably be able to distinguish two general types (evergreens and deciduous, roughly those that don't go bald in winter and those that do), and maybe pick out a couple of specific types like maple and willow. Staring at the top of a forest is just a mass of green, nothing exciting or interesting about it. But start to study trees, to recognize the distinctions, to tell them apart from up close and then from farther away, and you start to pick out the fuzzy look of the longer needles on a pine, the bendy top and airy branches of a hemlock, the color of a Colorado blue spruce, the way the branches hang on a false cedar, the way the ground is littered with distinctive cones under a Douglas fir. And that's just the conifers/evergreens. When you have that much in your head, take a look at a forest again: still just a mass of indistinguishable green?
** Ditto if someone who's an amateur astronomer shows you a galaxy: sure, that faint smudge of light that looks as if were going to vanish in one moment or in another does not look very impressive... until they tell you it's an ensemble of stars so big that light needs tens of thousands of years to transverse it and its light had needed tens (if not hundreds) of millions of years through [[VoidBetweenTheWorlds intergalactic space]] to finally reach your eye.
** Same for an amateur geologist at something as simple as a roadcut. That small slice of Earth tells anyone who knows how to read it an incredible story in the formation of each layer, intrusion, fault, and unconformity, dealing with forces that move mountains and take place over stretches of time [[TimeAbyss far longer than humans could ever comprehend]].
* Brian Cox (the physicist, not the actor) has made a career of defying this trope, in much the same vein as Professor Sagan.
* Learning a language usually changes the way you perceive it. Some don't like how it sounds after their lessons and some come to like even more.
* Ever see a cool magic trick?
** Some people find they are not that amusing when you figure out how they work. If you're the kind of person who legitimately enjoys magic shows, better hope you don't find yourself sitting next to that one asshole in the audience who feels the need to explain how every trick is done to you, or if they don't know, decide to grumble and complain about how juvenile it is.
** On the other hand, some people find far more fascination in the intricacies of how the tricks are executed.
** Simple kiddie tricks may lose their awesomeness, yes, but more advanced tricks of master magicians can become even more amazing when you start to understand how much brilliance, hard work, and showmanship skill go into them.
** ''Creator/PennAndTeller'' had a show in the UK called "Fool Us." It was a competition. P&T would sit in the audience and see a trick one time from the audience's point of view. They got no help. No special camera angles, no tapes to watch, and only one performance of the trick. If they could not figure out how your trick was done on a single viewing, you won a trip to Vegas and the right to open for them. The acts were all top notch, and yet maybe only one in six got past them. That did not stop them from taking almost childish joy in each performer's tricks.
*** Performer Michael Vincent, in particular -- he was on the show twice, both times doing card tricks. Penn & Teller figured out how he did them easily, but they still not only raved about his performances, but you can tell that they're trying (without giving away how the trick is done) to explain to the audience just how amazingly talented the man is -- he may be "only" doing the real basics of magic, but he is doing them so phenomenally well that these two lifelong professionals are utterly in awe of his ability, since they know just how hard it is to do what he's doing and to make it look easy. At one point, Penn even knows exactly when and where he moves the cards to secretly get them somewhere else, and he ''still'' can't see him doing the move.
to:
** Ask any scientist about their field of specialty, and the ''last'' thing you'll get is a robotically dull answer.
** Try asking a botanist about flowers, or an astronomer about galaxies.
** Ask a philosopher some questions and grab a seat. There are philosophers who debate with all the zeal of the most devoted {{Fan Wank}}er. Philosophy, (systematic) theology and other exercises of raw reason are often enlightening once you've grappled with a particular problem and, as it were, solved the riddle, or at least contributed towards understanding it more.
** Ask a ''mathematician'' about their work, aka "[[EverybodyHatesMathematics the dullest thing in existence]]", and you're likely to get a whole lot of enthusiasm and excitement.
--->'''Creator/BertrandRussell''', ''Study of Mathematics'': Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty, a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry.
--->'''Galileo Galilei:''' Philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes – I mean the universe – but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written. This book is written in the mathematical language... without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.
** Mathematics, pure mathematics, is as much an art as it is a science. Theorems are astoundingly beautiful if looked at the right way. The way high-school math is taught does not foster this perspective.
** The very concept of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty "mathematical beauty"]] not only {{defie|dTrope}}s this trope, but [[InvertedTrope turns it on its head]]. People who aren't mathematically minded miss out on the beauty of something like Euler's identity, e[[superscript:iπ]]+1=0.[[note]]Think of it this way. When you start school, you learn about the number one, and about addition. Zero and multiplication come a little later. Then advance a few years and discover pi, and exponentiation. Finally, at the tail end of high school education, you learn about natural logarithms and e, and complex numbers and i. Then you discover this little identity that pulls together more than a decade of diverse mathematical studies into one essentially simple expression. That's mathematical beauty.[[/note]]
** Physicians can be particularly passionate about their field, sitting where it does at the intersection of cutting edge technology, the frontier of science, and a deep humanitarian mission. Dr. Atul Gawande's ''Complications'' is an excellent introduction to just how emotional the field is.
** Computer programmers love how they take thousands of simple commands and build them into something grand. Doubly so if they work on artistic-based programming, like game design, music, or graphics/animation.
** On a meta level, measuring the measuring of marigolds, a [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imjj9VB-8dQ 2022 empirical study of the role of beauty in science]] formally found that beauty tends to be important in science.
* You needn't be an expert to get the feel for the inversion, either.
** Take trees: If you know next to nothing about them, you'll probably be able to distinguish two general types (evergreens and deciduous, roughly those that don't go bald in winter and those that do), and maybe pick out a couple of specific types like maple and willow. Staring at the top of a forest is just a mass of green, nothing exciting or interesting about it. But start to study trees, to recognize the distinctions, to tell them apart from up close and then from farther away, and you start to pick out the fuzzy look of the longer needles on a pine, the bendy top and airy branches of a hemlock, the color of a Colorado blue spruce, the way the branches hang on a false cedar, the way the ground is littered with distinctive cones under a Douglas fir. And that's just the conifers/evergreens. When you have that much in your head, take a look at a forest again: still just a mass of indistinguishable green?
** Ditto if someone who's an amateur astronomer shows you a galaxy: sure, that faint smudge of light that looks as if were going to vanish in one moment or in another does not look very impressive... until they tell you it's an ensemble of stars so big that light needs tens of thousands of years to transverse it and its light had needed tens (if not hundreds) of millions of years through [[VoidBetweenTheWorlds intergalactic space]] to finally reach your eye.
** Same for an amateur geologist at something as simple as a roadcut. That small slice of Earth tells anyone who knows how to read it an incredible story in the formation of each layer, intrusion, fault, and unconformity, dealing with forces that move mountains and take place over stretches of time [[TimeAbyss far longer than humans could ever comprehend]].
* Brian Cox (the physicist, not the actor) has made a career of defying this trope, in much the same vein as Professor Sagan.
* Ever see a cool magic
**
Deleted line(s) 348,350 (click to see context) :
* Animators spend all day sitting at a desk, studying how a body moves, how things move, making them move, drawing hundreds of drawings. Learning how it works systematically. It doesn't make it any less enjoyable to watch cartoons being able to spot where other animators went the extra mile or made mistakes, or knowing what needs to be done to accomplish what happened.
** Also, analyzing people's movements makes you realize just how different each person moves and how it reflects their personality, mood etc. Whereas most people would have the default assumption that "a walk is a walk," a walk in animation tells you EVERYTHING.
* The same applies to acting, whether it's a live action role, or a voice role. How does your character walk? Does he slump forward? Does he swagger? Is he pigeon toed? Does he have a particular accent? How strong is it? Is he trying to lose it? Does he have a soft voice, or a gravelly rasp? All of these little things change who he is, and how he's perceived. It's why the school of method acting still exists. People spend months getting into, and building their idea of who the character is, ''because it matters to them''.
** Also, analyzing people's movements makes you realize just how different each person moves and how it reflects their personality, mood etc. Whereas most people would have the default assumption that "a walk is a walk," a walk in animation tells you EVERYTHING.
* The same applies to acting, whether it's a live action role, or a voice role. How does your character walk? Does he slump forward? Does he swagger? Is he pigeon toed? Does he have a particular accent? How strong is it? Is he trying to lose it? Does he have a soft voice, or a gravelly rasp? All of these little things change who he is, and how he's perceived. It's why the school of method acting still exists. People spend months getting into, and building their idea of who the character is, ''because it matters to them''.
Deleted line(s) 352 (click to see context) :
* Nathaniel Wyeth came from a very artistically inclined family (son of N.C., brother of Andrew and Henriette), but as an engineer he was probably the family black sheep. Nonetheless, he was pretty good at it, eventually becoming the chief engineer of the [=DuPont=] company. (Among his inventions was PET, the plastic used in [[http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/wyeth.html soda bottles]].) True to his genes, he would speak eloquently about using equations the way Andrew uses brushes.
Deleted line(s) 354,358 (click to see context) :
* Richard Feynman also was a major advocate of this style of thinking. In ''What Do ''You'' Care What Other People Think?'', he advocates this position with an argument he had with an artist:
-->'''Feynman:''' I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "[[SmallNameBigEgo I, as an artist,]] can see how beautiful a flower is. [[MoreInsultingThanIntended But you]], as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.
* After he received stories of people disillusioned by his book ''The Selfish Gene'', UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins wrote a counter to this viewpoint in the form of ''Unweaving The Rainbow''. It helped that not only did most people criticize ''The Selfish Gene'' purely from title alone, but those that did actually read it thought that he was endorsing a bleak [[TheSocialDarwinist dog-eat-dog]] philosophy of the world[[note]] The full argument being that, as humans, we are more than our genes, i.e. even if our genes program us to be selfish we can choose otherwise[[/note]], despite the fact that he explicitly said he wasn't doing this in the first chapter of the book. He also added a preface with that message when he found out the executives behind the ENRON scandal had cited the book as an excuse for their behavior.
* David Kushner's book ''Masters of Doom'' has this to say about id software's John Carmack and his programming knowledge: ''"... after so many years immersed in the science of graphics, he had achieved an almost Zen-like understanding of his craft... Rather than detaching him from the natural world, this viewpoint only made him appreciate it more deeply. "These are things I find enchanting and miraculous," he said. "I don't have to be at the Grand Canyon to appreciate the way the world works, I can see that in reflections of light in my bathroom."''
** This can happen to many a game developer as their careers progress. Entering the industry with a fan appreciation, learning how it all works and forgetting how to enjoy games, and then later, learning to appreciate even more what it takes to make a game. Some of the simplest and most successful games have come from people with years of experience in the industry.
-->'''Feynman:''' I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "[[SmallNameBigEgo I, as an artist,]] can see how beautiful a flower is. [[MoreInsultingThanIntended But you]], as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.
* After he received stories of people disillusioned by his book ''The Selfish Gene'', UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins wrote a counter to this viewpoint in the form of ''Unweaving The Rainbow''. It helped that not only did most people criticize ''The Selfish Gene'' purely from title alone, but those that did actually read it thought that he was endorsing a bleak [[TheSocialDarwinist dog-eat-dog]] philosophy of the world[[note]] The full argument being that, as humans, we are more than our genes, i.e. even if our genes program us to be selfish we can choose otherwise[[/note]], despite the fact that he explicitly said he wasn't doing this in the first chapter of the book. He also added a preface with that message when he found out the executives behind the ENRON scandal had cited the book as an excuse for their behavior.
* David Kushner's book ''Masters of Doom'' has this to say about id software's John Carmack and his programming knowledge: ''"... after so many years immersed in the science of graphics, he had achieved an almost Zen-like understanding of his craft... Rather than detaching him from the natural world, this viewpoint only made him appreciate it more deeply. "These are things I find enchanting and miraculous," he said. "I don't have to be at the Grand Canyon to appreciate the way the world works, I can see that in reflections of light in my bathroom."''
** This can happen to many a game developer as their careers progress. Entering the industry with a fan appreciation, learning how it all works and forgetting how to enjoy games, and then later, learning to appreciate even more what it takes to make a game. Some of the simplest and most successful games have come from people with years of experience in the industry.
Changed line(s) 360,362 (click to see context) from:
* The Creator/DiscoveryChannel is dedicated to measuring marigolds (some might say [[NetworkDecay it used to be]]), but that didn't keep them from celebrating [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_f98qOGY0 how awesome the world can be]].
* This is one of the crux points of the CasualCompetitiveConflict on the Casual side. If you're [[VideoGame/SuperSmashBros counting all the frame data and complaining about glitches being taken out instead of watching Mario beat up Sonic]], how can you really be enjoying the game? Competitive players will be glad to retort that their deeper understanding of the game creates a more exciting scene not just to play, but to watch as well, and can greatly increase the shelf life of a game which would otherwise stagnate.
* It is a common complaint among new film or literature students that after they've become versed in the structure and common tropes of storytelling, they can't simply ''enjoy'' movies or books anymore because they automatically start dissecting them. As with the magic show example given above, they feel that their SuspensionOfDisbelief has been crippled by the knowledge of how the illusions of fiction work. In fact, this phenomenon is a major part of why JustForFun/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife. Also with the magic show example given above, discovering how much skill and creativity goes into creating film and literature can make the dissection part of the joy of the work. Then using that knowledge to create one's own can be an even greater joy. In fact, this phenomenon is a major part of why SugarWiki/TVTropesWillEnhanceYourLife.
* This is one of the crux points of the CasualCompetitiveConflict on the Casual side. If you're [[VideoGame/SuperSmashBros counting all the frame data and complaining about glitches being taken out instead of watching Mario beat up Sonic]], how can you really be enjoying the game? Competitive players will be glad to retort that their deeper understanding of the game creates a more exciting scene not just to play, but to watch as well, and can greatly increase the shelf life of a game which would otherwise stagnate.
* It is a common complaint among new film or literature students that after they've become versed in the structure and common tropes of storytelling, they can't simply ''enjoy'' movies or books anymore because they automatically start dissecting them. As with the magic show example given above, they feel that their SuspensionOfDisbelief has been crippled by the knowledge of how the illusions of fiction work. In fact, this phenomenon is a major part of why JustForFun/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife. Also with the magic show example given above, discovering how much skill and creativity goes into creating film and literature can make the dissection part of the joy of the work. Then using that knowledge to create one's own can be an even greater joy. In fact, this phenomenon is a major part of why SugarWiki/TVTropesWillEnhanceYourLife.
to:
* It is a common complaint among new film or literature students that after they've become versed in the structure and common tropes of storytelling, they can't simply ''enjoy'' movies or books anymore because they automatically start dissecting them. As with the magic show example given above, they feel that their SuspensionOfDisbelief has been crippled by the knowledge of how the illusions of fiction work. In fact, this phenomenon is a major part of why JustForFun/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife.
Deleted line(s) 364,365 (click to see context) :
* When you were a child and understood relatively little of the world around you, did you experience the emotion of wonder more often than you do now?
* [[GenericCuteness Cuteness]] being explained as a biological reaction to baby-like proportions kind of takes away the appeal, but does it make them any less cute?
* [[GenericCuteness Cuteness]] being explained as a biological reaction to baby-like proportions kind of takes away the appeal, but does it make them any less cute?
Deleted line(s) 368 (click to see context) :
* Science has expectations of objectivity that serve to ensure the integrity of the scientists and their findings but also put emotional distance from their subjects. Especially in the realm of public policy, an appearance of dispassionate neutrality is necessary to avoid accusations of bias. For example, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/926F_(Spitfire) Spitfire]], a popular wolf among visitors to Yellowstone, was merely referred to as [[YouAreNumberSix 926F]] and reactions to her death among the scientists that built their careers observing wolves were considerably more muted than that of the general public. However, those that were retired were more candid.
Changed line(s) 370 (click to see context) from:
* On the other hand, in contrast to the above example, railfans often embody this, learning everything there is to know about trains to the point that to non-railfans, some overzealous rail enthusiasts may make trains suddenly seem boring.
to:
* On the other hand, in contrast to the above example, railfans Railfans often embody this, learning everything there is to know about trains to the point that to non-railfans, some overzealous rail enthusiasts may make trains suddenly seem boring.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 366 (click to see context) from:
* Philosophy of dialogue distinguishes between two approaches to people (and some sorts of things, including nature and artworks): using and entering dialogue with. You use a thing for your own purposes, which include learning about the thing scientifically (satiating your curiosity), and you enter dialogue with it when you open yourself to what it is in itself and allow it to act on you. Both approaches are valid and necessary - the problem begins when you only use things.
to:
* Philosophy of dialogue distinguishes between two approaches to people (and some sorts of things, including nature and artworks): using and entering dialogue with. You use a thing for your own purposes, which include learning about the thing scientifically (satiating your curiosity), and you enter dialogue with it when you open yourself to what it is in itself and allow it to act on you. Both approaches are valid and necessary - -- the problem begins when you only use things.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 347 (click to see context) from:
** Riot Games--which has several employees holding doctorates in the sciences--even got in on the marigold-measuring act with one of the "joke" lines Lux (a magician who specializes in spells involving light) says in ''VideoGame/LeagueOfLegends''. Much to Paul Vasquez's dismay, the number of people trying to explain to him how rainbows occur has gotten even ''more'' obnoxious than before.
to:
** Riot Games--which Games -- which has several employees holding doctorates in the sciences--even sciences -- even got in on the marigold-measuring act with one of the "joke" lines Lux (a magician who specializes in spells involving light) says in ''VideoGame/LeagueOfLegends''. Much to Paul Vasquez's dismay, the number of people trying to explain to him how rainbows occur has gotten even ''more'' obnoxious than before.
