TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help. It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread for ongoing cleanup projects.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

Candi Since: Aug, 2012
2015-01-26 20:01:48

Mmm, I don't know. The 10% thing is crock, anyway; we do use the whole brain, just not all at the same time. The entire brain zapping away at the same time is often called by the term "seizure". On the other hand, if I take the view that the 10% thing is valid in the movie's universe, I guess it it would count.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-26 20:39:13

I agree with Candi. I hesitate to call that Fridge Brilliance when there's nothing brilliant about it.

1. The 10% myth isn't just bunk, it's SUCH bunk that 5 seconds on Google will disprove it. You can't even say that we use 100% of our brain but only 10% at a time because that's ALSO ludicrous - at any given time we're using 60-80% of our brain.

2. Where exactly did you get this information about how we need to eat more than other animals because of our brains? Whoever told you that was dead wrong. I mean, heck, most birds have to eat AT LEAST their entire body weight in food every day or they'll die. When was the last time you ate your entire body weight in food in one day?

Edited by wrm5
RayAP9 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-26 20:49:25

In the movie, the "10% theory" is true, though. Isn't that all that matters?

If it WAS true in real life, and someone got to 20%, they'd probably need to eat more, too. Makes sense to me in theory.

System Specs: GPU, CPU, Dell Inspiron laptop, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-26 20:56:28

I edited my post. Read up ^^. Everything about your theory is wrong.

wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-26 21:01:10

Also, just as an aside: in the future, if you have an example in mind that you're not really 100% sure about, ask here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13543987200A54420100&page=44

RayAP9 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-26 21:13:34

Once again:

In the movie, the "10% theory" is true

Second:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53561/

the evolution of large brain size in the human lineage came at a very high metabolic cost.

Compared to other primates and mammals of our size, humans allocate a much larger share of their daily energy budget to “feed their brains.” The disproportionately large allocation of our energy budget to brain metabolism has important implications for our dietary needs. To accommodate the high energy demands of our large brains, humans consume diets that are of much higher quality (i.e., more dense in energy and fat) than those of our primate kin

System Specs: GPU, CPU, Dell Inspiron laptop, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
rodneyAnonymous Since: Aug, 2010
2015-01-26 22:35:02

She eats more because she is using more brainpower? Doesn't seem like brilliance to me.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
Candi Since: Aug, 2012
2015-01-26 22:53:44

That theory's been questioned, since when animals are held in captivity for breeding and conservation purposes (and for people to gawk at) and don't have as many of their resources devoted to survival, they show an amazing ability to learn and manipulate their environment. Primates, dolphins, crows, octopuses, so on and so on -take away the amount of energy needed to live, and they devote it to other things that can easily be placed in a Venn diagram of 'fun' and 'education'.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Darksilverhawk Since: Oct, 2014
2015-01-26 23:37:47

Whether it is plausible or scientifically accurate in real life is completely irrelevant. In that fictional universe, it is true. Therefore, the fact that she is accounting for needing more energy counts as fridge brilliance, I think.

Rocks fall, everyone miraculously survives.
wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-27 00:24:50

Hmmm...

Fridge Brilliance CAN account for in-universe logic. I added an example of it to Fridge.Merlins Shop Of Mystical Wonders that was entirely about in-universe logic.

So, theoretically it could count. If that writer ascribes to the "Ten Percent Theory" AND the "Bigger Brain = Faster Metabolism" theory, but doesn't outright say so and instead it's a connection the audience makes on their own... I guess theoretically that WOULD count as Fridge Brilliance...

I still don't like calling it that considering that of the two theories it's based on one of them is questionable and the other is outright quack-ish... but... I guess it DOES technically qualify...

RayAP9 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-27 10:52:23

Fridge Brilliance CAN account for in-universe logic.

What else could it account for? Why would we discuss anything on a work's page that doesn't apply to the work's universe?

of the two theories it's based on one of them is questionable

What do I have to do to prove to you that you're wrong? The human brain is powerful enough that it requires us to eat much more than would be expected. It's a ridiculously simple notion that you've made exactly zero attempts to disprove.

Edited by RayAP9 System Specs: GPU, CPU, Dell Inspiron laptop, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
2015-01-27 11:38:05

Whew. Don't be so aggressive. And this discussion is better off in Trope Talk, anyway.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Darksilverhawk Since: Oct, 2014
2015-01-27 11:46:20

I think if you rephrase the end of the example to make it clear we're applying this to in-universe logic that is based on certain scientific theories, not stating undisputed scientific facts for real life, it works absolutely fine. The movie is a work of science-fiction after all; it's rooted in plausibility and internally makes sense but tends to pick and choose what parts of science it wants to use to tell a good story. Edit: Ninja'd by Septimus

Edited by Darksilverhawk Rocks fall, everyone miraculously survives.
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2015-01-27 12:51:45

But... do they establish in the film that "brainpower = need food"? A non-mainstream real-life hypothesis doesn't necessarily mean it's even true in the film.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
RayAP9 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-27 14:52:24

But... do they establish in the film that "brainpower = need food"? A non-mainstream real-life hypothesis doesn't necessarily mean it's even true in the film.

Well, why else would they include the scene of her eating a large amount of food once she starts the process of unlocking her brain power?

System Specs: GPU, CPU, Dell Inspiron laptop, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
SolipSchism Since: Jun, 2014
2015-01-27 15:11:04

All this arguing about whether the 10% idea is valid science is completely irrelevant. You don't argue against Faster-Than-Light Travel on the basis that it's scientifically impossible. If a spaceship is traveling faster than light in a story, then it's traveling faster than light in the story. You can't say "That's not happening because it's impossible in the real world."

If a work says we only use 10% of our brains, then it's true as far as that work is concerned and any logic that builds off that is... well, building off that. That's not arguable.

I would say it's valid Fridge Brilliance. Whether the science makes sense in Real Life is completely irrelevant.

Edited by SolipSchism
wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-27 16:55:47

That's because Faster-Than-Light Travel is only theoretically impossible. Technological advances in the future may prove it to be not so impossible after all, whereas the Ten Percent Theory has been scientifically, provably wrong for the last 100,000 years.

As for food and brainpower... it IS true that the brain uses a lot of energy. The human brain only amounts to 3% of our body's mass, but uses up 20% of our body's energy supply. But saying that is WAY different from saying "humans eat more than any other animal because of our brains."

Edited by wrm5
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2015-01-28 07:31:56

^^^ Then it's technically a WMG that in this universe, brainpower is tied to the amount of food eaten.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
SolipSchism Since: Jun, 2014
2015-01-28 10:27:10

^^ You're deliberately ignoring the fact that the universe in which the work takes place is Like Reality, Unless Noted. Every universe that every work takes place in is Like Reality, Unless Noted. And in this universe, in this work, it has been noted (via either being stated or implied) that the 10% idea is true. Thus, it's true In-Universe. Stop trying to apply real-world logic to a fictional universe.

Whether you think vampires are complete fantasy or just theoretically nonexistent, the fact remains that in Twilight, they exist and have a mythos explaining how their existence works. You can't argue against that fact without a lot of fanfiction and a bucket of retcons.

You are literally arguing that a work doesn't state what it states. No one is claiming that the 10% idea is valid. You can stop shouting that it's bunk science. We know. So are vampires. But the idea is true In-Universe. If that offends you, don't watch the movie. But stop arguing that the movie isn't saying something that it is very obviously saying.

Edited by SolipSchism
rodneyAnonymous Since: Aug, 2010
2015-01-28 11:27:19

I just don't think making the connection is "brilliance" at all. Why else would she eat a lot?

It's like having a builder looking for nails, and saying "oh he needs nails for building, Fridge Brilliance, they never made the connection explicit." But whatever, I guess, it's YMMV. That seems really obvious though.

Edited by rodneyAnonymous Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
PistolsAtDawn Since: Oct, 2013
2015-01-28 11:32:15

^ no comment on wethor or not this is actually fridge brilliance, but i think you might be missing the point of fridge brilliance. (as far as i know) frisge brilliance is when you notice something which the writer was implying but which was not stated outright. some fridge brilliance may be obvious to some people, but the point is it wasnt actually stated.

i didnt notice the eating=brainpower thing when i watched Lucy. of course, my friends and i were giggling hysterically at making fun of the terrible science at the time, so i wasnt paying the closest attention

SolipSchism Since: Jun, 2014
2015-01-28 11:57:07

^ This. It's YMMV for a reason. The connection is basically implied, but as evidenced by the massive amount of natter here about whether it's even valid, it's apparently not that "obvious".

wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-28 13:13:52

Solip, stop trying to twist peoples' words. Not once did I ever say "this film doesn't say what it says." Making these wild accusations is not helping your case.

It's an issue of audience reaction. Let me explain it like this...

No one in this world really believes that humans can fly under their own power and shoot ki energy from their palms, but we don't call Dragon Ball Z unscientific because it's not a big deal. We're willing to accept that in that world it does work that way.

There are, however, people in this world who believe that humans only use 10% of our brains, and continue to believe it in spite of the thousands of scientific studies disproving that theory, or the fact that the guy who started that theory was speaking metaphorically. There's an actual controversy there, so when someone making a movie claims that the Ten Percent Theory is true, they don't come across as simply using Artistic License, they come across as someone who actually believes that quack theory.

I'm not saying that's how it really is, I'm just explaining to you, that's why it bothers people even though FTL Drives and psychics and undead serial killers don't.

Edited by wrm5
SolipSchism Since: Jun, 2014
2015-01-28 13:50:48

^ This has nothing to do with anything. In-Universe logic and Real Life logic are not the same thing. The real world science and whether it is true or not and whether it was intended to be serious or not and whether the people who made the movie believe it or not is completely—let me say this again—irrelevant.

We do not trope Real Life. We are not troping Real Life. The Real Life science is irrelevant. I've said "irrelevant" so many times it doesn't even sound like a word anymore.

Whether it bothers you, or anyone else, is irrelevant.

Whether you think the movie is adhering to bunk science is irrelevant.

The idea is true In-Universe.

The OP is a logical extension of the idea, which is true In-Universe.

The OP is neither stated nor blatantly implied as such In-Universe.

Thus, it is Fridge Brilliance.

Which is an Audience Reaction. It is YMMV. This has all been stated over and over.

Edited by SolipSchism
wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-28 14:16:15

First of all, you need to calm down.

The reason why I'm explaining why it bothers people is because YOU ASKED. Here, I'll show you your exact words in case you forgot:

"All this arguing about whether the 10% idea is valid science is completely irrelevant. You don't argue against Faster-Than-Light Travel on the basis that it's scientifically impossible."

You indirectly asked why this bothers people, but things like FTL don't, so I explained it to you. That's it. That is not the core of the argument against you. It's not an argument against you at all. It's just explaining something you said you didn't understand. There's no sense in attacking it or calling it irrelevant, because it's already been admitted that it's tangential to the core discussion.

Second, you really need to read what you write before you post because you've got a pretty blatant contradiction in your last post. You're claiming that the audience's reaction to something is irrelevant to an Audience Reaction trope.

Let me see if I can explain this...

Basically, there are two questions here:

1. The objective question, "does this example fit the trope's description?" In this case, "is this an implied connection that the audience establishes on their own, without it being outright stated by the work's creators?"

This seems to be the only question you're focusing on, and yeah you've already shown the answer is "yes."

2. The subjective question, which is why this is a YMMV trope and not a main page one: "does the audience find this connection to be brilliant?"

This is the question that you keep screaming "irrelevant!" at, but it's not irrelevant. It's a very important question. What is the audience's reaction to this Audience Reaction Trope?

EDIT: And, you know, strictly speaking this discussion is kind of pointless anyway. Because this is a YMMV trope, as long as you find it to be an example, and we can't objectively prove that it's not, then it's fair game for you to put up.

Edited by wrm5
SolipSchism Since: Jun, 2014
2015-01-28 14:28:42

I never asked a question about why this or that bothers you, so please don't take it upon yourself to try and educate me about the subject. I made an analogy between the 10% myth and the idea of FTL Travel. Sure, one is definitively impossible while the other is only theoretically impossible. Nothing in that sentence is remotely pertinent to the discussion.

There is no contradiction in what I've been saying. Whether you have an Audience Reaction has no bearing on whether there is an Audience Reaction to be had. That's why they're called YMMV. Your mileage may vary. Just because you don't agree with the science or whatever does not change the connections that someone else may make based on science, In-Universe or otherwise, bunk or otherwise.

Your first numbered point is the only one that really matters here, because it is the only thing you've said that directly addresses the OP's question. "Does it fit the trope description" is basically a very wordy way of saying "is this an example", which was the OP's question. And the answer is yes, as you yourself stated. And yes, as you also more or less stated, everything else in this discussion is a pointless derail.

Fridge Brilliance has a nonindicative name, and the description of the trope makes this abundantly clear. You're arguing against it on the grounds that it's not "brilliant" (or rather, that you don't find it to be brilliant), which is not actually part of the trope. (Nothing I can do about that—I didn't name it and I'm not interested in renaming it.) All it means is that a viewer comes to a conclusion and realizes something about a work using Fridge Logic. It is still YMMV, though. Not everyone may reach that same conclusion.

Whether it is brilliant is not a very important question. It is not a part of the trope. Thus, the question is... that word I've been saying all day.

EDIT: As a side note, don't throw boldface and all caps and words like "screaming" at me and then tell me that I need to calm down. Thanks. Edited again to move this note to the bottom of my post since you posted before I made it and I'm not sure if you saw it. In addition to the fact that I'm not going to continue posting here if you're going to keep doing that.

Edited by SolipSchism
wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-28 14:31:23

Okay, how about this then:

JUST POST IT ALREADY.

Like I already said in my last post.

It's a YMMV trope. It's opinion. As long as you think it fits and the rest of us can't objectively prove that it doesn't, then it's fair game. You can post it and no one is allowed to take it down.

You've pretty clearly already made up your mind and you're not interested in debating it with me, since you just say "irrelevant" whenever I try, so there's no since in still arguing about it.

EDIT: One other thing: people will respond to the way you act. When you're posting angrily, accusing people of saying things they didn't say, and ignoring every point they make to just yell "irrelevant!" at them, they will respond in kind. That's not the pot calling the kettle black, it's an appropriate emotional response to unreasonable behavior.

Edited by wrm5
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
2015-01-28 15:24:25

I think this discussion is really really pointless. Fridge Brilliance is YMMV, some people might agree but others might not.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
SolipSchism Since: Jun, 2014
2015-01-28 15:25:54

^^You are making arguments that don't address the original question: "Is this Fridge Brilliance." The only arguments that matter to that question are ones that address what Fridge Brilliance actually is, and whether the example in question counts. Anything that doesn't at least indirectly address that question is not helpful. So I may be discounting an argument, but not until I've read it, thought over it, and concluded that it really is irrelevant. Not wrong. Irrelevant. I woulnd't be "screaming 'irrelevant'" if you didn't keep arguing a point that has nothing to do with the question.

I don't understand what you mean by "merits of the example" in this situation. If you're talking about whether it is an example, we've already agreed that it is. If you're talking about whether the science is valid, I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in having that discussion, and this is not the right place for that conversation anyway. And I'm sorry if this frustrates you, but whether the science is valid or not has nothing to do with the question.

As for why I'm still arguing, it's because you still clearly think I'm wrong, and contrary to your accusation, I'm not "screaming about something that has already been decided". Apparently you still think I have failed to consider something that is pertinent to the discussion, so I'm waiting to see what it is, but you keep making points about whether the 10% idea is valid science or not. It's like if I asked for opinions on whether Alice is Bob's Eccentric Mentor and get a response that is an explanation of why Eccentric Mentors aren't a realistic type of person. It's so out of left field that I don't understand why the argument would even be made, at least here.

This is a question-and-answer forum. I've tried to answer the question. As near as I can tell, you're not.

I don't even know if Ray AP 9 is still following this thread. In any case, it's their example, so if they want to add it, they're welcome to do so.

I'll just close by pointing out that I'm not going to reply to any more inflammatory content, so please stop using boldface, all caps, and inflammatory language like accusing me of "screaming" or ignoring your arguments. I'm not ignoring them, and I am taking the time to read and consider them. However, I don't see the point of addressing an argument that has nothing to do with the original question.

^ Also... this. Despite my hypocrisy in continuing to post.

EDIT: But he's right, this is really absurd. I'll stop posting here. The conversation has obviously long since soured, RayAP9 can decide if they want to add the example or not.

Edited by SolipSchism
Candi Since: Aug, 2012
2015-01-28 17:26:58

Ouch. All I was pointing out that while objectively, it wasn't true, in-universe it might be true, and might qualify for the example. I never meant to open this can of worms.

My apologies to everyone.

Edited by Candi Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
supergod Since: Jun, 2012
2015-01-29 03:43:11

I know this discussion has dragged on for too long, but I just wanted to add something.

"There are, however, people in this world who believe that humans only use 10% of our brains, and continue to believe it in spite of the thousands of scientific studies disproving that theory, or the fact that the guy who started that theory was speaking metaphorically. There's an actual controversy there, so when someone making a movie claims that the Ten Percent Theory is true, they don't come across as simply using Artistic License, they come across as someone who actually believes that quack theory."

There are people who believe in ghosts, telepathy, alien abductions, and pyramid power. Does that mean that Fridge Brilliance can't apply to works using those, even if the author knows they're not actually true? It doesn't matter whether the author actually believes in it or not, anyway. As long as the work is fiction, it doesn't need to be treated as anything but that.

For we shall slay evil with logic...
wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-01-29 14:47:07

It is a bit different because, again: ghosts, telepathy, alien abductions, and pyramid power are only theoretically not real. They're things you can't really disprove, unlike the Ten Percent Theory. Also, unlike the Ten Percent Theory, there's not as much of a stigma on people who believe in them. Certain people will look down on you if you say you believe in ghosts, yeah, but saying you believe humans only use 10% of our brains...

SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
2015-01-29 14:58:45

OK, that's enough. Take any more discussion to the discussion tab of the article in question.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Top