Mayim Bialik has been told she’s no longer the host of Jeopardy!
Bialik says Sony has informed her that she's no longer one of the hosts of the long-running game show
Aux News Mayim Bialik
Mayim Bialik confirmed Friday evening that she’s no longer one of the hosts of Jeopardy!. Writing on social media, Bialik says that she has been informed by Sony that “I will no longer be hosting the syndicated version of Jeopardy!”—i.e., the main version of the game show that runs on primetime TV in most markets.
And while Bialik was fairly gracious in her post—making sure to highlight her pending Emmy nomination for the series in the process—news of her departure comes after a contentious year for the celebrated game show. Bialik stepped away from the series back in May (during the filming of the final week of its 39th season) in solidarity with the WGA writer’s strike, while her co-host Ken Jennings stayed on, and has continued to host the series even as labor unrest in Hollywood kicked up over the summer. Meanwhile, the show has had to shuffle many of its plans for its 40th season, as well as its usual run of post-season episodes—especially after several prominent champions voiced a refusal to play in a Tournament Of Champions featuring recycled clues during the strike.
Not that the period that began Bialik’s tenure was especially placid for the show, either: She was one of two hosts, along with Jennings, tapped to run the series after the controversy that broke out when series producer Mike Richards was originally selected as the late Alex Trebek’s replacement. (Richards lasted all of a week before a mixture of allegations about past behaviors, and the fact that he himself had initially been a part of the host-selection process, made his continue holding of the gig untenable.) Since then, Bialik and Jennings have shared duties on the show, trading off on different weeks and the show’s usual run of special events. It’s not clear yet whether Jennings will be kept on in a solo position, or if a new co-host will be selected.
175 Comments
This quiz show is truly excellent. Very fast moving. The Jeopardy! show need a high standard of contestant and it is surprising just how intelligent all the competitors appear to be. Sadly this show would not work in Britain because there are not enough very smart but ordinary people here to make it a success. – Knight Templar, Crusader Country, approximately 2013
I miss the golden age of A.V. Club when comments like these were commonplace.
“approximately 2013″Glad that’s cleared up.
Why would the UK even need Jeopardy when it has Numberwang?
They also have the quiz program, where the most important thing is that you never mention The Event.
The Event:
And above all, Remain Indoors.
I’m more of a Wordwang guy.
I tried out for the show twice in person. The actual show’s questions are WAAAAAY easier than the tryouts.
It’s strange how much controversy has surrounded Jeopardy! since Alex Trebek’s passing.
It never recovered after Fleming left.
Hear, hear!
It’s not going to survive beyond 2030. Alex was what brought people back to the show every night.
Good, the anti-vaxxer fake pill shill should never have been selected in the first place.
Not a fan of hers, but pretty fucked up if this is the show punishing her for standing with the strikers while Jennings didn’t (also don’t like him).
Truly, it’s a bummer that she was fired for union solidarity, and not . . . . everything else.
It shouldn’t be surprising he didn’t stand with the strikers. Mormons aren’t known for being champions of dissent.
She’s also said some dumb things about vaccines, so it might be that. Or something totally mundane, I dunno.
She said the dumb things about vaccines and the Harvey Weinstein victims way before he was considered to host the show. I’m very curious if this was a retaliatory choice. But as the article notes, other contestants refused to cross the picket line, so it seems especially nasty to punish her. I’m sure more information will leak. I generally find her full of bad opinions but I was heartened to see her defend union workers.
She said those dumb things before they hired her. She was also pushing a fantasy ‘drug’ for the brain before she was hired.
Yeah that’s really the one that jumped out at me. Pushing her phd as basis to support a wonderdrug* that enhances brain function.*Not supported by any FDA approvals
Alone, I think the strike wouldn’t have led to her being let go, but add to that being an anti-vaxxer (on the one show on network TV where this attitude really doesn’t belong), a Zionist, and an objectively worse host than Ken, and it’s a no-brainer to get rid of her.
The decision about Mayim precedes the current war in I/P and in any case, Jeopardy’s core audience skews older. I really doubt they care about Mayim’s stance on Israel.
Not that it had anything to do with Jeopardy, but it also bugged me that she used her neuroscientist credentials to push sketchy brain supplements.
The question of whether her being on strike lead to her firing seems like it’s being inferred from media reports rather than that necessarily being the issue (and wouldn’t unions raise a stink about this if that were the case?). That said, even before the strike it sure seemed like she was away from the show for long periods of time (due to other commitments, but still).
I doubt she was fired out of spite *because* she stood with the strikers. The whole thing with having two alternating hosts was always awkward and felt like a short-term solution until one of them pulled ahead and was named the permanent full-time host. The powers that be were most likely watching the ratings and other metrics for Jennings vs. Bialik the whole time and trying to figure out which host could consolidate the job. And in that context, giving the suits a preview of what ratings look like in a Jennings-only world probably wasn’t the best move for Bialik’s candidacy. She was under no union obligation to strike. She’ll be fine. But I think she just got Wally Pip’ed here.
There’s also this
Did she ever really host? I remember seeing her during the wannabe host rotations, but not since they announced she’d be co-host. Every episode I’ve seen has been KJ.
I don’t know the exact number, but she hosted nearly 150 episodes of the daily syndicated show in seasons 38 and 39 and hosted the primetime Celebrity Jeopardy last season.
I had absolutely no problems with her hosting, but I do prefer Ken Jennings.
Jeez, I know Trebek was a legend, but is it that hard to find someone who can read from cue cards and make light banter with players?
When the suits thought their best option was an awkward Mormon that didn’t have much personality as a contestant, yes. The suits fucked up horribly by not choosing LaVar Burton.
Burton was awful at the job. He repeatedly yayed or nayed an answer incorrectly and had to backtrack.“But he only had a week” So did other hosts who did very well.
I might have gotten back into Jeopardy had they went with LaVar.
Right? It is objectively not a difficult gig.
Trebek had that barely buried contempt for the stupid players that neither Bialik nor Jennings can replicate.
This made me laugh! Alex’s response to inanity (some of the contestant’s personal
anectdotes) was a mental “I’m just going to slowly back away from
that…” Perhaps that part of Trebek was the essence of Norm Macdonald’s SNL version of Trebek?
You mean Will Ferrell’s SNL version.
Oh, right, in those sketches, Norm played Burt Reynolds, duh on me.
I think you mean Turd Ferguson.
Or his casually cutting “Incorrect. The answer is, of course, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Ethyl enediaminetetraacetic. Nonetheless, Bob you get to go again.”
Trebek had that barely buried contempt for the stupid playersMy favorite thing about him as host!
That’s in fact part of why a lot of people like Ken better than Alex. There are enough other shows where people are dicks to each other. I prefer seeing Ken who encourages players and engages with their anecdotes.
I didn’t want to say that because I know people loved Trebek and I liked him too, but seriously…how hard can this job be? I think a lot of people’s strong affinity for Trebek (which I’m sure is deserved) is making this harder than it should be. I can’t see this kind of controversy when they replace Pat Sajak, if they haven’t already. I also think it would have been easier if Trebek had just retired rather than tragically passing away. Now it feels like A Much Bigger Deal to live up to his memory and everything, and we don’t have the benefit of his signing off on the replacement so everyone can accept it.
I mean if it were that easy to do then every single person who stepped in after he died would have just knocked it out of the park, don’t you think? I’ve been hosting local pub trivia nights for five years now and even that’s way harder than people think, so I can’t even imagine what hosting a show like Jeopardy must be like.
That’s what I’m saying–I think people’s expectations for what “knocking it out of the park” looks like are way too high and skewed because of people’s respect for Trebek. I’m not saying it’s not a hard job–I’m sure it takes some kind of skill. I’m just saying that out of the hundreds of people likely applying for the job, there have to have been a lot of them that could have done a competent job, but competent isn’t good enough when you’re competing against the memory of someone as beloved as Trebek.
I liked Buzzy Cohen for the job.
She was a bit stiff. But certainly preferable over the personality-free Ken Jennings. Seriously, has this guy ever interacted with humans before? He acts like the hall monitor from grade-school that doesn’t play at recess, has no friends and is allergic to milk.
Ken is Mormon. That should explain everything.
That’s uncalled for.
This is crazy. Have you ever watched either of them? Ken’s interaction with the contestants is much better than Mayim’s. After a contestant tells a personal anecdote, Ken will respond with a witty or thoughtful comment. Mayim invariably laughs and responds “That’s great!” She’s slow to confirm answers, and can’t stop reading off her cards. She acts like a dinner party host who’s too distracted to talk because she has something cooking on the stove.I feel like you haven’t actually seen Ken on Jeopardy at all, when hosting or as a contestant. For a guy who presents as a milquetoast Mormon, he’s actually very aware of and interested in pop culture, and not just mainstream junk either. He’s got a slightly edgy sense of humour that he has to tone down on the show. Sure, he’s a nerd, but Mayim is a an even bigger nerd who was on the nerd sitcom, and has a PhD.Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and I understand if you prefer Mayim, but your criticisms of Ken are based on surface-level observations. He is objectively better at interacting with the contestants than Mayim.
Having seen neither of them on “Jeopardy”, it sounds like Jennings prepares for the “spontaneous” interviews while Bialik simply wings it every time. If I’m right, Jennings’ ability to make prepared remarks seem like they’re off-the-cuff is a rare skill in and of itself.
I’m sure there’s prep involved, but I doubt Ken’s writing out the jokes beforehand. He’s had a lot of quiz experience, meaning that he can react quickly undue pressure. Mayim did a PhD, which means her experience is writing papers over a long period of time and slowly refining her thoughts. She’s a TV actor, and unlike a theatre actor, rarely has to do a take perfectly the first time. Two totally different skillsets and one is much more suited for the job.
Right. Hosting is its own thing. Not acting. Not being a contestant. Not being deadwood. Sparkle and facilitate!
I’m sure Ken preps. But I became a fan of his not through his Jeopardy run (never saw it) but through his appearances on the Doug Loves Movies podcast. He’s as quick and funny with a live audience in an improvisational setting as any of the actors and comedians on the show.
Dude— we can certainly disagree, but I’ve been watching this show since 1983. I really do hope that Ken Jennings develops some interpersonal and presenting chops here if they’re gonna keep him. But his manner is priggish, unworldly and slight. And I really resent people here bringing up that he’s Mormon. Like that means he’s some backwater hick. I just think he doesn’t have a good TV presence or authority. Maybe it’s his weak chin or slight lisp or something….lol. This particular show demands a kind of arrogance that says “I’M the know-it-all of all of YOU know-it-alls .”
Ken’s no Alex. He doesn’t have that 70’s manliness that game show hosts used to have. But no one apart from Tom Bergeron does that knock-off Dean Martin schtick anymore. Alex himself had become much more professorial by the time Ken showed up as a contestant.
All of your criticisms of Ken are just the ways that he’s not Alex. Ken is nerdy, but that’s actually a great fit for a show like Jeopardy. I disagree that he’s priggish, except in the way that a quiz champion would be, but he’s gracious and doesn’t seem to be taking it too seriously. TV presence is subjective, and I disagree that he has none, but how can you say that the Jeopardy GOAT doesn’t have authority, except in the most old-timey sexist gender roles way? His whole public persona screams “I’M the know-it-all of all of YOU know-it-alls.” Your criticisms of his weak chin and slight lisp sound like something Don Draper would say to justify not hiring someone.I think people are pointing out that he’s Mormon, not because they’re backwater hicks, but because they’re generally regarded as priggish, unworldly and slight. But Ken transcends that Mormon stereotype, and often surprises me with his knowledge and clear appreciation for alternative culture. He is a Gen X guy from Seattle, so it shouldn’t really be that surprising.Ken has grown into the job, and is now very comfortable as a host. He’s got his own style, but he excels in all the ways Alex did.
You’re really putting a lot of words in my mouth here. What is the Jeopardy GOAT? Whether I think Jennings chin is weak or his manner bland doesn’t detract from the fact that he possesses zero wit on a hosting spontaneous level. Does that now describe for you my criticism? Bottom line— every game show host should be Stephen Fry.
If you don’t know what the Jeopardy GOAT is then I don’t need to continue This conversation. That’s told me all I need to know.
IF you think for one minute that Ken Jennings is the Greatest Of All Time— you really are a PR flak. Just get off my nuts.
Do you even watch the show?
LOL— good one. The fact that you’re so invested in my opinion of the hosts tells you I have.I believe YOU watch the show. But not for the same reasons I do. You are Ken Jennings Agent. And I just want a host to be witty and have three more degrees of personality than mayonnaise.
Obviously I’m chatting with an agent or PR guy here. “But Ken transcends that Mormon stereotype, and often surprises me with his knowledge and clear appreciation for alternative culture.” Alternative culture…..lol. You mean Culture. It’s just all culture. And btw I have no stereotype of Mormons. The ones I know drive motorcycles are in rock bands and kick ass, drink orange juice, bake bread and still love their “alternative” gay friend. Me .
And I really resent people here bringing up that he’s Mormon. Like that means he’s some backwater hick.
It really does mean that.
Yea– you’re a bigot and you know no Mormons.
Oh– also– Mayim shouldn’t be there at all. Stiff was too kind a word for what she’s doing up in there. Love her, but she should go back to the lab or write more books. This really isn’t a good gig for her.
Honestly I think neither of them belongs here. I was kinda looking forward to LeVar Burton. But I strongly object to your saying my observations are surface level. I went pretty deep with the whole personality-free stuff. He’s blander than white bread and Principal Skinner combined.
Just saying something isn’t deep. You have to explain it. Give some examples. Ken’s closer to Bart Simpson than Principal Skinner. The guy got in trouble for making a joke about hot chicks in wheels chairs. He’s not some stuffed shirt. Levar Burton? I thought he had the perfect Trebek energy… until I saw him sleepwalk through his guest hosting. Being like Alex isn’t the only requirement for the job.
Ok here’s an example. A few Eps ago a contestant gave a shout out to her BF. Ken thought it meant Best Friend. Contestant said, no Boy Friend. Then Ken argued. And the contestant said Best Friend is BFF. And Ken said, well it can mean both instead of saying “hey I learned something new!”
The only reason Ken Jennings wasn’t made host immediately is that Mike Richards wanted the gig for himself. Yes, he’s bland. But he’s a company man and he’s who Trebeck wanted . He’s not supposed to have a big personality. He just needs to be a trivia nerd who can keep the game going. And he does that. As for being a mormon, lots of people have wackdoo beliefs these days, whether they be blue or red.
Was Trebek any better? I love a wooden Jeopardy host. This game show was always the brainy, nerdy, buttoned-down game show. I don’t want excitement. I want difficult trivia.
Trebek was much better, yes.
Well…. there was the moustache. Then not a moustache. Then a moustache. Very Zen. Lol.
Back when Trebek died, they re-showed some very early episodes of his hosting career. Dude was NOT smooth at first. The timing was definitely awkward and he didn’t have a good flow. It took him a few years to really settle in, and his style evolved over the years. I do think Ken is a natural, but it’s mostly because he had the evolved style of Trebek to study.
Trebek exuded authority, which was appropriate to the Jeopardy format and something neither of these hosts comes close to matching.
He’s been just fine.
I would also add something about leaving Homeroom for his daily ear-ointment treatment from the school nurse – for a completely imaginary condition.
Tell me you’ve never seen Jennings host on consistent basis without telling you’ve never seen Jennings host on a consistent basis.
That sentence is semantically null. I’ve never seen him not host?? huh? I’ve always seen him not hosting?
You’re describing Trebek.
She was a bit stiff. But certainly preferable over the personality-free Ken Jennings.
She’s anti-vax. She has absolutely no place on Jeopardy.
Seriously, has this guy ever interacted with humans before?
He’s a Mormon, so probably not.
Anti-vax ? The mother who vaxxed herself and her kids and is a Doctor of Neuroscience. Go re-read something.
Your allergy crack is pretty dickish.
Yes it was.
It’s funny to me that these two, both smart people on paper, are devoutly religious. Not only religious but in specific, dogmatic ways. Jennings is a member of the Church of Latter-day Saints (Mormons. The “Saints” referred to? Themselves.) Bialik is a follower of Orthodox Judaism. Both of them have the faculties to realize that their beliefs contain elements that cannot possibly have happened or be literally true. Now I’m aware that religious belief is not technically a delusion like a mental illness as it is learned, not a result of some mental process gone away. But how does an intelligent person reconcile their observations with their ideas when they so clearly fail to match? Do the mental gymnastics of believing in a moral God in an amoral mechanistic universe cause issues of their own?I know I probably sound like a fedora wearing Reddit atheist but how do smart people believe in the supernatural when there’s no evidence of it and much to the contrary? I don’t want to insult or denigrate them or even to change their beliefs but I would like to understand. I realize there must be an emotional component to religious belief that I’m missing. Due to my personal psychology I’m very unemotional so it’s difficult for me to estimate the effect of people’s feelings on their thoughts and actions. Since God or whatever Creator is addressed is usually referred to as Father or some equivalent I’d guess most believers’ relationship with their deities would be like that of a child to their parents. Even I can see how such a connection, forged at a young age and possibly while under the care of less than perfect human parents, would be difficult if not impossible to break.I also wonder if people who are both intelligent and religious are more attracted to beliefs like Judaism and Mormonism because they both have the written, dogmatic rules for proper behavior as expressed in the Old Testament and their supplements to it, The Talmud and The Book Of Mormon respectively. I wouldn’t be surprised if more legalistic religious traditions were more appealing to such people. Anyway these have been my random thoughts on religion. If you got this far thanks for reading and have a great day!
My God may not be your idea of God, but one thing I know of my God — he makes me a humanitarian. I am a proud Jew because we gave the world the Bible and the story of Joseph. Albert Einstein Do you think God stays in Heaven because he too fears what he has created? Robert OppenheimerThe first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you. Werner Heisenberg Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion. Issac NewtonFaith is a construct derived from both Trust and Experience. Science only examines what it can see and most scientists accept the notion of with time, someone “might” be able to explain their experience with Faith using established methodology. As with most people who have walked away from their “Faith”, it has to do with the experience of how people express theirs. (I walked away years ago because members of my church defended their shitty behavior by constantly referring to themselves as People of Faith. I lost my trust in people who hid their lack of humanity in church cloth.)Having a few advanced degrees in Economics only tells me I know those things I’ve studied and there are still elements of my own life’s work that are still to be learned.
I probably wasn’t specific enough. I can understand belief in a creator because we don’t have all the answers and even logic and philosophy tell us that some questions are unanswerable. I can understand tradition and community. The same with the emotional comfort religion can provide, especially when coming to terms with bereavement. I can understand those who need a moral compass, to whom many of the events of the Bible and other traditions can be interpreted as allegories and metaphors. I can even understand the cynical view that religion is necessary for social control among humans and even those who disbelieve should act as if they do for the good of the group. What I can’t quite grasp is how intelligent people raised in a technological culture can think that extremely unlikely things happened literally as written. That God flooded the whole world, that all humans are descended from two ancestors, that the sun was stopped in the sky to help some Bronze Age tribesmen take a Near-Eastern fort, that a tribe wandered forty years in Sinai fed by magic rain, that the Red Sea was parted. That sort of thing. Not trying to single out the Biblical religions but those are the ones I’m most familiar with. I’m sure all the world’s faiths have their less believable elements aside from their spiritual value.
“What I can’t quite grasp is how intelligent people raised in a technological culture can think that extremely unlikely things happened literally as written.”Have Bialik and Jennings said that they think they happened literally as written?
I don’t know that they have, I was using them as examples of clearly intelligent people who follow rather dogmatic faiths. They may privately disagree. Which Judaism leaves room for but I’m pretty sure if Jennings stood up in Tabernacle and said he was thought Joseph Smith made up the golden plates in order to convince the simple people of the time of the truth of his holy vision then he would be counseled and asked to leave the Temple if he persisted doing so publicly.Do you believe something if you pretend to for reasons unrelated to the topic you have a contrary opinion on? I think that’s how new sects and branches of denominations get started, essentially. At least when they’re over theological rather than political or cultural divisions.
Jennings would get worse than that, and possibly also his family, which explains a lot about his indifference.Even mainstream Mormonism is hardcore; losing his temple recommend would be the least of what would happen to him if he say, failed to tithe or acted “in open rebellion” of the faith. He’d be excommunicated, consigned forever to Outer Darkness, eternally separated from his ancestors and progeny for all eternity. His family would have to live with the public shame of having an apostate in the family, and refusal to cut ties with him completely would jeopardize their position in the faith- especially if any of them hold positions within the Church or its varying other activities (think BYU, Tabernacle Choir, stake or ward presidency, Relief Society, Eagle Forum, etc). That’s why I don’t generally side-eye people like Jennings or say, Elizabeth Moss, that were raised in cultish environments and keep their lips zipped. Their families will pay the price.
That certainly belies their “nice” image. According to Ancestry DNA I’m actually related to some of the original Mormons. I never knew who my biological father was until then so I may have dodged a bullet. Not sure if he or his family were members but plenty of their relatives are.
“I don’t know that they have, I was using them as examples of clearly intelligent people who follow rather dogmatic faiths.”Right, but following a dogmatic faith doesn’t mean you take everything in your religious text as a literal thing that literally happened. You can’t ask how they “can think that extremely unlikely things happened literally as written” if you don’t know that they do. In a courtroom I would object to that question as assuming facts not in evidence. You can’t ask a question that assumes a premise that you don’t know to be true. Just because it’s a “dogmatic” faith doesn’t mean every adherent, or even most of its adherents, believe the whole text to be reporting events as they literally happened. “Which Judaism leaves room for but I’m pretty sure if Jennings stood up in Tabernacle and said he was thought Joseph Smith made up the golden plates”I mean yeah but who said he stood up in Tabernacle and said anything? As someone else pointed out, there are a lot of reasons people are engaged in religion, reasons having to do with community, history, social status, enjoying the rituals, etc. “Do you believe something if you pretend to for reasons unrelated to the topic you have a contrary opinion on?”Again, how do you know he’s pretending anything? I’m just not sure what point you’re trying to get at here. I get that you think religion is dumb, or whatever, but this line of questioning seems to be assuming a lot of things about these people on the larger assumption that all people who practice a faith believe every single thing in the religious text, which is just a faulty assumption from jump. I’m a Christian and I don’t necessarily believe that there were two people named Adam and Eve and that a snake spoke to one of them about a piece of fruit, but I’m still a practicing Christian and I take the lesson from the story that it’s intended to teach, and I would have no problem saying as much to my pastor or to anyone else at my church. But as noted above, my religion, or at least my denomination thereof, is not a cult, which is what you get with some versions of Mormonism, so it’s easier for me to say that.
Again, can’t speak for Jennings and the LDS, but Jews, even the most doctrinaire, don’t believe in simple Biblical literalism (though some do believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis).
I shouldn’t think so. Most Christians don’t either. Fundies are loud, but they aren’t a majority.
There are some simple explanations for smart people here. I don’t know Bialek’s, for example, personal beliefs, but I’m pretty confident in assuming that if you asked she would think something along the lines of: God clearly didn’t God the whole world, there was just a big flood that seemed endless at that point, and 40 days of rain just means it rained a long time (side note from a smart person, 40 seems to be the number the Bible chooses to represent anything really long, ex. Jesus wanted 40 days in the desert, the Jews wandered 40 years, 40 days of rain, it’s always 40). In any case, for any regional tribe, a huge reason and flood may SEEM to cover the world. My point, smart people can readily see symbolism in those stories, not scientific fact. As for the more unexplainable things or abstract thoughts, I think scientists, and the very very intelligent, can often allow for two thoughts:1) science can EVENTUALLY explain almost everything, MAYBE, and 2) having ‘faith’ that science can explain everything also allows me to accept that maybe there is a god that can explain some things too, but I am not smart enough to make claim over either, because as a smart scientist, I have to keep my mind open to all possibilities (saying no to any potential explanation without testing is by definition, bad science)
With historical knowledge of how civilizations evolved, most people understand that it was a matter of perspective that fostered the ideas of global floods or “Acts of God” that extended beyond their horizon. Flat earth? Plenty of people believed it until such time as they were given better information to foster a different understanding.Floods? Pretty much a world view that was limited in scope based on transportation and migratory patterns of humans.Burning bushs? Most likely lightening that was used by those with power to keep those without subjugated.Plenty of educated people opted to “believe” the God has/had a plan rather than dig into the human condition and the horrors we have brought upon ourselves. (I’m rather tired of anyone who tells me the death of my daughter was God’s Plan. It’s not comforting and rather a source of anger that they don’t just say “Damn, that heart condition. Wish they had found it sooner…”
my dude just quoted Spy Kids 2 and attributed it to Oppenheimer
It’s come to my attention the Oppenheimer quote was from Spy Kids 2… guess I should have better sourced my info! Damn memes!
In my experience, the secret is that you get to decide what being religious means for you. So for me, being a Christian is less believing in the supernatural and more selecting a moral outlook for my life, built on ideas of self-sacrifice, mercy, and kindness in the face of cruelty. For others, it’s very much about finding a community, or carrying on a culture or tradition.It does help to be born into a faith, though. Even though I wasn’t raised by particularly religious people, I acquired a framework of stories and ideas to work with beyond, “So you believe in all-knowing, all-powerful and loving God who created a kind of sucky world?”Sure, there are people who would argue I’m not really a Christian, and sometimes various Christian faiths have killed and/or oppressed people who would have thought unusually about Christianity. But they were jerks, so I don’t really feel the need to respect them in that way.
Thanks for the response. My parents were an avowed atheist father and a non-practicing Jewish mother so I got very little in the way of religious instruction. Thankfully Dad wasn’t an anti religion type of atheist but he was also a conspiracy theorist so he may have had an inkling that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.I can definitely understand those people who see their beliefs as primarily providing a moral framework or a community. Certainly our laws are based on Judeo-Christian ethics and religious traditions have kept many groups culturally intact despite the pressures of assimilation in modern society.I also get that most people, believers or not, don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the problem of evil and other philosophical meanderings. And those who accept their specific traditions as allegories and metaphors, guideposts to proper behavior rather than things that actually happened. What confuses me is those who insist on the literal truth of impossible things. I don’t even mean like the existence of God, some things are just unprovable one way or another. I mean like the story of Noah. Incest and animals aside, where did the water from a global flood go? Unless there’s a Flat Earth in there it doesn’t make sense.It now strikes me that the real reason this isn’t an issue for many believers is that they don’t obsessively burrow down the rabbit hole of their own thoughts over this kind of thing, like I do. Maybe being steeped in the corrosion of postmodern skepticism and internet irony for most of my life has something to do with it. Sometimes belief in an altruistic higher power would be a comfort.
I mean like the story of Noah. Incest and animals aside, where did the
water from a global flood go? Unless there’s a Flat Earth in there it
doesn’t make sense.There are two fairly obvious possible answers:(1) No, they don’t actually believe that it literally happened.(2) Divine miracle.
And both answers are fucking ridiculous.
Regarding the flood, there is a school of thought that the global flood was actually a very large flood of the Tigris-Euphrates region that the common people who lived there believed was a global flood (because everywhere they knew was flooded and they had no idea of the size of the world).
I’ve read that as well but I wasn’t sure how to take it. Without going back to sources taking any science media at face value is getting to be difficult. Recently I saw some pieces on science sites talking about an asteroid that might be made of super heavy stable elements. “Big if true” as Ol’ Musky likes to say. After doing an aggravating amount of Googling I found out this whole idea is based off of the asteroid’s extreme density. But that density is based off of one survey in 2012 where the surveyor rejected the sample as unreliable. And other rejected samples from that survey have been looked at again and their mass/density estimates have been revised down by an order of magnitude. But some researcher, a nuclear physicist rather than an astronomer, thought it would be really cool if it was a chunk of elements around 160 on the periodic table. They then wrote a scholarly paper on it and had that published in a journal. Now we have a slew of articles talking about something that almost certainly isn’t true. It’s frustrating.
“Without going back to sources taking any science media at face value is getting to be difficult.”Of course. I’m not saying you have to take it at face value. What I’m saying is not every part of the Bible or any religious text has to be taken 100% literally. It talks about a global flood, but that doesn’t mean there was a global flood. It could mean a lot of things, including that there was a large flooding event that people interpreted as global. Or it could be a fish tale (“that flood was sooooo big…”). It’s not about the literal events of the story. It’s about the lesson contained therein.
“I mean like the story of Noah.”Well at least on this one aspect, a LOT of ancient cultures have a flood myth story it’s not just a Christian thing, also you have to consider the mindset of ancient peoples, with their lack of modern science and understanding. I mean what consisted of the entire “world” for someone thousand of years ago is vastly different. Their entire world would have only been their particular region so a massive “global” flood is a lot more plausible. I mean I think a lot of stuff in religious books, is just ancient peoples trying to explain things they couldn’t understand at the time. IT was a way to make unknown “things” less scary.
Being of Christian faith = personal relationship with God. One to one.Being of Christian religion = must be shared with others to prove devoutness, usually over others.
“Sure, there are people who would argue I’m not really a Christian,”
Well yeah, strictly speaking if you don’t literally accept Jesus Christ as a real entity that died for your sins you are not a Christian.
People can call themselves whatever they want but I always think it’s weird when people want to use a label that isn’t factually accurate.
Honestly? Fair. I used to feel really torn between what’s basically agnosticism and a rather strong attachment to Christianity, so my views now are partly a way to resolve that. But also spite, because I didn’t like letting my view of Christianity be defined by people I find a bit despicable. It’s a bit ridiculous to be sure, but I’m pretty comfortable with it.
Incidentally, I do think Jesus was a real entity, in terms of having lived and probably having a network of close associates whom he trusted to spread information and continue his teachings past his death, but the whole “his death actually redeemed humanity for his sins” thing is pretty come and go to me. Some days it actually feels powerfully true, but a lot of days I remember that that phrase is itself pretty complicated theologically.
So for me, being a Christian is less believing in the supernatural and
more selecting a moral outlook for my life, built on ideas of
self-sacrifice, mercy, and kindness in the face of cruelty.
So you don’t murder or steal because a book told you you shouldn’t? And you can’t separate the supernatural from religion, it’s a key component.
1st part: No, like most people, I don’t murder or steal because of social conditioning. I can articulate moral and legal reasons now, but I definitely learned about those well after my mom said stealing was wrong.
2nd part: I don’t know about that. I’ve done it, and nothing’s happened, so was it really that important?
Smart people can hold dumb beliefs.
I think the one thing you’re overlooking is the community aspect of religion. I’m not sure how religious either of them actually is, but they both come from religions with very strong communities around them. They also both have histories of persecution, and are linked to specific ethnic groups (not entirely, but they’re certainly less diverse than Islam or Christianity as a whole).Being from a minority religion in America can forge strong bonds. If you’re the only kid in school who celebrates Hannukah, and then another Jewish kid comes along, it can really enforce your own Jewish identity. And when your entire family believes in something, it can be a lot easier to just not think about it too hard. It becomes less about the beliefs and more about the community surrounding it.
Are they smart… or do they have good memories?What did Jennings do in his real life before Jeopardy?
And I know Bialik has talked about being a child actor memorizing lines was never hard.
This is something I’ve wondered about before. I always scored well on standardized tests and got a high IQ score (I’m aware that those measurements are biased and flawed but they’re what we have a large set of data on) but I’ve also recognized that a lot of that has to do with my ability to retain and recall information, not my ability to do anything with that information. I do seem to be able to connect the dots of a line of thought faster than many people as well as to see the dots when others can’t. But that’s at best half of what people call intelligence. The other half can be outdone by any computer. I believe our educational system overvalues the skills or abilities involved in memorization and regurgitation because those are way easier to quantify. Something like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was a groundbreaking new perspective but the only way to put that in numbers is either a subjective rating or a complicated statistical process to determine how much the breakthrough deviated from conventional thought at the time. And any such analysis would of necessity involve some subjectivity due to the weighting of variables.Unfortunately I think we’ll have to find a better working definition of intelligence before we can rationally design a system to cultivate it during youth.
She has a doctorate in neuroscience so I think she’s pretty smart. Having a good memory helps you become smart if you apply it in that way.
Atheist here. Humanity throughout its history has believed in gods and higher powers far longer than it has not. And why wouldn’t it, to deal with our very unique existence unlike any other animal’s, and subsequently our much harder to live in society. There are burial mounds of our ancestors tens of thousands of years back that have been found with things in them meant for an afterlife. Religion, especially the big three monotheist ones, have been a fundamental part of culture for thousands of years. Not to mention the Asian religions. So it would be very unbelievable for most of the population now to suddenly be without religious belief. And also keep in mind that very religious people throughout the past 2,000 years were highly intellectual and kept scholarship alive and advanced science.
People generally have incoherent and contradictory political opinions, too.
It may be hard wired
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/neurotheology-are-we-hardwired-god
I’m a staunch agnostic for some of the reason you say, but my brother, who holds a PhD in physics from and Ivy, is an ultra-conservative Catholic, so I’ve had to think a lot about your points for a very long time—i.e. how can someone ‘so smart’ not see the obvious contradictions. Moreover, how can this person with same upbringing and DNA as me still believe any of this ‘nonsense?’
My thinking is that is is not so much about ‘intelligence’ as it is psychology. Its hard to underestimate how much intellectual comfort his ‘faith’ gives him in terms of community and moral superiority. He simply doesn’t have to engage in any uncomfortable messy truths, let say about abortion, because he already knows better than everyone. And worse, he surrounds himself with a very small community of like mined believers who constantly pat each other on the back for their ‘bravery’ in the face so much perceived and manufactured oppression of their faith.To wit he typically ends any argument with me by saying I just don’t truly understand Catholic theology, and then refuses to elaborate on it. Its a form of tribalism he landed on through his own stubbornness and needs. So instead of seeing it as intellectual dishonesty, I really just see it as a deep seeded need for certainty, belonging and (in some cases) superiority. And for many people its just to powerful to cut through anything else.
People of faith don’t always believe that every single tenet is “literally true.” You can understand your religious text as a series of fables designed to illustrate ideas and values that you agree with and hold dear. You can also believe one or two of them to be true (for instance, there is a God and God loves me) while understanding the rest to be illustrations of that truth, and also understand that those illustrations have been distilled through thousands of years of sociopolitical history that also has to be unpacked.I’m a pretty smart person, but I never want to be so smart that I think that if I haven’t proven it yet it has to be false.
You can understand your religious text as a series of fables designed to
illustrate ideas and values that you agree with and hold dear.
There’s a term for that: fairytale.
there is a God and God loves me
There is no evidence to support that statement.
I’m a pretty smart person, but I never want to be so smart that I think that if I haven’t proven it yet it has to be false.
It’s not about proving it yourself. It’s about anyone proving it at all.
“There’s a term for that: fairytale.”You can call it what you want. I have no problem with that.“There is no evidence to support that statement.”Okay? I didn’t say there was.“It’s not about proving it yourself. It’s about anyone proving it at all.” It’s not my objective to prove it to anyone. I apologize if my comment somehow gave you the impression that it was. I’m not trying to convert anybody; I was answering the question that was asked. I’m not sure why you’re trying to start an argument about it but you’ll get no argument from me about what you believe or don’t. Do what’s right for you.
Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug.
I’m a practicing Jew and I know loads of very smart people who are also practicing. Your argument, at least vis-a-vis Judaism, is fundamentally flawed because it’s couched as being about a belief in the supernatural. Judaism is profoundly concerned with ethical conduct in day to day life (as well as maintenance of ritual practice in such areas as kashrut and Shabbat). It’s also our living heritage as a people and celebrating that continuity is extremely important to us. Even amongst actively practicing Jews I know many agnostics, including myself.
Compartmentalization? Is that a word? I think it’s like baseball, you’re only going to be into it if you were introduced and raised into it by your parents. I doubt they really believe, but it’s the culture they were raised in.
This says way more about you.
This little witticism is pithy yet meaningless without further explanation, so what is the “way more” my comment says about me? Hopefully there’s something I’m unaware of despite having been myself for quite some time. Unless you don’t actually have anything to contribute to the discussion.
That user in particular never does. They just scream at other people.
Okay, dude who is mad that I proved him wrong months ago. Let it go.
That’s the opposite of what happened, but you manifest your reality.(Incidentally, here you are, contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion and bringing up another time you contributed absolutely nothing.)
Whatever you gotta tell yourself, killa.I know you’re still mad because I said that grooming children was more evil than watching someone’s content to see if there was grooming content and exposing it.Best death hill ever, sport!
You said “prepare for that not to happen bruh.” And then it did happen, and I proved to you that it happened with screenshots, because it happens every time this site posts anything even mildly critical of the MCU, and you ignored the comments I showed you because you refuse to accept the possibility of you being wrong. But – ironically for a reply on a thread about atheism – you couldn’t have “proved me wrong” to begin with, because you can’t prove a negative.Even now, you still have absolutely nothing of value to contribute to the discussion, so you bring up old drama. That’s your whole schtick. It was kind of funny at first, but it’s just old now. Find something better to do. I know you’re still mad because I said that grooming children was more evil than watching someone’s content to see if there was grooming content and exposing it.You are literally the only person who keeps bringing that up (each time twisting it more and more from what actually happened). The ONLY person still mad about that incident* is YOU.If I’m still mad at anything, it’s you telling people of color how they are supposed to self-identify.*For anyone else reading, a different user wrote a clumsily worded comment that said they don’t like people who spend hours digging through old videos to find dirt. IContainMultitudes interpreted that comment in the worst way possible, and when multiple people tried to explain to how he was reading the comment in bad faith, IContainMultitudes accused everyone who defended the OP of being the OP’s friend.
It’s interesting that you are not claiming to have done something that you actually can’t do on this platform. Fascinating.And kid, I didn’t say you are specifically bringing up old drama – that incident when you and your buddies were so sure that people looking for dirt about predatory behavior was more offensive than predatory behavior. That was literally what the comment was, and I said that was shitty, and you made 300 comments about how I was wrong and refusing to literally read the literal fucking comment I responded to. What I meant is that, because of some slight you perceived many months ago, you make a shitty little sniping comment every single time you see me.Move the fuck on, son. Let’s just never fucking talk.
You replied to me, numbnuts.It’s interesting that you are not claiming to have done something that you actually can’t do on this platform. Fascinating.I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
To your big mad little ad hominem, yeah.Find a new obsession.
It’s not an ad hominem if your entire comment history is actually sniping at other people in bad faith and generally making this platform less pleasant, but ok.
He typed, with no self-awareness.
He said, as if comment histories aren’t public and viewable by everyone.
I mean, it suggests that you are a high school sophomore with pretensions who is confused because he can’t fathom how people far more intelligent than he can have belief systems that he doesn’t understand.Faith or lack thereof and intelligence have zero correlation. Your atheism does not make you smarter than anyone. Perhaps if you had anything more than a single molecule thick understanding of what religion is, you’d learn that, Reddit posts notwithstanding, you have neither engaged with nor conquered the issues at hand. I have to admit that I’d be curious about this “evidence to the contrary” you suggest exists if I hadn’t had this same conversation 5,000 times. There is neither evidence for or against a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, and the only actual “rational” position is agnosticism: both theism and atheism are religious beliefs.I miss the time when atheists simply didn’t believe in God but skipped this whole thing where it becomes a major part of their identity and self esteem, assuring them they just think better than most humans since the beginning of time. The question shouldn’t be “why do smart people believe in God” but rather “why do people think that not believing in God makes them smart?”
Your atheism does not make you smarter than anyone.
Recognizing bullshit and calling it out as such does make you smarter than most people.
you have neither engaged with nor conquered the issues at hand.
What issues, exactly, are you talking about?
both theism and atheism are religious beliefs.
Atheism, ie. not believing in obvious bullshit, is not a religious belief. Calling it such just proves you’re an idiot.
I miss the time when atheists simply didn’t believe in God but skipped
this whole thing where it becomes a major part of their identity and
self esteem
Believing in God is a huge part of religious peoples’ identity and self esteem. Why should not believing in God not be a huge part of atheists’ identity and self esteem?
assuring them they just think better than most humans since the beginning of time.
A sense of superiority is inevitable when everyone around believes in obvious bullshit but you don’t.
The question shouldn’t be “why do smart people believe in God” but
rather “why do people think that not believing in God makes them smart?”
Because not believing in obvious bullshit makes me smarter than people who swallow obvious bullshit hook, line & sinker. It’s literally the same reason why I’m smarter than fuckwits who believe in Q-Anon bullshit. Bullshit is bullshit, and if you believe in it, then you’re an idiot.
Go to college. A firm belief in the existence (pro or con) of God absent any evidence is LITERALLY A RELIGIOUS BELIEF.Serious, crack a fucking book if you want to run around telling yourself you’re brighter than other people, you smug sophomore.
If your self-worth is so dependent on the absence of something, you should maybe develop some actual interests.
So you’ve got insults and condescension to bring to the table, along with a heaping helping of useless verbiage that proves nothing. Thanks and I don’t mean that sarcastically. I do appreciate it when people let me know what they’re capable of and I think I’ve got your number. Who hurt you so bad?
Oh yeah, just out of curiosity, did you actually read all of my first post, let alone any of my other many comments on this thread, before you made your first passive aggressive attack on me or this more direct one? Be honest, you didn’t, did you? Not honest with me, I don’t expect you to respond. Honest with yourself about how you’re going off half-cocked for basically no reason. I think this says way more about you.
You mean the post that started off with your cognitive dissonance in discovering some smart people are religious, which you struggled to accept because you had already decided that that was impossible, because you’re pretty sure that your atheism is the result of superior intelligence? And the one where you then used your false premise to kick off some cringey and infantilizing psychological theorizing? Not to mention your super-informed take on how somehow Judaism and Mormonism are similar in ways that make them different than other religions in order to align the original fact with your bogus premise, despite that having zero validity? Yeah I read that shit, and I read it the last 100,000 times some teenager posted that same shit. That’s why I responded.
No, you didn’t. You skimmed for things you could use as weapons because you’d already decided you didn’t like me or anything I had to say, likely because something in there hurt your feelings. Tell me how I made you sad, what pierced your honor and made you have to valiantly attack me for…what exactly? God and Jesus? The good name of people who believe things they know can’t possibly be true? The right to call yourself a member of a group whose doctrines you don’t actually believe in but you’re too cowardly to break with your community and history? No, you just don’t like the argument. Sure, Jan. Sure. My cognitive dissonance, huh? Lol.
I have been an atheist for 30 years, doofus. Obnoxious adolescents like you make us all look like assholes.
Now I’m aware that religious belief is not technically a delusionYes, it is. Burning bushes, oil burning for days & days & days, walking on water, a handful of fish feeding thousands, a dead man rising from the grave and living again… How is that not delusional? If religion didn’t exist and someone invented it tomorrow, everyone would laugh at that person.
how do smart people believe in the supernatural when there’s no evidence of it and much to the contrary?
If they believe in the supernatural, then they’re not smart, are they?
I realize there must be an emotional component to religious belief that I’m missing.
There isn’t.
I also wonder if people who are both intelligent and religious are more attracted to beliefs like Judaism and Mormonism because…People aren’t attracted to religion. For the vast majority of people who believe in religion, they believe in it because their parents believed in it and they were raised in it.
According to mental health professionals religious beliefs typical of one’s culture and upbringing are not delusions or symptoms of mental illness. I’m not one of those professionals so I don’t know the exact reasoning behind that. Perhaps it’s essentially a pass on a sensitive topic but there may well be important reasons to draw a distinction. I’m not in a position to be certain.
According to mental health professionals religious beliefs typical of
one’s culture and upbringing are not delusions or symptoms of mental
illness.
That’s called indoctrination. One believes in something because one was raised/trained to believe in something. At the end of the day, one is still believing in something that is delusional.
I’m not one of those professionals so I don’t know the exact reasoning
behind that. Perhaps it’s essentially a pass on a sensitive topic
It’s definitely taking a pass.
but there may well be important reasons to draw a distinction.
Because telling people the truth, that all religion is bullshit and is nothing but a net negative to humanity, would piss a lot of people off.
I don’t see anything contradictory between general intelligence and basic religious beliefs (good people are rewarded after they die), but there are smart people that get caught up in scams and cults, and they’re always asked, “Well you’re so smart, how did you get sucked into X?” The answer is usually that they had some vulnerability, something missing, and X filled that hole (usually a sense of belonging).
While Trebek could hardly be categorized as “real” he was
at least highly polished and, sadly, the infrastructure for nurturing
professional television personalities no longer exists. It used to be
that someone could start out in local radio/TV and work their way up to
larger markets and then to the networks where they’d start out with a
minor game show and graduate to a hit show. Now we get saddled with
former, personality-free former contestants and minor comedic actors who
have a bare minimum of chilly on-camera competence. I honestly don’t understand how anyone can sit through the show any more.
What is “Songs full of understandable words which make no sense together anymore”, Alex.
My favorite story is Jon Miller, the longtime baseball announcer who got his first gig by sitting in the stands and recording full games of play-by-play that he later submitted to potential employers as a sort of resume. Now it’s more like this:
I knew Alex Trebek was great at hosting Jeopardy! but didn’t fully grasp how great he was at hosting Jeopardy! until others tried hosting and the show just wasn’t as good.I’ve gone from watching every night to not bothering to watch at all.
Yeah I never realized how much Alex Trebek mattered to my enjoyment of the show until he was gone. It’s just not the same without him, and I can remember way back wondering who the hell he thought he was taking the place of Art Fleming.
She was a great host. (Ken is good too.) But unlike him, too bad she had to deal with a lot more criticism that seemed to be based on her gender and Ken’s cult of personality.
I think she gets an unfair amount of flak. But most of the criticism against her has to do with her lack of engagement with the contestants, her extended pauses before answering “yes” or “no”, and her giggling at things that aren’t funny, like someone finding the Daily Double.
…and all the pseudoscience bullshit she occasionally dabbled in: not a good look for someone with a hard science PhD.
Sure, that too. The point being, chalking it up to woman-hating is disingenuous. And ignores things like the pseudo-science.
She was a bad host. I did not like her grimaces, weird pauses, and everything else about her.
The press release I just read five minutes ago before seeing your article definitively states Ken Jennings is the sole host of Jeopardy! from this point forward. So… maybe you want to get that right.
The real question I have is whether she will continue to be the host for like “Celebrity Jeopardy” or “College Jeopardy” or other special evens that run in prime-time. It’s possible that the fact that she’s clearly warmer as a host than Mr. Jennings is a good fit for specialty Jeopardy, but not a great fit for Regular Jeopardy or Sickos Jeopardy (i.e. the ToC, and things of that nature.)
Jeopardy! put out a message that they “hope to continue to work with her on primetime specials”
She has not had a great year. Between Leslie Jordan’s death, the cancelation of Call Me Kat, the strike, and now this, not great. I do feel bad for her.
She should be glad Call Me Kat got cancelled, that was embarrassingly bad. Leslie Jordan died just to get away from it.
Good news! I watch Jeopardy every night and find Ken to be a far far better host. I hope Mayim goes on to find work that is better suited to her talents.
she should join the israeli propaganda office, she’s actually more natural and believable on camera than the insane maniacs that work for them now!
Don’t feel bad for Bignose “Support Israel” Dollarburgstein.
…And no one missed her.
I’m profoundly mixed. I prefer Ken as a host — honestly, I thought Buzzy Cohen did a better job, but Ken is ok and has improved over time. Mayim was always a bit off on timing and not as good at interacting with contestants, and she didn’t really improve. But if, as suspected, this is connected to Mayim’s interpretation of WGA strike solidarity, it’s shitty.
It’s a pity. She was way better than Jennings. He’s so…bland.