Charlie Rose

PRS  02/18/2013 01:12 PM Report

The first time I watched the interview, I felt like Randall was very rude. But after finding out that it had originally been her interview alone and she had invited Kyle, I watched it again and the dynamic seemed much more natural. Having said that, I can't condone the comments below that seem to suggest that just because Randall is a woman, she should be given a pass on how she treats her younger colleagues. But again, the second time I saw the interview and knowing that she had invited Kyle, it really did seem more reasonable (except at the end where she really started cutting Kyle off) and I say, good for her for supporting a younger colleague by inviting him to participate in the interview. Not that Kyle needs help getting tenure, but this kind of thing can make a big difference in a young persons career. Especially when the press tends to pick a poster child for various topics and then goes back to the same person over and over (Niel de Grasse Tyson...) while others toil without recognition.

DongDong  10/09/2011 04:20 AM Report

Very enjoyable discussions. Dr. Randall has excellent skills in making complicated and abstract ideas understandable to the public. Very cool interview, both of them have done a great job!

xiao-zhi  10/02/2011 07:53 AM Report

@Kirk7

Refer Enrico Fermi's bet. There is sound empirical evidence to suggest Dr. Randall is not a complete idiot.

Fortunately my wife trained me well so I really enjoyed this interview particularly Dr. Kramer's bon mots.

JohnHanley  09/17/2011 02:33 PM Report

My comment is really about the interview with Lisa Randall that I saw last night September 16th. She and other scientists seem to find themselves in an unusual position in terms of their use of reason. See if this make sense: Lisa Randall wrote a book sugesting that people should employ scientific reasoning, presumably because she thinks it's better. Now, better and worse are indicative of a process of dimunition and increase, twords or away from something, the same way that something that is getting lighter is becoming more white. That which is getting better would be said to be becoming more good, and that either universally (meaning that when I say I've seen a good movie I'm talking about the same thing as when I say I have good vision or use the term good in reference to anything else), or good is different for each particular thing. If it's the latter, then how do we know whether something is better or worse? It must be that when we say that something is getting better we mean that it is getting closer to fufilling the purpose it was created for either by art or by nature, and therefore that it is coming closer to the good in an absolute, universal sense. Further, if this is so(and how could we know if a thing is good or not if it isn't; knowldge isn't of particulars but universals, the way a doctor doesn't study a particular person to treat disease but human physiology generally),then how does this view differ in any way from a belief in God? The universe supposedly started from a "big bang", in which a singularity of infinitely dense matter exploded and began to form the universe we know today. If we separate this process int the material and formal cause, isn't it so that the formal cause preceeds the material cause? For example, if we say the eye was formed for the purpose of seeing, then dosn't that mean that sight somhow was first? In the case of the universe that would seem to indicate an origin for the universe that is transendant of time, and therefore eternal. So what does physics say about how people should behave? If for instance, scientific inquiry reveals truth, why should we act in accordance with that truth rather than any other way, merely pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, for instance? Has anybody learned anything about this since Aristotle, or is it the case that, "the more powerful our telescopes get, the further the universe moves away from us...", to paraphrase either Charlie Rose or Sting or whoever said something like that in thier interview?

Grlskr  04/29/2011 02:50 AM Report

They are both fabulous. They seemed like collaborators. Lisa is a class act and a national treasure. Imagine what she has gone through in order to "take the reins" and get her due. As a kid maybe she was saying "charm school or winning the state science fair??" Too much chatter here on etiquette and not content. We are on the verge of something HUGE and Lisa is a major player.

Callisto  10/13/2010 03:23 PM Report

Lisa Randall's great! It's true that she kept interrupting Kyle, while I wouldnt like to be interrupted while speaking, I'd have to say Kyle doesnt provide very clear explanations, which is why I believe she interrupted in order to add on to the stuff he has said. If she didnt interrupt him...we'd have a vague interview...

lorralight  10/12/2010 10:52 PM Report

oh please.

she is articulate, brilliant, interesting, good looking, professorial.

he is younger, less experienced.

totally appropriate, totally balanced in that she is the senior person here.

he even admits as much.

anyone calling lisa randall egotistic, hogging, etc. is CLEARLY uncomfortable with women having due power.

Aravind  04/30/2010 02:23 PM Report

I read these comments as I started out to watch the video. Half way through the interview I wanted to comment here saying Lisa was really enjoyable listening to and it was just that some of you here weren't feeling good about a confident and enthusiastic female talking quantum physics so fluently. Then just after Charlie asked her about her interest in physics for which she cutely blushed and the discussions that ensued on the experimental aspect and black holes, I found her really annoying and myself wrong about the way I judged her. Yea, she has no right to interject like that when Kyle Cramer is put the question and he's explaining his part so well. She may have her differences and superiority complex of being a Harvard theoretical physicist, but certainly no right to hog the airtime like that. I stopped watching the video then and there.

prody00  04/22/2010 04:58 AM Report

I guess Lisa Randall may come across rude to the viewers but I think she just very enthusiastic in her work. I doubt Kyle Cranmer is irked by her behavior.

sijacko  04/16/2010 11:03 AM Report

The only conclusion I can draw from this episode is that Lisa Randall is a rude egotist. Her constant interruptions of Kyle Cranmer were beyond belief.

zlatev  04/09/2010 02:39 PM Report

Another EXCELLENT episode! I wish the interview lasted the whole hour at least. Lisa was *hogging* the conversation, nonetheless she had always intelligent things to say. And! -- OhMyGod, a Blond which is in Theoretical Physics and actually IS intelligent! We need to clone her and/or freeze her genetic material.

casablancas  04/07/2010 11:38 PM Report

Agreed. I found it very difficult to witness Lisa's complete arrogance and aggressiveness here. Perhaps the most uncomfortable and joyless interviews I have ever seen on this show. Maybe you could go over some basic rules of etiquette with her if you ever have her on again? Even if she doesn't believe in treating others with respect, perhaps Lisa could learn to pretend as if she does?

bobsie  04/06/2010 01:17 PM Report

A female in theoretical physics? You bet she has to squeeze her ego into the conversation. More power to her.

I had my 13yo daughter watch to see first hand an example of female intelligence interjecting into a man's world. I pray she does half as well since she aspires to a science career too.

And I don't think any males have even been hurt by Lisa. Shame on you males for even complaining.

Bring Lisa back for more. She is a delight to hear.

Richm  04/04/2010 04:31 PM Report

Even before I starting reading all these comments, I was somewhat bothered by the constant interruptions by both guests. Whether this is a conversational style used by scientists during debates may be possible. Tt was annoying. Also, I think the first interruption was from Kyle?

Either way, a very interesting topic and news event even though hard to follow.

landlockedsailor  04/03/2010 02:12 PM Report

Silly old me posted early and wondered what others thought.

I have watched Charlie Rose for as long as I can remember.

I have never posted a comment;yet why did I post the "Blind Experiment" comment the verbiage being:

"One of the two guests lacks proper speaking etiquette skills."

I must be young, stupid, uniformed, poor, ignorant, uneducated, unskilled, jealous, envious, "Tea Bagger" material

as defined in a hip Internet street jargon dictionary. The definition is actually not very pleasant.

I must hate women more specifically brilliant gifted women and resent seeing their presence on a prominent show

along side a man.

I must hate science and want all monies spent on science to be allocated to religious and metaphysical causes.

Sorry to disappoint -- none of the above is me.

I made a mistake. I thought when I clicked on the show I was going to watch a talk, a fireside chat whose intent, whose goal was

to disseminate information about science and about the Collider and Not a debate. Some commentors or one disguising themselves as many

want me to believe that the goal was accomplished. On a scale of 1 - 10 please rank the professionalism of the phrase "Plays Nicely".

That is a phrase I have seen on quarterly reports from my children's pre-school so many years ago.

I am a business person if you have not guessed by now. I see the Mission of this show to promote Science. The Job of the two persons

was to accomplish this. So why did I have an impulse reaction, turn off the show midstream and not finish watching it.

Note I never turn off a Charlie Rose show about science.

I turned it off because the message "It is all about" drowned out the science message. Hard as I tried

I could not tune out the "Look at Me" static and focus on the science message.

To be fair and double check my reaction I watched the show again -- all the way through.

Sorry but I reached the same conclusion.

Am I lobbying against this person every doing another Charlie Rose show?

No.

Would I every watch this person again. Yes.

My hope is this person learns from my comments.

Absorb what my very, very strong willed,controlling and successful 93 year grandmother taught me.

"Listen to the other person. Let them finish their thought. Think about what say said

and are trying to say. Slowly formulate your respond -- you may think you must rush but you don't

Then and only then deliver your message with calm eloquence."

I want this person to have a next time, have a stellar message delivery, accomplish the mission and do science proud.

Or you can totally disagree with me and continue our race to the bottom in civility today.

When the civility mean becomes so low and we regress to it then

"The Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists"

I assume all scientists know the phrase.

life4real  04/02/2010 10:10 PM Report

I recorded this program and have watched it twice. Plan to watch again. I hope you have Prof Randall on again.

Thanks

thomasTT  04/02/2010 11:17 AM Report

rodfelsheim's comment is very true. All the people taking offense in the so called interuptions should go to project meetings and scientific discussions and see how real life is. After all these negative comments here I watched the video again.

And it is quite telling that everybody critizises Prof Randall while Prof Cranmer interupts her also (and both do it in a good way).

I think the people complaining here create a false impression of a conflict between the two scientists that simply never happened and that does not exist at all.

They did very well together. And when they jumped in with a comment then it was always to add something very interesting or to clarify a point.

Without that it would have been a lot less interesting.

The comments here approach Youtube quality and that is very sad given the good performance of both scientists.

winter  04/02/2010 01:51 AM Report

rodfelsheim that was funny. "I don't think alot of you realize how scientific conversation is done" "You have to fight through interruptions all the time in science and she did it so well" ...really, that was precious.

emilykden  04/02/2010 01:12 AM Report

agreed that c rose is the only consistently good show on tv (quoting a friend here). i feel like that cranmer kid must have been called in from the bench... he really was offensively condescending to the audience's intelligence.

rodfelsheim  04/02/2010 12:08 AM Report

I don't think a lot of you realize how scientific conversation is done. Lisa Randall was fantastic. Her comparison of physics and biology at the end of the interview, if i may say again; fantastic.

You have to fight through interruptions all the time in science and she did it so well i did not even notice until i read these blog entries and i don't think they are valid.

Charlie Rose is one of the few things on TV worth watching.

EBS  04/01/2010 11:06 PM Report

On the subject of extra dimensions, Riemann still has my greatest respect. His math was beautiful.

Geonerd  04/01/2010 05:25 PM Report

I too thought Lisa was on a bit of an ego rampage.

Most pointedly, I'm disappointed that CR didn't press the Black Hole question. Randall blew the issue off with a huff and a somewhat condescending "That's impossible." There are a number of physicists who feel that there is some risk. If Randall can yap for half an hour about how personally fulfilling it would be to find Mr. Higg's phantom particle, she can take 5 minutes to calmly explain why this experiment won't kill us all! She talks about finding something unknown and 'exciting.' I'd say that an unexpected black hole, killer strangelet, or some other BAD THING would qualify!

seekingoldwisdom  04/01/2010 02:55 PM Report

FRIEND? Are you serious? You gotta be KIDDING me. Is this how you show respect and thoughtfullness towards a friend? Me wonders if she really considers him a friend or an ego boosting prop to keep around! With friends like these, who needs enemies? S wholes abound, whether in academia or the real world.

Keep in mind, I like to check myself against reality (much like experimental physicists) before crystallizing my opinions. Around the 28 minute mark, I stopped watching because Lisa's behavior became unbearably rude and disrespectful. At first I wondered if I was reading too much into it. My curiosity got the better of me and I paused and decided to take a look at the comments (which I never do) to see if anyone else noticed it too. Lo and behold, my suspicions were confirmed. This is unacceptable behavior. This is the first program on CR that I've stopped watching despite my utter fascination with Physics and nor will I finish it. I do not condone or reward bad behavior.

It's a shame really. I used to have a lot of respect for Lisa Randall from her previous solo appearances on CR. One wonders how the insecurities of a fragile ego and the true colors of the persona are laid bare when the setting morphes ever soo slightly and the facade is unmasked. I used to rank her as a 7 or 8 in my book. Today, she dropped herself to a 4.

jbco1  04/01/2010 02:52 PM Report

Clearly, Lisa is an intelligent woman who belongs on a show like Charlie Rose. That said, people, don't let her stature and intelligence excuse her complete lack of consideration for others. If she invited Kyle to speak on the show, she should have permitted him to do so.

JohnF  04/01/2010 01:24 PM Report

At first I thought it was just me that thought that she was being rude in hardly letting Kyle finish a sentence. Her being the 'star' or not should not rule out manners.

We have a reporter in Chicago on a talk show like that and I tell the host to put a shock cushion under his seat for when he hogs the discussion.

Many times it seems Charlie hogs the discussion by wanting impress us by saying what he thinks the guest will say before the guest can say it.

I liked her book and she has got a lot of publicity, but it is those in the field [not journalists] that can testify to her real stature.

PhysicsFan  04/01/2010 12:37 PM Report

Wow, you guys are harsh. As someone in the physics community who knows both Lisa and Kyle, you should know that Kyle is a good friend of Lisa's, and Lisa was supposed to do the whole interview solo, but kindly invited Kyle to join.

Kyle is an intelligent and articulate young guy, no doubt, but as Charlie mentioned, he is "1 of 10,000" experimenters on the LHC. Even Kyle would admit that he is nowhere near as senior or esteemed as Lisa, who is one of the top theoretical Physicists in the world today (how many people have developed their own mathematically correct unified theory?). Clearly Lisa got a bit agitated when Kyle first interrupted her, but then again, he wouldn't have even been there were it not for Lisa. That's why he was smiling the whole time -he was just happy to be there.

That said, I thought they both did an excellent job, and I enjoyed the interview.

thomasTT  04/01/2010 10:47 AM Report

" The transcript also reflects that Mr. Cranmer was interrupted 7 times in mid-sentence. My guess is that he was interrupted at least that many times after a sentence but in the middle of expressing his response."

That is funny and apt for an April 1st activity.

How often did Randall get interrupted mid sentence or between sentences? I remember quite a few times.

discernthis  04/01/2010 10:17 AM Report

Let's go to the transcript: Ms. Randall spoke 48 times, total of 3,620 words. Mr. Cranmer spoke 34 times, total of 1,854 words. Ms. Randall = 66%; Mr. Cranmer = 34%. The transcript also reflects that Mr. Cranmer was interrupted 7 times in mid-sentence. My guess is that he was interrupted at least that many times after a sentence but in the middle of expressing his response.

While we're counting, Ms. Randall uttered "actually" 24 times, "interesting" 24 times, and "basically" 5 times; Mr. Cranmer uttered the same words 4,6, and 15 times.

thomasTT  04/01/2010 10:17 AM Report

The LHC is big news here in Europe. The interview was aired at a very good time. The physicists not only answered the questions very well, they also gave some idea how scietists think and what their ideas are. Prof. Randall explained that very well and in an understandable way. Charlie did a great job in asking the right questions (as he always does). I liked this interview very much and would like to see more interviews about science and technology.

ShalomFreedman  04/01/2010 09:19 AM Report

This was a very informative discussion in a subject I of course do not really understand. Still I through it became more open to the idea of the 'extra- dimension idea' I had come to think of as merely speculative. I too understood a bit better the whole Higgs boson business. Still I do not pretend to ultimately get what these people are talking about. My sense is you have to really be in the field and know the mathematics to do that.

Nonetheless I appreciate the effort to provide an idea of what 's going on to the broader public.

I also appreciate the way Charlie Rose spoke and asked questions here. He did this with a lot of humility, good sense and yes knowledge of the right questions to ask.

Iggy  04/01/2010 08:29 AM Report

I just watched the show (taped) and had to find out if "Charlie Rose" has a comments section online. I am glad to see I'm not alone finding this woman totally unbearable.

It was almost painful to watch Cranmer who, whenever was allowed to speak for more than 5 seconds was making much more sense than Randall.

Embarrassing. Pure rudeness. I wonder if she is always this disrespectful when dealing with other people or colleagues. Reading both profiles it looks like a case of a super-star academic trying to step on another one.

I would think the same if a man had been the nasty one, but in this case I think we saw an "alpha-female" at play.

Phil  04/01/2010 02:37 AM Report

I was so embarrassed for Kyle Cranmer. I was screaming at the TV "Let the man answer the question!" It was to Kyle's credit, and professional demeanor, that he didn't hual off and smack her. Such childish displays of rudenes, to this degree, may never be seen again. I half expected Randall to burst out and say "Shut up, Kyle. This interview is about me"!

Charlie Rose is one of my favorite interviewers but, it this case, he lost control. I would not have been so kind.

bonacker  04/01/2010 12:35 AM Report

Randall was a very skilled interrupter. My guess is that what we witnessed was the result of a lifetime of honing interruption skills to a point of perfection I've never seen before.

I think it was her high quality interruption along with Cranmer's passive acceptance of her rudeness that resulted in Charlie Rose not securing anything remotely close to equal time for Cranmer.

Her technique was to not exactly cut off Cranmer. She just managed to smoothly exploit the most exquisitely brief pauses in his comments (when anyone could see he hadn't really finished) as an opportunity to seize the floor. Over and over and over.

In fact, she was so good, I didn't appreciate what she was doing until well into the interview. Then, her obnoxiousness became so annoying that it distracted my attention from the content.

And, to the commenter who asked if we would object if it were a man behaving this way: Absolutely.

SabioBoston  03/31/2010 10:54 PM Report

Have to join many others in stating that Lisa Randall was unbearably rude. I could not watch the hole segment. If I wanted to watch that much rudeness, I would turn on MSNBC or Fox, not the normally well-mannered and thoughtful guests of Charlie Rose. A real disappointment this time around.

9to5guy  03/31/2010 09:59 PM Report

I really enjoyed this interchange between the two scientists. Contrary to some posts here I think they actually played very nicely together and I got more out of this interview than usual. Charlie take note: We want to see them in two or three years again to explain actual results from the LHC.

KOWIS  03/31/2010 09:55 PM Report

A full hour may have given both guests a greater opportunity to express these complex ideas more fully. I was pleased with the entire show. I would have been content to have seen a full hour long interview with Lisa Randall as the sole guest.

reveal  03/31/2010 07:13 PM Report

I LOOKED FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION ON THE COLLIDER BUT BECAME VERY ANNOYED WHEN MR.CRANMER WASN'T ALLOWED TO FINISH A SENTENCE.ONE OF THE FEW TIMES MR.ROSE LOST THE REINS ON A RUNAWAY GUEST.I ALMOST TURNED THE PROGRAM OFF BECAUSE OF HER RUDENESS.

MNJim  03/31/2010 06:26 PM Report

I thought she was very interesting. She is obviously extremely passionate about physics, and extremely knowledgeable. Would like to see more of her.

REnninga  03/31/2010 06:22 PM Report

In only 36 minutes these two physicists demonstrated that there really is "balance" in the Universe. Lisa Randall's complete lack of common courtesy and good manners was perfectly balanced by Kyle Cranmer's courteous willingness to stop talking in mid comment each time Lisa rudely interrupted him.

Charlie, I hope you will soon have Kyle back on your show; alone! I would very much enjoy listening to what he has to say when he is able to complete his thoughts and provide complete responses to your questions.

Ms. Randall, as Mr. Rogers would have said, "Can you say 'Pedantic'?" Tsk, tsk, tsk!

robdverity  03/31/2010 05:42 PM Report

Well I hope she reads some of these reactions, as I'm betting - smart as she is - that she's surprised that she offended anyone. Not me. I have her book, unread, as it was over my head.

The heavy thinkers a la these two make for progress (from elec to jet power to (alas) the bomb, yadda yadda. E=mc^2 and all that (ultimately) self destructive force. Maybe they'll come up with a time-warp where we (a sampling of our species) can escape to another planet and try to get right.

jmoderes  03/31/2010 05:07 PM Report

Would anyone notice the interruptions if the interrupter were a man? Just asking.

JLRmapman  03/31/2010 04:28 PM Report

In the early seventies, I remember reading all sorts of popularizing articles about the new frontiers of physics.- Black holes, string theory, quantum this and that.

As a layman, 40 years later, I cant recall hearing anything significantly new since let alone any kind of 'paradigm shift'

Brainy  03/31/2010 03:06 PM Report

Funny, when I first tuned in midprogram I assumed Randall must be Cranmer's boss. I'm always proud to see brilliant women engrossed in their field. Competing in male-dominated sciences women have to be overly aggressive to be heard (to be clear, I didn't find her overly aggressive here, just annoying.) It just makes for a confusing interview when one guest won't let the other finish a thought, especially when the topic is complex and already difficult to follow for the "less smarter" crowd. Overall still a fascinating exchange.

artsub  03/31/2010 02:47 PM Report

Since Charlie is the great interrupter he probably didn't even notice how rude Lisa was being in interrupting Kyle Cranmer. She simply refused to let him finish his thought. After awhile I couldn't even listen to her. So obnoxious. There's smart and then there's smart.

Anyway these people are going to feel pretty stupid when they finally figure out that the Truth of being is never going to be found by smashing up matter. Look to metaphysics (Jesus understood infinitely more than these people do now), not physics, and use all that money for better purposes.

Anyway... I do really like the Charlie Rose show.

boson37  03/31/2010 02:17 PM Report

She was fine, just super excited about her field. Being married to her might be challenging. Hard to believe that people like your two guests occupy the same time space continuum as tea baggers. Basic research by Volta, Ampere, and Ohm gave us our modern world and modern jobs (E=IxR you'all). I thought your audience was "more smarter" than it appears to be.

More Randall and Cranmer!!!!!!!

Kirk7  03/31/2010 01:58 PM Report

Thank you for asking Prof. Randall if mini-black holes are dangerous.

There are no experimental data to support her response:

"..they’re small. And so they would decay right away." Actually, thirty five years ago, Prof. Hawking predicted that sooner or later, every mini-black hole formed in the big bang should (according to our current understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity theory) decay with a mini-bang, AND WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THIS HAPPENING. We haven't seen it. How come? Furthermore, who should have the burden of proof in this very serious matter?

jbriggs  03/31/2010 01:39 PM Report

That's funny because I sort of felt the same way while watching. She is brilliant but maybe so passionate that she is not even aware, in the moment, that others are entitled to participate equally. I too found his and her comments extraordinarily interesting and informative.

janetg  03/31/2010 01:25 PM Report

The other guest was very gracious given the tsunami opposite.

Still, for a lay person, it was an interesting and informative conversation about the LHC and physics in general.

REMant  03/31/2010 01:03 PM Report

But who knows if they really are particles at all? If you want to know what to look for, you have to already know what you want to look for. We test hypotheses, not make voyages of discovery. Indeed, the inhabitants of the New World were supposed to have been completely at a loss as to what a brigantine was when confronted with one. And the hypotheses are analogies. I am not sure we can ever prove causality, but we can see similarities. Big bang is an analogy to something we understand, as is substance, force, and mass. In essence this is all still very Newtonian. Long ago I decided that if you want to study something you should study not the thing, itself, whatever that might be, but the way ppl think about it. Biology, BTW, is a lot cheaper than building super-colliders and space telescopes.

landlockedsailor  03/31/2010 12:24 PM Report

One of the two guests lacks proper speaking etiquette skills.