NOTE: This entry originally written in April 2011, and I had forgoten about the comments it generated…
by Ariana Pekary, producer
Tom Shadyac’s documentary, I Am is based more on science than I expected, and that, if no other reason, makes the film well worth a viewing. The experiments filmed at the Institute of HeartMath were fascinating. I’m still skeptical, though: yogurt reacted to his emotions without any physical connection between one another? I wouldn’t expect the yogurt to change even if they had been connected! The point they make is that the heart provides a great deal of information, to our brains but also in other ways, to people and other living things around us.
Plus, the thought that deer vote on when to go to get water, suggesting they rule by democracy instead of by authoritarian rule (in the form of an alpha deer) – well, that’s just too civilized. But the study suggests that the deer would wait until 51% of the herd had indicated that they were ready for water to take off for the watering hole. I didn’t know deer could count like that, but Shadyac says somehow that knowledge is ingrained in them as it is in other species (see this New York times article.)
Finally, to Shadyac’s point made during the interview, it was refreshing to watch a documentary based on fact and science that actually gives you hope about the world. I’ve watched so many films in which young children are abused or deserted (or both), or in which the wealthy find new ways to exploit the poor – so kudos to the film, I Am. I may even be inclined to go back and revisit one of Shadyac’s earlier films….what should it be?: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, or Liar Liar?
Visit I Am, the film’s website
I Am, the film on twitter
The documentary is very well done. Amazing job as usually and I had a good time watching it. Can not help it, but be a Debbie Downer. The role of community plays a tremendous role in a dynamic society. However, is no secret, life is complex and sooner or later it generates a lot of drama, thus very often one can not handle everything; true, if there will be more genuine support than one may be able to pick up the pieces and try again; well personally, I have yet to get that genuine support, truly altruistic; we use each other every single time, everyone is using everyone, for various reasons; it is a jungle out there.. what I see is mediocrity, hypocrisy, love with an ulterior motive; recently I discovered that, lots of doctors are in this profession for the profit and title, not for the purpose of saving lives, lots not all; anyway is reality and it hurts. Regular folks are not given too many chances. Some of the rich people do not do enough, some people would like to be rich, to make a difference, and so on and so forth. Action and reaction, ripple effect of the unkind acts which are predominant on daily basis. On a positive note, how lucky was Mr. Shadyac to have had the chance to be around his generous father and how lucky was he to be able to be part of this great cause. I am sure it was hard work, not only luck. Mr. Shadyac's father is right, sadly, utopian dream. Let's not kid ourselves, it is the survival of the fittest. True there is so much beauty as well, if we could only have the time and spirit to embrace it. Personally I am grateful to Mr. Shadyac for this documentary. It added value in my life.
I agree with the last three comments from John Freeman, SOUL, and Angelina. I also would encourage everyone to remember the point in the film that was made about how science has progressed (flat Earth, smoking doctors, etc.) and view any science presented in any form (this movie, a journal, whatever) as continuously questionable and changing. As is life. So sure, hook up the yogurt again! And keep doing more scientific experiments and peer reviews when that's done! Scientists would not have anything to do otherwise! In the meantime, the message of compassion and support of one another is irrefutable.
I best like what John Freeman and SOUL have to say here. I value science in matters of science. I value the heart in matters of the soul. This was more a message about the soul than science. I look forward to the peer reviews on the yogurt experiment especially. The truth this documentary is highlighting is one, that unless you have experienced it you may not understand it- it is the realization we are all one. What we do, say, and think effects each of us. Our cooperation and compassion within our humanity is what will save us.
Compassion is not easily translated into a scientific language. It expands past any rhymes or reasons Factoids need to have in order to believe in it. The energy it makes, creates, inspires, transfigures has to do with the soul. That chemical response that has no periodical table symbol but yet is the most powerful element to being.
I find this discussion kind of a litmus test on scientific literacy. Some are non-critical of the science but are impressed that science is invoked at all. Others argue that, like the uncertainty principle, action-at-a-distance gets invoked mistakenly in the wrong frame of reference. Still others talk about scientific "facts" as if, once established, they or the assumptions underlying them are irrefutable. A scientist will tell you that facts are always subject to review, and that, going forward, we operate on the best predictors we have.
I feel strongly both ways: We need to speak carefully about science to encourage people to become more scientifically literate. Look at all the good science has done mankind; as modern members of humanity, we owe it to ourselves to improve our understanding of how science works. For example, because we cannot be experts in every discipline, we should rely on the perr review process to tell us what science is worth paying attention to. Peer review is what is missing here.
But I also think Tom Shadyac has an essential, if scientifically flawed, message that needs to get out: Compassion is what connects us and what will save the world. Karen Armstrong asserts that the best thing religions of the world can do is increase human compassion. What if there is a physiological and genetic substrate to compassion; what if we inherited it from species that evolved before us. An interesting cluster of scientific findings are beginning to suggest this is the case. Let the peer reviews begin.
A world with a growing emphasis on compassion and growing scientific literacy — that's a world I want to be a part of.
i liked what you said about the documentary "i am". i have had some wild experiences while trying to figure out who i am and what is my purpose. i am not sure why it took me so long to get to this point in my life, but the experiences i have while trying to get thier have been amazing at times, and people compare them to the movies. i just have no answers yet, and would like some help trying to get thier. i do believe and live in faith. but i would like your opinion on my experiences.
thank you
shana greggs
Actually anyone not seeing that this is a load of hooey is missing the point entirely. No reputable news outlet should ever let nonsense be presented as if it were scientific fact when it's clearly not.
BTB personally I keep thinking that this is really just a joke on everyone.
I am all for a message of compassion and cooperation and I think there are many studies in psychology and the humanities that can show the value of 'state of mind' to how positive personal interactions will be. As soon as someone jumps into pseudo-scientific 'proofs' however, the intellectual dishonesty of such claims is anything but compassionate or cooperative and serves only to debase these concepts.
Wow, why such hostile comments? The message was simply one of compassion and cooperation and that humanity is more successful when we behave that way, and that mankind may be instinctively empathetic and helpful to one another. Anyone looking for specific scientific flaws in Tom Shadyac's message can't see the forest for the trees and is missing the whole point entirely.
Yes, I would love to see some peer reviews of the 'science' presented in this movie. To me this just represents another facet of the doubt propaganda being put forward by those trying to undermine the skeptic movement.
I listened to this show and what Shadyac said was so outlandish I just assumed Bob was sitting there with a big smirk on his face like I was. However, he didn't claim to be an expert, he claimed to be what he is, which is a filmmaker (and apparently a little bit quackadoodle). I do want to see the film regardless!
The presentation without refutation on the Bob Edwards show of the "woo" – Heartwave – put out by Tom Shadyac does science a great disservice. Like mercury in vaccines causing autism it is simply irresponsible to have this guy shamelessly plug his movie filled with nonsense. I usually love Bob's show – listen 5 days a week – but this was truly the worst BE show in history.
Excellent. Why I love The Bob Edwards Show. Thank you!
Re: I Am, Tom Shadyac
There was nothing scientific about the arguments presented by Mr. Shadyac; rather it was the worst sort of pseudo-science. The ideas attributed to physics, in general, and Einstein, in particular, were misstated or misintrepreted or both. For example, the idea of action at a distance. Einstein's statement that it was "spukhafte Fernwirkung," "spooky action at a distance," was derision, not, as Mr Shadyac implies, affirmation. Regardless, the idea of action at a distance or non-locality, is part of quantum physics and is applicable on the sub-atomic level only. No reputable scientific theory or evidence suggest that it can be applied at the human level.
There is certainly nothing wrong with allowing Mr. Shadyac to air his opinions; however, Mr. Edwards has a duty to challenge mistatements of fact and misinterpretation of theory. To allow these pseudo-science ideas to go unchallenged is irresponsible.