Poll : Joey - Dumb or Misunderstood?

This is a constant debate I have with Tennant, but what do *you* think?

[Please try to avoid spoilers in your replies]

Misunderstood... He's way to intelligent for us, dumb people, to understand him. He's a genius ;-)

"Paul Hyett" a �crit dans le message de news: [email]...

"Paul Hyett" wrote in message news:[email]...

Frequently written dumb. Sometimes allowed to be intelligent when it's funny. Generally a very good-heared guy.

Paul Hyett wrote:

not necessarily dumb, but slow. However, he knows how to use the things he DOES know in a variety of situations and it mostly works out for the best.

Andr�

"Andr� Knoche" wrote in message news:actkut$95m$[email]...

He's not dumb and he's not slow. What about when Penn sold him the "V" volume of the encyclopedia? He read and absorbed it in an afternoon, and seemed to know everything in it!

well, he is an actor... therefore learning stuff and simply repeating the words is part of his job... :-)

he might not be the smartest, be he is a nice guy and good buddy!

However, in some way things are always working out for him.

Frank

Think back to the 2nd Season, the episode where Monica makes Fun Bobby quit drinking. The ep begins with the gang realizing that they had 5 bottles of wine that night, but when they add up what they drank, it only sums up to 2 bottles. Then the gang looks at the door, through which Fun Bobby has just disappeared, with everybody but Joey realizing, that he must have been the one to empty 3 bottles of wine on his own. And for a more recent example watch 802 "TOW the red sweater" or more specifically the ending of it.

And by knowing how to use his knowledge I specifically meant stuff like absorbing the encyclopedia. He even managed to sneak the words he'd learned from his "word of the day" toilet paper into every conversation he had.

Andr�

Dumb. Joey is sweet - when he's not being a pig - but he's definitely not the sharpest pencil in the box.

Gasp! That was one episode, and he really only displayed his knowledge of one of the 'V' words. Besides, that was more to be humorous than to display Joey's sudden amazing comprehension skills.

How anybody could argue a case *against* Joey being dumb - or at least slow - I'll never know.

In article , [email] (Jess) wrote:

Not being the most intelligent of the six is not the same as being dumb.

Because people like you airily dismiss it whenever Joey is clever, and focus on his dumb moments. When the other 5 have dumb moments, people like you ignore them, but take notice when they are clever.

Tennant Stuart

"Jess" wrote in message news:[email]...

While Joey does not demonstrate intellectual, "book-smart" intelligence to the same degree as the other characters, he is certainly not dumb. First, the character is shown to have a lot of street smarts. Secondly, he is very competent socially. Surviving the streets of New York and being as popular with the women as Joey is does require skill and intelligence. Now maybe knowing how to pick up chicks and knowing nuclear physics are not the same, but they both require intelligence. I also see a high degree of knowledge and understanding in the areas of philosophy and ethics. In addition he does not pretend to know more than he does. He is willing to listen and absorb information from others. I tend to think of all of these things as intelligent actions.

Katie

"res0vdhd" wrote in message news:gTCI8.20873$[email]...

very

same,

does

I told my husband about this debate last night, and he chimed in with this:

George doesn't think Joey is necessarily dumb, but he does think he's not particularly well educated. Most of the "dumb-Joey" jokes focus on things like vocabulary or lack of schooling. He was proud of his little sister because she was not only the only person from her entire family to even take the SATs, but she got into a community college with the scores. This does not represent a particularly high level of academic achievement for the Friends. Ross has a PhD, so he not only aced the SAT but the GRE as well. Chandler and Rachel are college graduates, and Monica at least went to chef school. Only Phoebe is less well educated than Joey, but she appears to be more literate. Joey has had a number of clever moments; I still think he's a swiss army knife and we are overanalyzing this.

I don't really understand why this particular issue seems to make Tennant so angry. "People like you...?"

In article , "abrahammy" wrote:

Except that he lies about his SATs...

ROSS: How can I not get this? I'm a college professor; I got 1450 on my SATs.

MONICA: 1250.

ROSS: Damn, I forgot you were here.

I'm not angry, but I am annoyed by the way some people dismiss all the evidence that he is often not dumb. This is typical...

PERSON #1: Joey is so dumb, he just reads comics.

PERSON #2: No, he read an encyclopedia!

PERSON #1: But only the one volume.

Your argument, Claire - that he is inconsistently written - is a great deal harder to deal with, for at least you do take notice of all the evidence, (although your agony aunt joke thing was rather biased IMO).

Tennant

On Tue, 28 May 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Tennant Stuart typed this -

He does sweet things, but that just proves he can be sensitive, not disproving that he can be slow.

We see a lot more incidents on the show that hint 'Joey is dumb', than ones that suggest 'Chandler is gay' though.

Lets face it, it is Phoebe that usually makes gay Chandler remarks, and for some unknown reason, she seems particularly mean to Chandler.

Perhaps she had a repressed dream about him, like she did about Ross, that time.

In article , Paul Hyett wrote:

Now, you see Paul, this is what annoys me. Not occasions like falling for Chandler's "Holden McGroin" prank, which was dumb, but dismissing his cleverness as just being sweet & sensitive.

Not really. Claire went all the way through Season 1, and found fewer than I expected her to, and most of those weren't valid (IMO).

There have been an awful lot of gay Chandler jokes, yet he and Monica are the only ones with a successful heterosexual relationship.

Is it? I've never counted, but I think the first one was in the pilot where he dreamed about his penis being a telephone on which he received calls from his mother & Liza Minnelli; and the most recent was the joke about his testicles stored with the ribbons; and those weren't Phoebe.

Maybe. She certainly likes him a lot more when they're alone together.

Tennant

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Tennant Stuart typed this -

I thought my saying he can be sensitive was a compliment, but you seem to have turned it round

To quote Rachel from TOW Elizabeth's Dad 'Wow! I definitely did not see that one backfiring!'

In article , Paul Hyett wrote:

Sorry mate, maybe I was a bit touchy there. :)

Lol

Tennant

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Tennant Stuart typed this -

We seem to be playing the quotes game a lot recently. On alt.tv.simpsons it gets played all the time.

With nearly 300 episodes of that show, it's almost always possible to come up with something applicable, but it's hard to beat 'Mmmmm donuts...!' :)

Paul Hyett wrote in news:[email]:

'Mmmm, sacrilicious...'

Or one of my favorites:

'Oh yeah? What are you gonna do, release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark they shoot bees at you?'

Paul Hyett wrote in message news:...

Lol, that just reminds me of, "Mmmm, noodle soup!" :)

Priya

In article , Paul Hyett wrote:

Lol, what about 'Mmmmmm waffle run-off'?

Tennant

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Tennant Stuart typed this -

Or, Mmmm...unexplained bacon!

In article , Paul Hyett wrote:

Oh, I don't remember that one.

Tennant

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Tennant Stuart typed this -

Sorry, that was probably a spoiler from S13 then.

In article , Paul Hyett wrote:

Oh. No worries.

Tennant

I always liked "Mmmm...chocolate chip cookie things..."

"abrahammy" wrote in message news:...

are we talking about the same guy who responds 'you're Rachel' when Rachel is saying that she is the Kip of the group?

are we talking about the same guy who thinks that you need condoms to repopulate the earth?

are we talking about the same guy who allows himself to be locked in a cabinet by a perfect stranger, who then robs him?

are we talking about the same guy who thinks that Vermont is a country?

are we talking about the same guy who thinks Ross is bragging by mentioning that he has spare furniture after Joey and Chandler are robbed?

are we talking about the same guy who doesn't know where Dutch people are from?

are we talking about the same guy who thinks that you get food from a vending machine by shaking it?

are we talking about the same guy who has no idea who Joseph Stalin is?

are we actually having this debate?

Joey is a wonderful friend who just happens to be dumb. there are countless examples of this throughout Friend's long history. so what? is it a sin to be dumb? none of them are perfect, why must Joey be?

[email] (BJ) wrote in message news:...

LOL. *Thank* you. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only sane one.

He isn't Rain Man or anything, but he isn't *smart* for god's sake. He's a high school graduate, and even though he readily admits to having sex and partying all through high school, the level of knowledge he displays to the world *as someone who is supposed to be educated* (as well as someone who is an adult and should have picked things up just by living) is funny in its rarity -- which is what its meant to be, since this is a sitcom and Joey being dumb makes people laugh. Once in awhile they'll allow him to display a little brain power. But overall, yes, Joey Tribbiani is a pretty dumb guy.

I can't really believe we're having this debate either...

I'm with you on this, ddfan - and nice to see you on another board, btw!! <g> Right now, Friends is helping me through my DD withdrawal. LOL

- Mary  : )

[email] (BUC252) wrote in message news:...

Oh, me too. If Friends had ended this season too, I don't know what I would have done. <g>

As for DD... only about 2 more months till Full Frontal. We can make it! <g>

You betcha. Joey will keep me company until then. <g>

- Mary  : )

On Mon, 27 May 2002, Lowell stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Perhaps... but remember he's an actor, therefore memorizing large amounts of info quickly would be an essential skill.

The real issue was - did he *understand* the encyclopaedia data, or was he just parroting it?

On Mon, 27 May 2002 08:38:59 +0100, Paul Hyett wrote:

I think he's misunderstood. Joey has grown immensely over the last couple of seasons, and he has learnt a lot from his experiences. He may not know a lot about very intellectual stuff, but when it comes to being "street-smart," he's very intelligent.

Well, I think he is the most normal of all.

He helps his friends when need comes... He was there for the others too... He covers up other friends' problems...

I say that he is the most normal of all is because he thinks about women and sex very frequently... and that's VERY VERY common for men!!!

That's why he gets a reputation where he looks like a little dumb. I also believe that he is also a good actor, although no one ever takes notice of him...

Anbody else??

Ivan

"Paul Hyett" wrote in message news:[email]...

Paul Hyett wrote in message news:...

He's definitely misunderstood. None of the Friends are in the same place as when the show began. Is Chandler the same insecure guy who couldn't commit? Why is it so hard to believe that Joey would have matured?

Joey doesn't have the benefit of a college education that Ross or the others have. Yet, he has shown considerable intelligence in dealing with some situations. I'm not saying that Joey is a genius. I don't think he is mentally incapacitated either. This is an average guy who is sometimes smarter than the other five.

Being ignorant doesn't mean that he is dumb. Will a dumb guy bother to read an entire volume of the encyclopaedia? How many smart people actually do that? This man isn't stupid but I must say that his friends are smart enough to realise that.

Priya

Paul Hyett wrote in message news:...

Reposted.

He's definitely misunderstood. None of the Friends are in the same place as when the show began. Is Chandler the same insecure guy who couldn't commit? Why is it so hard to believe that Joey would have matured?

Joey doesn't have the benefit of a college education that Ross or the others have. Yet, he has shown considerable intelligence in dealing with some situations. I'm not saying that Joey is a genius. I don't think he is mentally incapacitated either. This is an average guy who is sometimes smarter than the other five.

Being ignorant doesn't mean that he is dumb. Will a dumb guy bother to read an entire volume of the encyclopaedia? How many smart people actually do that? This man isn't stupid but I must say that his friends are *not* smart enough to realise that.

Priya

I think part of this debate is getting bogged down in the definition of intelligence.

Is rote memorization of lines intelligence?

Is having the patience to read the entire "V" section of an encyclopaedia intelligence?

Is the ability to relate to other people and give them good advice about interpersonal relationship with each other intelligence?

Is the ability to pick up chicks intelligence?

The short answer is "Yes".

Psychologists have identified several areas of intelligence. This covers everything from emotional intelligence to spatial intelligence to creative intelligence.

Chandler may have excellent mathematical intelligence (or so Joey says), but he probably has lousy physical intelligence (as witnessed by his tripping and the fact that "He's a dropper").

Few people are truly intelligent in all aspects. We have probably all met people who are brilliant in their field who just cannot understand some simple concept outside of their field (e.g. an excellent writer who could never understand calculus or a math wiz who could never sketch a bowl of fruit).

So, is Joey universally stupid? No. In some areas of intelligence, he is brilliant. But, in other areas, he is definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Could he improve his intelligence in some areas? Likely. Is he doomed to struggle for the rest of his life on some topics. Probably.

Perhaps we should try to identify what types of intelligence he excels at and which ones he sucks at.

mouse (....and if Joey did read the entire "V" section of the encyclopaedia and he is good at memorization, why does he not know what "Vicar" is?)

"Paul Hyett" wrote in message news:[email]...

"Mouse" wrote in message news:nt_I8.2614$[email]...

what types of intelligence

Great analysis. Shortest possible answer: Joey is not well educated. Streetwise? Yes, at times. Has he a high "EQ"? Yes, sometimes. And sometimes he's just inconsistently written.

"abrahammy":

Also, the writers have a problem that other sitcoms haven't had. Lots of sitcoms have the one dumb character because it makes for great humor, like you had the Coach and then Woody on Cheers, and you had Michael's sister on Family Ties. But they were not the main characters. In Friends it's an ensemble with 6 more or less equal main characters, so it doesn't quite work to have one of them always dumb. So I think he's dumb when it's funny, but then not so dumb when his being dumb would hold back the story or humor.

"abrahammy" wrote in message news:o64J8.118$[email]...

Claire, I do not think that Joey's problem is tha the is not well educated. Many of the things he has done and said have nothing to do with education and everything to do with him being slow at times. I agree with those that say that Joey has many clever moments but his dumb ones outnumber them by far.

"Dennis" wrote in message news:...

I don't know if the writers intended this or not, but Joey's character is a good example of blue collar mentality in a white collar world. While Joey's character is in general lacking some education and certainly some common sense, he also coomes up with surprising insight in given situations. It could be that this insight is due to shock working as a source of humor for the writers, and it also may be a way of reminding us, that no one has all the answers, and only the foolish refuse to acknowledge that everybody has some of them.

I really think that for all the comments on Joey's character, it is strange that most here are not acknowledging the extremely dumb moments some of the other characters have, Chandler "Gum would be perfection", Ross and his leather pants, Monica on Richard's answering machine, Rachel and her pink laundry, and of course Phoebe in virtually every episode.

Thomas Weber

"Thomas Weber" wrote in message news:[email]...

news:...

identify

And

educated.

education

that

by

I think anybody who really paid attention to the show would recognize that each of the characters have had moments where they made bad decisions and foolish choices; so, for that matter, would every single person on this newsgroup. However, I do not think the preponderance of evidence reveals most of them as catching on to new material particularly slowly, having a harder time than usual figuring something out, or having an usually hard time remembering those facts which are generally considered common knowledge.

One thing I've suddenly realized as I go through these old jokes is that sometimes it WASN'T even about education; sometimes Joey really did have an usually difficult time grasping clues in the world around him that other people more easily caught. Except, of course, during those times when he didn't. I think this comment: "It could be that this insight is due to shock working as a source of humor for the writers" probably has some real truth behind it. I also think the comment "no one has all the answers, and only the foolish refuse to acknowledge that everybody has some of them" was excellent. A person who is often slow or mistaken can indeed be the only one who has an answer at any given time, so his input is not to be summarilily discounted even though it may be less generally reliable than that of somebody else.

[email] (Thomas Weber) wrote in message news:...

That's what started this thread. Many people don't recognise the other character's stupidity. Phoebe is considered to have a 20 points higher IQ than Joey. She learned grammer and spelling instinctively on the streets, while Joey even though he went to high school is too totally clueless. If that doesn't make sense please read, 'If I were an advice columnist to the Friends' thread.

Priya

"Mouse" wrote in message news:nt_I8.2614$[email]...

No...its called great memory. I'm smart but I have a lousy memory.

Its called curiosity and the desire to fit in with his friends.

Interpersonal skills...yes.

No. If "How u Doin?" is a line that only an intelligent person can think of, then I don't know what to say.

No.

The problem is as Dennis pointed out that its not about how much education you had but the fact that Joey is VERY slow and at times annoyingly dumb...yes...dumb. If you will look at BJs examples...they are examples of a very slow and dumb at times person. But the point is he's still a sweet, caring guy and we shouldn't get so defensive about someone being dumb (dumb times weigh over the "not-dumb" times) because there are a lot of slow people and a lot of dumb people in the world and that does not make them less of friends or worse human beings. I have some slow friends but I still love hanging out with them because they are a lot of fun.

Sofya

In article , "Sofya" wrote:

And how often are your slow friends much *cleverer* than you are?

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

Depends in what area. I have slow friends who are great at sports so they might be clever in that area. but they are not intelligent.

Sofya

On Fri, 31 May 2002 14:09:58 -0400, "Sofya" wrote:

I think the bottom line here is that there is a big difference between being intelligent and intellectual. Is Joey intellectual? Not particularly. He doesn't care about Ross's theories about dinosaurs, or Chandler's statistics. He spent his years at high-school dating girls and having sex, and wasn't interested in reading e.g. "Lord of the Rings."

But as for the question whether he is intelligent or not, there isn't a doubt in my mind that he is in fact a normal, intelligent guy. We've had numerous examples which have already been mentioned in this thread of Joey being smart; and the calculator-incident in 822 was therefore only a silly example of inconsistency.

"Marita Bakken" wrote in message news:[email]...

I think that calling Joey a normal , intelligent guy is a stretch. I guess we all have a different perception of what intelligence is all about.

On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 18:40:55 +0300, "Dennis" wrote:

I don't know if you're implying anything by that statement, but I do not think that he stands out as a particularly stupid person. On the contrary, judging by what I've seen of people in the countries where I've lived, I think he is fairly average.

"Marita Bakken" wrote in message news:[email]...

guess

Well, what I am implying is that there is no way that every single person here will interpret intelligence in the same way. It all depends on everyone's personal opinion, which is usually based on everyone's experience with other people. Personally, I consider Joey to be a great guy with all sorts of great values but I can not call him intelligent at any level.

I guess I wouldn't really consider him unintelligent because, if he were, he wouldn't be able to memorize scripts and such. I more see him as naive, much in the same way that I don't see Phoebe as dumb, but flighty. Neither naive or flighty is necessarily bad, but can be construed that way. They're just walking to the tune of different drummers.

- Mary  : )

In article , [email] (Marita Bakken) wrote:

Absolutely.

Grin. That's *exactly* like me - apart from all the sex.

I didn't even go to see the movie, I saw "Harry Potter" instead. I was waiting for a friend to buy the LotR DVD, but now I've advised him to leave it until November when a better version comes out.

Yap.

Tennant

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:47:28 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

Lol. Yeah, I never read LotR in high-school since it was never a part of our education. We read other books. Therefore, I never really understood what was so funny about that joke until I realised who Gandalf was. But I wouldn't think of myself as stupid just because I never read it.

In article , [email] (Marita Bakken) wrote:

Exactly. In any case, I was too busy with all the James Bond novels by Ian Fleming, and actually got caned for reading "Thunderball", instead of "Pallas" by Virgil in the original Latin. However, for all too short a while, I gloried in the school nickname of Thunderbollocks...

Tennant

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:39:16 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

Lol. Latin? Poor you. I never had to do any Latin at school. Meanwhile, I was stuck reading "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen and "Synn�ve Solbakken" by Bj�rnstjerne Bj�rnson. We also read parts of "Erasmus Montanus" by Ludvig Holberg in Danish. Not exactly "Lord of the Rings" any of them.

In article , [email] (Marita Bakken) wrote:

We had to choose between Latin and Agriculture, and if you chose the latter, that meant being an unpaid slave on the school farm - which was a real farm, not a couple of pet hamsters. I didn't fancy getting up at 5am to muck-out the deep litter pens or castrate the pigs.

Indeedy, but at least you had no midnight testicle fry-ups... ;)

Tennant

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 23:48:04 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

Gosh! What kind of school system does England have? Caning and castrating pigs? :)

In article , [email] (Marita Bakken) wrote:

This was a public school (which in America means a private school).

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

the

which

getting

IC. I went to a public school myself, and thankfully, I didn't have to do any of that. :)

In article , [email] (Marita Bakken) wrote:

Well, at least it's something which you, I, and Chandler have in common. :)

Tennant

On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 18:36:46 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

Too bad I don't play the clarinet.

In article , "Sofya" wrote:

So what would you think if one of your slow friends did several things that were rather intelligent?

Tennant

Um....you might want to consult a book on intelligence written in the last 15 or so years.

Your friends who are great at sports are demonstrating "Bodily-Kinesthetic" intelligence.

Other types of intelligence widely accepted by psychologists today are: Linguistic Logical-Mathematical Spatial Musical Interpersonal Intrapersonal

This really isn't just a feel good exercise to make people feel better about themselves. Have you ever tried to teach your "slow" friends how to do something and they just did not "get it"? Well, have them try to teach you how to do something they are good at and you may find that you just cannot "get it". Almost everybody has limitations on what they can learn how to do.

mouse

PS Tennant, sorry for responding to your post and not commenting
      on what you wrote. Sofya's message had expired on my server
      and I just wanted to comment on what she had written.

In article , "Mouse" wrote:

No worries.

Tennant

Okay, maybe I should have used another word other than intelligence. It too is fogging up the debate. I suppose I was looking more along the lines of mental capability as being the opposite of dumb (dumb in the sense of slow and stupid, not in the sense of being unable to speak because he clearly can do that).

"Sofya" wrote in message news:ad5t2v$n64$[email]...

Yes, and a lot of people will mistake you for being dumb because you have lousy memory.

Chandler's ability to remember details on a wide variety of subjects (movies, books, political movements, etc) allows him to appear to be intelligently witty.

People on Jeopardy look smart because they remember a lot of facts. People on the Tonight Show's Jay Walking segments look stupid because they cannot remember any simple facts.

Spelling and grammar (at least for English) is nothing more than remembering (sure you can get away with a few rules, but sooner or later you will be tripped up by the plethora of execeptions). People are constantly being mocked as being stupid on the internet for posting notes with bad grammar and/or mispellings (please ignore all of my mistakes ;-)

So, the ability to memorize things does show mental capability and is one of the many ways not to look too dumb.

I do not see how this counter point is relevant.

Most acquistion of knowledge seems to be related to curiosity. Do you dismiss Galileo as for acquiring his knowldge because he was curious about objects in the sky and the rate at which objects fall?

Further, you state that he read the "V" section out of a desire to fit in with his friends. He recognized a problem and came up with a plan to fix it. Further, he was able to absorb much of the details (though probably with a somewhat shallow understanding...but that's all that encyclopaedias offer anywhere). It may not have been the most brilliant plan in the world, but it shows that he isn't totally dumb.

Finally, if motivating factors such as curiousity and wanting to have intelligent conversations with others mitigate how intelligent you are, I guess that would make Ross dumb as well (after all, he was curious about dinosaurs and he does love to show if his knowledge). I'm sorry, but don't buy your counter points.

The acquisition of interpersonal skills is a sure sign of intelligence. One has to be able to correctly recognize and learn to interpret body language, tone of voice, and what is being said. One has to be able to interpolate from one situation to another. This shows an ability to learn, understand and transfer that knowledge.

If somebody is a math wiz, have they not demonstrated intelligence by learning, understanding and transfering mathematics (e.g. being able to use it in real world situations/word problems) or do they just have math skills?

of,

<tongue firmly in cheek> E = mc^2. I don't know. That looks pretty simple to me. Why does everybody think Einstein was so smart? He was too stupid to even remember his own phone number. </tongue firmly in cheek).

His "How u Doin?" line is clearly brilliant. He has had stupendous success with the female population of the Friend's world with it. It's simplicity is just part of its brilliance. Why have a complicated, prone to failure scheme when a simple one works just as well? Cantilever bridges look elegent and simple. That doesn't mean the slow witted, idiots of the engineeering world designed them. Quite the contrary.

Again, his ability to pick up chicks is a demonstration of his interpersonal skills/social intelligence. He has learned and understands what works with women to get what he wants.

Further, his "How u Doin?" line is not the apex of his picking-up- up-chick skills. His story set in Spain which got Rachel and Ross in their current situation seems to demonstrate that he can come up with complicated ensarement schemes if necessary.

Okay, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

But I have acknowledged that he is stupid when it comes to some subjects. I just don't think that he is universally stupid on all subjects.

Remember, he was the only one of the friends to deduce that Chandler and Monica were a couple. All of the others had to have it shoved in their faces.

At times and on certain subjects. Yes. One might even argue that it is at most times and on most topics. I'm merely trying to point out that there are examples of Joey being smart and sometimes smarter than the rest of the friends. That's where this argument gets bogged down. There are very few absolutes in life (or in debates). That is why I suggested we might try to identify areas where he is smart and areas where he is not so smart if we are to have any hope of coming up with an agreement on the subject.

(dumb

But dumb is perjorative word and that might be why some people are sensitive about it.

still

And you probably learn a lot from them.

mouse

In article , "Mouse" wrote:

At school, I thought that I was dumb at languages because I failed French & Latin, thus I nearly turned down the chance to live & work in Germany. But the company offered financial incentives to learn a foreign language, and to my surprise German was much easier to learn because it is consistent and logical. It was as you say: I was able to learn the rules, while avoiding the plethora of exceptions which French has.

Tennant

In article , "Mouse" wrote:

Maybe it said "The Vicar" was the nickname of a 1920s ice-hockey goalie.

Check out "The Bishop" sketch on Monty Python's flying Circus.

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

LOL

I doubt it. But I'll give you an A for effort ;-)

Famous Ranger goalie "The Vicar" - the opposition doesn't have a prayer....

mouse

I knew Joey wasn't truly "dumb" when he read Little Women. Someone who was truly slow would never have made past the first few pages. The writers often throw in a "dumb Joey" or "flaky Phoebe" joke for a quick easy laugh, even though they have both proved themselves to be of at least average intelligence in other situations. Luckily Matt and Lisa are highly skilled actors who make these jokes work time after time. And hey, even those of us with above average IQ's have bad days or moments of stupidity. I also agree with the posts that have pointed out that there are several types of intelligence and different factors for measuring intelligence. Ross is really the only true "intellectual" of the bunch, but when it comes to relationships, he's shown himself to be pretty dim several times.

"Alhena88" wrote in message news:[email]...

often

intelligence

make

average

that

different

"intellectual"

Ross is the "best" in relationships. Joey only has sexual relationships. Monica is married but has had 2 or 3 long-term relationships. Rachel has basically only been with Ross (Paulo, Joshua..were relationship fillers for the time Rachel wasn't with Ross). Phoebe has had a few long-term relationships but otherwise she's a goof with picking good guys. Chandler has had Janice, Kate, and now has Monica. He's not the best in relationships. Ross has had the most long-term relationships that only didn't work out because either Rachel interfered or Ross made a mistake of saying Rachel's name. Ross has proven to be the most successful in relationships...in other words...if Rachel wasn't around...all of those relationships would have been successful.

Sofya

"Sofya" wrote in message news:...

So, what did Rachel do to turn Carol into a lesbian?

Priya

"p r i y a" wrote in message

has

for

Chandler

of

{Tongue firmly in cheek} Well, it was that sad, grey, lonely day, that fateful day when the ghosts of high schools past smacked her in the face. There she was, an attractive, lovely woman, so smitten with her husband that she was willing to get thrown out of Disney World in order to conduct lewd behavior in It's A Small World. Care-free, heterosexual, and on a cleaning spree. Then she found... the high school diary. Ross' journal. Page after page after page of lovelorn notes about Rachel. Full sized drawings. (Some of them naughty.) Some poems of the same artistic merit as his keyboard playing. And, of course, his notes from Dinosaur History 101, tucked in there because he's always had this thing about the Stegosaurus. (Don't ask. I mean it, really. Uck. )

It turned her off all men for life.

"abrahammy" wrote in message news:gAzL8.1752$[email]...

relationships.

fillers

only

mistake

those

that

cleaning

after

(Some

ask.

ROFL!!!!

Sofya

"abrahammy" wrote in message news:...

Oh! so that's how it happened. lol. I'm glad you saw the humor in the sentence. Sofya seems to have missed it.

Priya

Joeys just dumb.

Misunderstood....by Dumb people-lol

"p r i y a" wrote in message news:[email]...

news:...

relationships.

Rachel

fillers

only

mistake

those

face.

that

lewd

cleaning

after

(Some

ask.

touchy...touchy...

Sofya

In article , "abrahammy" wrote:

ROTFL! Very good, Claire! :)

Tennant

"p r i y a" wrote in message news:[email]...

news:...

was

even

who

posts

to be

has

for

Chandler

of

Carol always was a lesbian. I think you should clue into the real world...you don't turn into a lesbian...you just discover your feelings sometime in life (or at least thats what homesexuals say...and I believe them). Ross did not do anything wrong in that relationship. Carol tricked him and he got hurt. They divorced because of her dishonesty.

Sofya

"Sofya" wrote in message news:...

Carol didn't trick Ross into anything. She didn't realise that she was a lesbian for many years after marrying Ross. They divorced because they weren't sexually compatible and she had an affair with Susan. It wasn't Ross's fault and Rachel certainly didn't play any part in his marriage failing. My point: We can't blame Rachel for every single thing that went wrong in his life.

Priya

Ross tried to convince Carol that she should be with him and they could work around the fact that she is a lesbian. He was very insecure with Rachel, put her on a pedastal, didn't trust her, was jealous of any attention she gave to men she worked with, and turned into Mental Geller whenever they had problems. He seriously rushed things with Emily. He lied to Mona on several occasions (the key to his apartment, his being the father of Rachel's baby, Rachel moving in with him...) not to mention forgetting all about her a few times when something more important came up. These few examples were not due to Rachel's "interference", they were his own poor choices. I never said Ross was the "worst" of the six when it comes to relationships - they all do have their flaws. My point was that while Ross has a high level of intelligence, he does not have a high level of emotional maturity when it comes to intimate relationships. Someone who is so insecure and feels the need to lie is not going to have a healthy relationship with anyone until they work through those issues.

"Alhena88" wrote in message news:[email]...

Chandler

work

put

to

problems.

occasions

moving

Rachel's

Well, there are a lot of shades of grey here.

Your analysis of his behavior is quite correct, and Ross has contributed heavily to a lot of his own problems. The character himself actually admitted that on the show, especially with Mona. However, Rachel really has been a very serious complication. We will never know if the marriage to Emily would have been successful or not without his slipping at the altar; given that woman's vindictive nature, it might have been a disaster anyway, but we don't know for sure. In the case of Mona, I do think that Ross would have continued to have a very difficult time balancing Mona's needs and Rachel's needs no matter what. It would also have been a little interesting to see how Rachel would have reacted if had Ross and Mona decided to get married. I don't think either one of them is going to be able to have a stable relationship with any other person unless they get some personal space from each other. Even before she moved in with him, as they lived side by side and hung out with the same group of people continually, these two, and all the six, have been so much in each other's laps they squeeze everybody else out. I am beginning to see what Roger was talking about all those years ago.

I'd say both of you were right about some of this.

In article , "Sofya" wrote:

Joey was in a relationship with Angela Delvecchio for three years.

That's longer than 7 out of Ross's 8 relationships - Carol (6 years), Julie (4 months), Rachel (1 year), Bonnie (1 month), Emily (5 months), Rachel again (2 months), Elizabeth (3 months), and Mona (5 months).

Don't dismiss Paolo & Joshua so lightly. Their relationships with Rachel both lasted longer than her marriage to Ross.

Well, if you think that Ross is so good at relationships, why did he let Rachel wreck them? And in any case, Rachel did not wreck his four longest relationships, since she didn't turn Carol into a lesbian; she wasn't the jealous one, who had sex with the Xerox girl; she meant to interfere with his wedding to Emily, but she backed off; and she several times aided Ross with Mona, and would have done so again if only he hadn't lied about her.

Chandler has been with Monica for 4 years now, and they have both had to work at that relationship. You should not deny them their success.

Tennant

In article , [email] (Alhena88) wrote:

Yeah, and of course he also read The Shining. Did you know that in the scene where he supposedly ruined it for Rachel, he actually 'revealed' events that were in the movie but *not* in the book, so that he could have a go at Rachel without actually ruining the book for her. Sadly, since she failed to get the joke, she retaliated by handing out some real spoilers about "Little Women". However, Ross did understand what was going on, as you can tell from his careful hint about ruining the first book Joey ever loved, that didn't star Jack Nicholson.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

If that was indeed how the scene was supposed to be understood, than it was probably the smartest thing Joey ever did. However I think it's more likely those scenes were mentioned since the film is more commonly known than the book, and I've always taken from Ross's comment that Joey only buys and reads books to the movies which star Jack Nicholson.

Andr�

"Cookie Dude" wrote in message news:ae55cm$n79$[email]...

was

likely

I agree. I think knowledge is a dangerous thing when it comes to Tennant. You really think that Joey is that complicated and smart that he would interchange the movie and the book? I'm willing to be that you and maybe 2 other people in the Friends fan circle looked at that scene that way. The writers knew that most people watch the movie rather than the book. I think its wrong of you to state that as a fact, Tennant. You really disect things to make Joey look smarter than he is..or is not.

Sofya

Sofya wrote:

In his defense, his explanation of the scene does make sense. Although I find it unlikely Tennant's interpretation was how it was meant to be seen, he certainly has stronger backup for his point than I do for mine, since I doubt there are any numbers on how many regular Friends viewers know the movie or the book or both. I for one never bothered with either, but it prob ably is a huge thing in the US, so that everybody knows it and therefore immediately identified the scenes Joey mentioned as excerpts from the movie....

Andr�

"Cookie Dude" wrote in message news:ae822o$ept$[email]...

I meant to write "bet" not "be"

I guess people can't help defending a guy who normally has great insights into the show...but sometimes he's way off base in terms of the writer's "intentions" IMO

his explanation of the scene does make sense. Although I

Exactly.

Sofya

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:10:01 -0400, "Sofya" wrote:

Well, I think this is the beauty of so many of the jokes on Friends and good sitcoms in general. I don't think we can ever come up with a perfect way to understand a joke, thus we can never truly know what the writers' intentions are. As for this joke, you can find it funny if you think of it as a "Joey is stupid so he spoils everything for Rachel" or "Joey is smarter than the rest since he doesn't spoil the book, but the movie." I really don't see what's the big deal here. So we interpret the joke a different way than you do, Sofya. We still find it funny, and isn't that the point of the whole thing? :)

Marita Bakken wrote:

For me the funny part has always been when Rachel spoils Joey and he's close to tears. The rest was mere buildup.

Yup, it is :)

Andr�

In article , "Sofya" writes:

I have never read the book or seen the movie, so the entire distinction was completely lost on me. I think I am entitled to think that Joey was describing scenes from the book, just like he said he was. I suppose if I knew the movie and the book it might spoil it for me, but then again, maybe those scenes *are* in the book in Joey's universe ;-) --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html

In article , "Sofya" wrote:

It's there in the script, like it or hate it.

But at least I'm not claiming things that are not there in the script.

Tennant

In article , "Sofya" wrote:

It's as likely that Joey being so dumb that he needs to be told to breathe, or it being a wonder that he doesn't fall over.

Tennant

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

Maybe it is Andr�, but that's how it's written; and whatever was the author's intention, we must go by what was on the screen.

But I reckon he's been smarter than that... ;)

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

I'm not denying that your interpretation could be the truth, I think it is plausible, if one knows about the differences of the film and the book. And that is a big if, for the writers should not expect their audience to think that far. But then again, it may well be an inside joke from the writing staff - and if we look at these characters as real people then I don't see a reason for why Joey starts talking to Ross and Chandler about the book only to mention scenes from the film... But they probably had a video evening (at Ross's apartment, Chandler left early and Joey and Ross fell asleep...)

btw, I'm making progress with my theory on why baby shopping was delayed until one week before the due date, I just need to posh it up a little... Probably post it early next week or something

Andr�

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

Thanks.

Well, there are lots of jokes they clearly don't expect their audience to get, like Rachel praising the little sink at the dentist's. (120)

Oh, good idea, yes.

Could be.

Looking forward to it already, Andr�. :)

Lol, the Fucking Department at Bloomingdale's is the best place for that.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

It will take a little longer, at the moment I'm kinda busy translating two interviews with Noel Gallagher from German to English for my dear friends at alt.music.oasis....

Andr�

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

How come?

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

Because people in AMO don't speak German? :P

It's kind of my way of paying them back, as I was able to get my hands on the new album four months ahead of relase and have gotten all sorts of other mp3s/videos and infos from there. And since I don't have any rare Oasis stuff that is worth sharing, I sometimes translate German articles or interviews about the band for them. Also it's a lot of fun to look at the article and guess from the translation how the original English wording was

Andr�

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

Oh, so the article was originally in English?

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

I think the above paragraph answers your question... :)

Andr�

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

Well, if it does, it says the answer is no, which surprised me.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

I'm not really sure as to why this seems so hard for you to understand, but then again, many a times the simple things are the hardest to understand....

So I'll just give you the whole story: Apart from ATF, I also frequent AMO. Since it deals with Oasis, there's obviously mostly British regs there - and surprisingly a lot of Americans. Awhile ago, when there was talk about which websites about the band were most uptodate, most of the regs mentioned two German sites. How they figured I don't know, seeing as they can't speak German.

I offered to translate articles dealing with the band that were published on those German websites. Obviously, when the band is interviewed, the interview will be held in English, but the the author will translate it to German (afterall, he wants to publish it in a German magazine). So when these websites transcribe the articles, I will download, translate and then post them to AMO. So what I basically do, is trying to figure out from the German text, what the band was really saying at these interviews. The fun part is to get all the swearing right :)

Got it now?

Andr�

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

Sometimes I'm a bit dumb, or I've misunderstood something. :)

Yes thankyou, Andr�.

Tennant

In article , "Mouse" wrote:

Grin. Thanks.

Exactly.

See also "The Bishop" sketch on Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Tennant

Paul Hyett wrote in message news:[email]...

Misunderstood. Maybe not the brightest crayon in the box but he's not as stupid as he makes out.

In article , "CandiGrrl" wrote:

Yep. I reckon that Phoebe is the brightest crayon in the box, closely followed by Ross. If she'd had an education, he couldn't touch her.

After that it's obvious that Monica is very fast on the uptake, while if you take Chandler's sarcasms away, his crayon is rather grey - for an example of this, see how they both react to the Holiday Armadillo.

In between I'd put Joey & Rachel, whose crayons are a medium shade.

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

I agree. She is deceptively intelligent (ie she is smarter than she first appears)

Well, he is definitely book smart in his area of interest.

Yep....who knows how far she might have gone if she had received even a half the encouragement Ross seems to have received from their parents.

But, you can't take his sarcasms away...they are little windows into his intelligence. They show that he is well read, has a great memory and that he is a quick thinker. He is the kind of guy who can come up with the witty comeback that most of the rest of us think up 10 minutes later when its too late ("Oh, I should of said....").

Of course, if we all had a cadre of writers writing our dialogue, we might do as well.

You think that he is dumb? Oh, I really cannot agree with that.

Okay, now you appear to be falling into the same trap that you accuse the "Joey-is-an-idiot" camp of doing. One instance (or even several instances) of stupidity do not mean a character on the show is stupid. For every stupid action, somebody else can quote a bunch of examples of where the character was quite smart. Besides, as Claire has repeatedly pointed out, the writers make the characters more smart or less smart to suit a particular plot line.

Also, I don't think this is a stellar example of Chandler being dense. In this case, I think that Chandler was just shocked at the bizarre costume that Ross came up with. Joey came up with a more appropriate costume for the task at hand.

Sorry, if I was to rate the Friends as crayons, these two would be the two dullest shades in the box of six. I'm not saying they are stupid, but I do think that, on the whole, the other four characters are brighter.

mouse

In article , "Mouse" wrote:

Hi, Laura!! How you doin'?

Thanks.

Yep. He's not as clever as he thinks he is, though.

Exactly. That's why Monica wishes she had Ross's parents.

Hasn't that happened in recent years?

What would you put forward as examples of his greatest wit?

Yeah, but that's our side of the fourth wall.

No, none of them are dumb.

That's right. :)

Ah, but that's our side of the fourth wall again.

Well, wasn't Monica surprised? She handled the Armadillo's arrival with some �lan. Chandler had not got a clue, but as you say, maybe he was shocked by the bizarre costume. However, Ross then spelled it out to Chandler, and he *still* didn't get it.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion dear, but it seems to me that too much weight is given to Chandler's supposed wit. :)

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

Ummmm....Gum would be perfection?

Ouch!

You are just asking for this to spill over into a Chandler's-Greatest- Quotes thread.

There really are too many great Chandler witticisms and it's too hard for me to pick my favourites. I must admit that some of my favourites aren't particularly clever, but they just make me laugh.

In

She's had a lot more years to become acquainted with Ross's sometimes bizarre thought patterns.

An armadillo? I'm sure he was just stunned and trying to figure out how an armadillo would in anyway be related to the purpose that Ross was trying to achieve. Ross might have at least tried to pick an animal that is indigenous to the area where most of the events he was describing occurred. He might have tried to pick a creature/character which little children find irresistibly interesting (I'm sure that many kids find armadillos interesting, but they aren't one of those animals which most people rush to go see first when they get to the zoo and Ben didn't seem very interested in the armadillo). A dinosaur would have been a logical choice for Ross.

Besides, This is how Ross explains to Chandler:

Ross: I'm the Holiday Armadillo, your part-Jewish friend. You sent me here to give Ben some presents. Remember?

Chandler: What?

(as in "What? How is that supposed to work?" and "What? Remember what? I don't remember talking about this before" and "What were you thinking?", etc)

Even Monica struggles to make sense of the armadillo choice: Monica: Because Armadillos also wandered in the desert?

stupid,

brighter.

Because it shows quick thinking. Chandler gets all the lines we wish we could think up while Joey gets to be how we are afraid we look when we can't come up with Chandler's lines.

Okay, I shouldn't have used the Royal We. But putting caveats in there like "many of us often" makes the sentence unreadable.

mouse

In article , "Mouse" wrote:

Lol, I love the scene where Chandler is talking in code on the phone, and only Joey is clever enough to understand him.

It's true...

Ah. Backing out, or better things to do with your time? :)

(I don't mind either way).

And Chandler hasn't? That's even more damning than the Armadillo thing.

Monica was making fun of Ross, while Chandler was mired in befuddlement.

Well, I'm inclined to ask "Such as?" once again.

I'd rather have Monica or Phoebe's intelligence.

Tennant

Paul Hyett wrote:

Joey and Phoebe are "Swiss Army Knife" characters -- they change function depending upon what the writer of any given episode needs out of them: If they're needed to be stupid or naive, they are; if they're needed to give Sage Advice, they do that.

Has ever been thus.