
How writing creates value - phreeza
http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2010/06/how-writing-creates-value-.html
======
rufibarbatus
> _So why does humor exist? Because it’s our checksum on reality._

Dan Dennett would call it "debugging" [1]. It is interesting to see that in
our society we're so inundated with humour that sometimes pointing at
something mundane or downright horrible and calling it humour (or laughing at
it) is enough to make it humorous indeed ( _meta_ -humorous? I don't like that
prefix) [2].

But I think the analysis falls short here, because it forgoes addressing the
subject of _horror_. Not repulsion [3], but horror. We entertain horror like
we entertain humour. They're both triggered by novelty or breakage [4], they
both seem to incite the same checksum/debugging attitude from the audience,
they evoke passionate reactions... and yet we perceive them as absolutely
opposite to each other.

(One of these days I was being philosophical about why that might be — why
humour and horror, while being so similar, are perceived as such opposites —
and someone recommended to me a book called _Biology of Horror_ which
apparently sets off from that point. I haven't read it. Just passing along the
recommendation.)

> _Thus, the reason why humor subjectively feels good is probably because when
> others laugh at your jokes it shows that they respect you as a person and
> agree with your ideas._

There are studies [5] which indicate that humour even has a role in sexual
selection, which to me feels like taking the points made in this article to
the extreme. One might among other things measure social fitness in a
potential partner by their shared sense of humour: that's amazing.

[1]
[http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_cute_sexy_sweet_funny.h...](http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_cute_sexy_sweet_funny.html)

[2] <http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeadBabyComedy> and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-joke>

[3] Yours truly, elsewhere in this page:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2807137>

[4] Concerning this "breakage" of "mental schemata", the law of leaky
abstractions comes to mind:
[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm...](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html)

[5] [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-
humor-g...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-humor-gap)

------
jonnathanson
I very much enjoyed this article. Please bear that in mind as you read the
following critique, which is meant not as a dismissal but as (I hope) the
start of a conversation on this topic.

 _"something is objectively interesting when it violates an expectancy..."_

Perhaps, but this definition -- clever though it is -- relies on a degree of
subjectivity not terribly far removed from the original definition you cited
(e.g., "arousing or holding attention"). Because your definition depends on
the reader's expectations, and different readers will have different
expectations -- not to mention different weights assigned to those
expectations -- then we still can't reach true objectivity in "interesting"
content.

 _"Good writing makes us see something differently. Great writing makes us see
everything differently."_

Again, this definition is slightly problematic. It assigns too much value to
novelty -- which, in turn, depends very heavily on what any given reader might
bring to the table. I would suggest we strive for a definition of good writing
that is not so heavily dependent on the mindset and other qualities of the
reader.

IMO, you were building toward a very reasonable and logical framework in your
assessment of novelty + information + insight. (I would add "clarity" to your
framework, FWIW). But I think you leapt to a somewhat unsupported conclusion.
Not all great writing is profound. To be sure, some of it is (though its
profundity depends on the reader's expectations or experience). But there is
certainly great writing that shatters no expectations; conversely, there is
bad writing that does so. _Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ is brilliantly
written, but it doesn't exert a profound and life-altering influence on most
readers' worldviews. On the flipside, _The Secret_ is horrendously written,
but it has had a major and indellibile influence on the lives of many of its
readers -- sad though that may be.

~~~
rufibarbatus
> _Because your definition depends on the reader's expectations, and different
> readers will have different expectations [...] then we still can't reach
> true objectivity in "interesting" content._

I took a course in Classical Rhetoric a couple years ago (it was terribly
worth it), and in the first classes we learnt that at least since Aristotle
this has been at the core of this art: the very definition of a good discourse
is, that which is entirely crafted with its audience in mind.

Two caveats:

FIRST, as we grow used to certain schemata of how to perceive reality (that
is, as these schemata become radical to our way of thinking), anything which
is radically different from them, while it may still draw _attention_ , is
most likely going to evoke repulsion.

This is a little bit veiled in the text because the author uses vision of a
physical event as an analogy to the reception of a discourse. If you see a
train crossing a wall, there's no denying it, so it'll draw your attention in
a sporty manner. If you catch (still vision) your best (male) friend kissing
another guy, and he never told you he was into that, there will be many ways
you can wrap your head around it — to the point where gay males report feeling
repulsion and betrayal when they find out their "straight buddy" was gay
behind their backs! [1]

Finally, if you _hear_ someone propose an idea that is completely orthogonal
(if not entirely opposite) to how you think, all else being equal, you're
likely to experience anything from confusion to repulsion. Because in order to
be interested in what is seemingly incongruous with your beliefs, you have to
suspend them at least a little, and disbelief can usually only be suspended
willingly.

SECOND, it is interesting to turn the idea in its head and ask yourself "but
what if I want to spike the interest of the 'every man', what if I wish my
audience to be as wide as humanity?" You can't craft all kinds of discourse at
this level, but you'll find that there are certain things which spike interest
in us all (and conversely, you'll find that we share at least very similar
beliefs about a host of things). This concept is named "universal audience"
and discussed with great brilliance in a book by Chaïm Perelman and Lucie
Olbrechts-Tyteca, called in English _The New Rhetoric_ , which I much
recommend.

[1] Disclaimer: I'm using this example because it was discussed over a glass
of beer in the bar, yesterday, and to my surprise, everyone at the table had
one such story to share; my group of friends being what you may otherwise call
_diverse and accepting._ No, I don't have a link, but I hope there are/will be
studies about this.

~~~
Alex3917
"This concept is named 'universal audience' and discussed with great
brilliance in a book by Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, called in
English The New Rhetoric, which I much recommend."

Thanks for the reference, I'll check this out. There are definitely certain
things that are always universally interesting to people, e.g. new ways their
children could be in danger. The cool thing about the Internet though is that
we can do things like, say, download 1M+ comments tagged 'interesting' on
Slashdot and look for patterns that other people have missed.

This is also basically the way I created and validated this framework, e.g.
every 'insightful' comment on Slashdot either fit into this framework, or else
the framework had to be changed, or else I had to decide it wasn't really
insightful. If I ever wanted to turn this into a PhD dissertation or something
then I would actually do this transparently at a very large scale, so that
people could easily see for themselves that it's actually a very robust and
actionable model.

------
6ren
"What makes something interesting?" His answer is "novelty", since that's the
basis of Baillargeon's experiment. Note that this is not exhaustive as other
things appear to be interesting to audiences, such as sex and violence. Also,
any method of satisfying a currently unmet need will hold our interest, as an
oasis in the desert. We can cast novelty in these terms by saying we are
insatiably curious. I agree it has survival value, provided it doesn't kill us
_a la_ the cat).

------
blackboxxx
I remember reading this on Hacker News about a year ago. Too lazy to look it
up though.

~~~
rufibarbatus
You're right! Same text, _same URL_ even. :|

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1427976>

