
Are We Having Too Much Fun? - BerislavLopac
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/04/are-we-having-too-much-fun/523143/
======
jdavis703
I'm coming more to the conclusion that to be "successful" (i.e. achieving your
goal), one must have a substantial layer of good marketing behind it. No
longer can a scientist say "take this vaccine so you won't die," now they must
also have a witty sign that infotains people. While I'd like to see a more
facts-based approach to civic life, this is the world we live in. All the
better that people who are historically bad communicators (scientist,
engineers, doctors, etc) are realizing that they too need to apply a marketing
"layer" to their speech, otherwise their message will be totally ignored.

~~~
visakanv
> No longer can a scientist say "take this vaccine so you won't die," now they
> must also have a witty sign that infotains people.

Implying that this wasn't the case before?

From what I remember, the guy who said "wash your hands so your patients don't
die" basically got ostracized [1], and even Leonardo Da Vinci had to sell
himself in his resume's cover letter [2].

I think Dan Ariely has the right attitude towards all of this [3]. When we
design things like buildings and bridges, we take physics into account. We
know that we can't build a bridge a certain way because it'll collapse.
Similarly, when we're designing for people, we have to take human nature
(behavioral psychology, whatever you want to call it) into account.

Facts are important, but so is a sensitivity to the person you're trying to
convince of those facts. That's just the reality of communication, I'm afraid.

_

[1] [http://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2015/01/12/37566392...](http://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-
women-s-lives)

[2] [http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/skills-of-da-
vinci.html](http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/skills-of-da-vinci.html)

[3]
[https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions/transcript?language=en)

~~~
gipp
> I think Dan Ariely has the right attitude towards all of this [3]. When we
> design things like buildings and bridges, we take physics into account. We
> know that we can't build a bridge a certain way because it'll collapse.
> Similarly, when we're designing for people, we have to take human nature
> (behavioral psychology, whatever you want to call it) into account.

The difference, of course, is that the laws of physics are, so far as we know,
immutable. "Human nature", informed by the culture of the moment, is not. When
we accept the strategy of "tailor your behavior to human nature" en masse, we
create a feedback loop, without a clear picture of where it leads.

~~~
pharrington
I think you're agreeing with visakanv's point while misunderstanding his
words. What he's referring to as behavioral psychology can't be changed by
changing society - it's only changed by changing the genome.

~~~
gipp
This is patently false. There are no fixed constants at the level of social
behavior. Nothing about society is "purely genetic", and even if it were, the
human genome changes all the time.

~~~
pharrington
There are probably _trivially few_ fixed constants of social behavior. The
animal's feedback loop of encoding stimulus and producing response in
environment _is_ , though, determined by genetics. For example, you how would
respond to me stroking your shoulder is extremely contextual. The given
nervous system's training which produces the response to said shoulder
stroking is a complicated and chaotic system born from fixed genes.

------
mythrwy
Don't like spinach? No worries, I'll put a bunch of sugar on it.

Wait, that's even nastier!

How about we just realize spinach actually tastes pretty good and we feel
better when we eat it instead of sugar? Still, some people just won't like
spinach and that's ok. But it's not a good idea to teach kids to hate spinach
and love junk or assume that's just how it is naturally. Because pooping our
pants is natural. But a little training and habit sure makes us feel better
and get by with less problems.

If presented properly and as a matter of custom, preferring nutritious food
over empty calories comes naturally and is overall better for the person and
their society.

------
rdiddly
I had noticed this trend, but interestingly came at it from the other
direction: the only people we permit to speak the truth to us are comedians.
The likes of Dave Chappelle & Louis CK for example. Can anybody else get away
with talking honestly about race? If it's not a joke, we can't even handle it.
Or in politics it's been Jon Stewart & Colbert. In that realm the cognitive
dissonance is so high, you'd rather just shoot yourself. Unless it's a joke,
then it's bearable. Humor is how we deal with traumatic contradictions. It's
just sad that these areas (race & politics) are still about traumatic
contradiction rather than solved problems we can move on from.

------
linkmotif
I once told a friend about Mike Duncan's History of Rome Podcast. The friend
asked "is it funny?" I didn't get it, but my girlfriend told me, "oh, yeah,
everything has to be funny these days."

This over and over again.

~~~
chrismealy
Mike Duncan is funny.

~~~
linkmotif
I never said he wasn't :)

------
ivanbakel
It struck me that the last point was the strongest. Entertainment is a
fantastic way to humanize politicians and demystify complex systems from their
state of worship, but the real danger is the marrying of entertainment to
politics, rather than the other way around.

Is there a way to strike a boundary? We can't fault celebrities for using
their influence for political effect, and I doubt we can fault them for not
doing so either - but does that make entertainers qualified political movers?
One joke that often circulates in leftist circles is "J.K. Rowling explains
why Harry Potter would support the state of Israel", but it has a ring of
truth to it as well. If entertainment becomes the primary way of thinking
about politics, it will need to lose a lot of freedom to bring it up to a
standard we deserve.

~~~
dTal
>One joke that often circulates in leftist circles is "J.K. Rowling explains
why Harry Potter would support the state of Israel", but it has a ring of
truth to it as well.

Given that this actually happened, what exactly do you mean?

~~~
ivanbakel
>Given that this actually happened

Did it? It's my understanding that Rowling casts Potter as a strongly pro-
Palestine type, which is slightly absurd unto itself. [0]

[0] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/harry-potter-
would-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/harry-potter-would-be-
disappointed-with-my-stance-on-israel-boycott-jk-rowling-says-a6710916.html)

~~~
dTal
Yes, I was referring to that reference. Sorry for mixing up the pro- and anti-
positions. But now I'm even more confused - what's the joke, and the ring of
truth?

~~~
ivanbakel
The ring of truth is that, since many consider Rowling a big neoliberal type,
and exactly the kind of person who would argue against the boycott of Israel,
_and_ she is well known for using her characters after the books have been
written to make political points in a "relatable" way, that it might well
happen (and in some way, has happened). The absurdity of combining a
children's character with a major political view (which leftists tend to
disagree with anyways) to try and defend her viewpoint forms the comedy.

~~~
pjc50
> many consider Rowling a big neoliberal type

These people are either wrong or have a very strange definition of
"neoliberal". It seems to have become, like "socialist", an all-purpose swear
word to apply to people whose politics you don't like.

Rowling is an old-school Labourite, solidly pro-welfare state, Unionist and
Remainer.

~~~
peatmoss
While I understand that language changes over time, this new usage of
neoliberalism is weird for anyone with a traditional understanding of the
term.

I hold the view that neoliberalism is basically GOP-style capitalism where
markets are deregulated and everything is privatized.

I've encountered a number of times recently where people appeared to be using
neoliberalism as a stand-in for liberalism, which to me is exactly backwards.

Edit for clarification: I agree with your understanding of neoliberalism, and
your assessment that Rowling's left-wing politics are basically the opposite
of neoliberalism.

------
nom
For most people in the first world the primary needs (water, food, health) are
adequately satisfied, but the dopamine system doesn't stop there and requires
further stimulation. That's why we have things like coffee, nicotine, alcohol
and other drugs, theme parks, consumerism etc.. Most are never satisfied with
what they've got, it's just human nature.

~~~
hliyan
Perhaps what the first world needs is a little simulated conflict. Something a
little more high stakes than video games and a little less than The Game
starring Michael Douglas. Not sure what form it should take.

~~~
pjc50
I believe what you're looking for is called "sports".

~~~
mostlyskeptical
Absolutely. How else can an activity like Riding dirt bikes, with a near 100%
injury rate for even casual riders wearing full safety gear, be popular?

So many things in our society are overly sanitized to the point that we have
an almost complete mental aversion to the idea that some things can be
unavoidably dangerous and will still be beneficial (or at least that we should
be allowed to do them because we want to, because we are free human beings).

Back on topic, after riding a dirt bike I just feel... Alive? For days
afterwards I feel like a complete human. It makes the injuries worth it.

A good book on the subject is Foolproof: how safety can be dangerous and
danger makes us safe -- Greg IP

------
tsunamifury
I think this pieces core thesis, that context collapse causes us to focus on
irrelevant but entertaining information, is less true in the modern era.
Google actually created a world where your results and advertising is MORE
contextual to your real life, not less. And for what it's worth, Facebook also
made feeds information also more about you. Apple made computing more about
doing real things outside. And so on.

So I don't think we are entertaining ourselves to death, we're just doing the
thing we've done best forever: procrastinating work we don't want to do. We
just have better options for filling that time now.

~~~
aswanson
I think the ability to be entertained constantly is a problem in and of
itself, though. There's a serious case for the usefulness of boredom.

------
bplatta
on the article: I like to wrap up these sorts of treatments into my own
simplified cultural causal models, if you will (hopefully my syntax is
intuitive).

Invention of telegraph := ~immediacy of information, minimal context ->
incredible boon for society! Essentially the beginning of modern technology,
dare i say. The ability to CREATE networks as technology! ooo the power of
(high bandwidth) networks!

Invention of Television := immediacy of visual information, lots more context,
modern entertainment -> oh the theories abound for what this caused. I like to
consider televisions pacifying effect on modern society. This subtle lie about
what it claims to be: a window in a room. Oh but of course we know much of it
is fictitious! But do we? All the more confusing with "reality TV" and, as
discussed here, modern news-tainment.

Just some of my thoughts!

meta, on this comment section: I'm a little surprised this article is getting
so easily dismissed. Its simply an attempted synthesis and application of
media/normative/critical theorists' work. That is, this is philosophical at
heart and I appreciate the author's attempt (it brings to mind David Foster
Wallace's constant questioning of entertainment and the effect of
entertainment's reflexivity). I think many hackernews readers (like myself)
are scientifically minded and so this sort of thesis, i.e. not empirically
verifiable, can lack the thrust that we want. But that said, I think it
provides a valuable ontology for thinking about modern society and provokes
some questions that actually may inform my behavior.

Much more difficult to parse out the noise with these types of articles, I
grant you.

(Edit: grammar/spacing)

------
cpr
The author sorta takes us through Postman's arguments, but then turns on him
in the end. I guess that's inevitable (given Postman's own arguments about
trivializing things), but why not let them stand on their own?

------
d--b
> he couldn’t have known how comedians would come to double, in a culture
> saturated with information, as journalists

Er... Wasn't Nixon interviewed by David Frost?

Hell, was Diogenes having too much fun?

~~~
visakanv
> he couldn’t have known how comedians would come to double, in a culture
> saturated with information, as journalists

Also – comedians have been truth-tellers since the days of court jesters.

------
jacob019
Is it just me or do most Atlantic articles seem like pointless tirades?

~~~
Erik816
Nope, not just you. They do some really good journalism at times, but even
their best articles have a sensationalist bent that gets old after a while.

~~~
hkmurakami
Is it just me or has it gotten a lot worse over the last 5-6 years?

~~~
qwert-e
They've changed their business model in the last 7-8 years to be online
friendly and it's been largely a success. Might have something to do with it,
might not.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13atlantic....](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13atlantic.html)
If you're looking for the old Atlantic, a lot of their archived material is
right alongside current stuff, in "Also see...". For example, "Sex and the
College Girl" (1957) was recommended after I read Kate Bolick's famous "All
the Single Ladies" piece (2011). Kind of interesting to have that
juxtaposition.

------
hartator
"It looks like your browser is unable to display ads". I guess not.

~~~
Eerie
Just install anti-adblock blocker:

[https://reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/](https://reek.github.io/anti-
adblock-killer/)

This arms race if so much fun!

------
qwtel
are we running out of clickbaity headlines?

~~~
visakanv
Excuse me sir, but it appears that you're trying to have fun. This is Hacker
News. Fun is strictly prohibited.

~~~
qwtel
we are very serious software ENGINEERS. very serious people. like lawyers, but
not as attractive.

------
yarrel
We?

------
ldehaan
how is this even on hacker news? this is a crappy repeat of: are you not
doing/believing something we all used to believe? _gasp_ you must be doing it
wrong.

did the atlantic hire bill orielly or something?

~~~
toss1941
I imagined a Principle Skinner writing this article "Are we out of touch with
the wants and needs of the American people? No, it's the children (voters) who
are wrong..."

