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.
> 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.
Just recently, I was talking to a group of International Relations graduate students about global problems like climate change. I pointed out that none of them (in this case) had a background in science, and couldn’t even prove to themselves that the e.g. the Earth is round. So, “how can you possibly hope to cause ordinary people to understand, believe, and appreciate anthropogenic climate change?” I asked.
Predictably, most of the rejoinders were some variation of “we just need to show them the studies and the data”. My reply was that was that we all need to be more intellectually humble and realize that, even among us educated people, most of our beliefs come from having attended the right kinds of theatrical performances (e.g. a good lecture, book, documentary, etc.), which is the same for most of the skeptics and deniers. I told them that the best thing that they could do for their cause is to (1) make sure that they have a basic understanding of the principles of climate science and then (2) create a really good theatrical show that includes some powerful props.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
If anything the case for science and facts is better than ever before in history. People were burned at the stake for talking about facts in the past that didn't agree with authority or mainstream.
Of course, human nature (when given broad free choice) is to polarize into Pro- or Anti- (science in this case) which is bad for the overall conversations.
Solution: Stop caring what others think and accept that the world will often make bad choices, and do what you can.
> If anything the case for science and facts is better than ever before in history.
Oh man, you just reminded me of this really depressing passage I read in a book about biology that I had put out of mind. A career scientist was complaining about how basically he got into science hoping to do science, but witnessed decades of academic politics hampering scientific progress. It's distressing to think about how our own nature holds us back.
Who wants to run a test and fedex direct letters like Davinci's to top CEOs? A long form letter with detailed touting of your technical accomplishments as well as your ideas and inventions, rather than the currently en vogue brief email, "would love to chat with you and see if we can work together to power your growth and mission!"
This has always been the case. Every interaction with every other human is just some sort of 'game' where you have to make things witty and interesting etc. You can't just pour out the bland truth. People will be alienated and bored. Like a waiter in a restaurant, you have to serve the dish nicely so that it appeals the other person. That doesn't mean you have to be dishonest, it just means that presentation matters a whole lot more than engineers and scientists want it to. In fact, presentation is absolutely crucial to success.
It heavily depends on importance. If you're dying from thirst in a desert you won't care if someone is offering you water in a 'witty and interesting' way or not. The less something is important (or unique) the more entertainment you need to sell it.
Now we're getting somewhere. Could it be extrapolated, then, that anything carrying that shiny veneer of salesmanship, is probably something you don't really need, a.k.a. bullshit? Certainly the mindset results in hanging onto more of your money, more often, and for longer.
Salesmanship does not always equal BS, and I'm not sure that the BS is inverse to importance. Rather, actualized importance and perception of importance are independent and the BS can be useful to magnify one and/or the other. Thus, selling an effective vaccine vs snake oil, both of which may/will not sell itself largely on facts alone.
Probably, to some extent. There is no way to sell Coca-Cola rather than by extreme level of salesmanship because nobody really needs it. At the same time you won't see any advertisement for tap water.
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.
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.
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."
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.
>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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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....
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.
It suffers from the same malaise that all online publications suffer from – articles and headlines are increasingly optimized to get people arguing about it on Facebook (and Hacker News, and anywhere else).
I think it depends on the author. They have a lot of good, thoughtful pieces, and most of their longform articles are great.
But they definitely have a few writers who have axes to grind. If you read their day-to-day articles often enough, probably half of the stories on their front page will be predictable enough to ignore.
But on the other hand, what media site is that not true of? Maybe The Economist? They don't list authors, but their stance is still pretty predictable.
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.
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..."
