Op-Ed: Why Do We Like Something? · 7:29pm Aug 24th, 2015
Hey everyone, welcome back after a most interesting weekend! Well, maybe it was an interesting weekend for you, I certainly can't speak for all of you. Certainly it was an interesting weekend for those in Spokane, Washington, though, as they had to decide which the greater fire was: The massive, multi-acre wildfires burning up the forest? Or the conflagration downtown that was the Hugo Awards burning themselves to the ground to keep fiction ideologically pure?
Anyway, this week I'm actually forgoing the usual Being a Better Writer post for an opinion piece. Those of you who've been following me for a while may recall seeing these once or twice before, but for those of you who are newcomers, the Opinion-Editorial columns are just the rare occasion when I want to write an editorial observation rather than something that's wholly concerned with the usual posts' topic of improving one's writing. It doesn't mean that these posts aren't useful, just rather that they don't quite cover the same context as the usual weekly posts. That said, it's my blog to write with as I please. So today I'm writing an Op-Ed.
No, it's not about the Hugo Awards.
Instead, I want to talk about something a little more ... well, some might say touchy. I know from prior experience that this topic is a sensitive one with a lot of people. Possibly because it's the sort of topic that raises questions only we can answer, and some people don't like their own answers. Today, I want to ask a simple, seemingly innocuous question.
Why do we like something?
As it turns out, the answer is more complicated than we might think. Most of us, when asked such an open ended question, would likely offer an answer similar to the following: because I do.
But do we really? Human nature and psychology is an interesting thing, and quite often what we assume to be simple, easy-to-explain behavior isn't. Especially when it comes to "personal preference" and what we enjoy turns out to run headlong into what we think we enjoy.
Confused? Let me offer a few examples.
Ever heard of the site Turntable? If not, well, it's gone now. Turntable was a sort of social music experiment. The core idea was pretty simple: Upon signing up for the site, a user was given a list of virtual "rooms" that they could enter. A simple visual interface gave each member a small avatar inside that space, and at the front was a long table with five cartoon turntables. Five members of the room were DJs, while the rest were audience members. If someone stepped down as a DJ, anyone from the audience could click the open seat and take it.
From there, music happened. Each of the DJs had a playlist of their own tunes, uploaded from their computers, that would play for everyone in the room one by one (if you can see the copyright hurdles that come with this you have a good idea as to why the site isn't around anymore). The room would cycle through the DJs from left to right, each one being allowed to play a single song before the next DJ got their shot. Meanwhile, the audience could "vote" for whether they liked or disliked a song, represented by a needle in front of the active DJ. More likes meant more head-bobbing from the audience and the needle moving into the green, but dislikes meant no activity and moved the needle into the red. Too many dislikes booted the DJ from the stage.
So, that was how Turntable worked. Now for the interesting part. What made people like or dislike a song?
It was interesting to watch the crowds react to what was played. At one point, I played the song Das Malefitz in the room I was DJing in (a soundtrack room) and observed a case of "What makes you like this?" firsthand.
For the first half of the song, everything was pretty normal. One or two audience members had liked it, but for the most part, everything was pretty chill. Then, in the chat bar along the side of the room, text sprang up. "Hey," one of the audience members said. "I know this song! It's from Mass Effect 3!"
The needle buried itself in the green over the next few seconds alongside hordes of comments of "I love that game! I love this song!" etc.
I found this interesting. I'd not said where it was from or who it was composed by. Up until the audience member had made the connection, the only basis for liking the song was the song itself. However, once the source material was known, suddenly almost every audience member began singing its praises and talking about how much they liked it.
The question is: Did they? Or were they merely asserting that they must like it because of its source? None of them had had anything to say about it in the minutes leading up to that lone fan's realization of where it was from. But once they knew it was from Mass Effect, suddenly the song transformed from "Okay" to "I love this!"
But why? It certainly wasn't because of the song. In fact, I would argue that most of them didn't like the song at all. Certainly if pressed, I don't believe any of them would have been able to give concrete reasons before the admission.
Interesting, isn't it?
Alright, another example, this one recent. Lately, I've been doing some experimentation with Rise. Nothing major. I just went through and took a few glowing statements from some of the reviews and comments Rise has had and put them at the forefront of the synopsis. I was curious to see what kind of effect it would have on the incoming readership. Specifically with regards to the way upvotes are handed out from readers.
Now to note, the only change I made was adding in these comments of praise for the story. I changed nothing else. I just wanted to see what would happen if new readers were being exposed up front to positive reinforcement of Rise's quality. Would it have an effect?
As it turns out, yes. A massive effect. If one looks at the graph of upvotes over time, before I added in those recommendations, the angle of ascent of that upvote graph was about 30 degrees.
Since I added in the review comments on the synopsis? About 45.
Nothing else about the story has changed. However, more people like it ... if only because there are comments at the beginning telling them that they'll like it (and bear in mind, those are real comments, so I'm not trying to trick anyone).
Right, I think you get the idea by now. It's very common for people to "like" things based on principle and emotion, rather than logic. Everyone else says they like something, so we have to like it as well (or so we're told). Or we see something with another thing that we like, and so we associate the two in our head (I liked that thing, so now I must also like this thing since I liked that thing).
This isn't news, obviously. Most of us suspect on some level—or even admit—that we do this. The catch is that we may do it a lot more than we think, and our perceptions and "enjoyment" of things is far more up for grabs than we might expect.
For instance, who of you listens to "popular" music? Did you know that what plays on the radio is actually a carefully marketed advertising tool? Record labels have found through a lot of study that people are more inclined to "like" and buy a song if they can be convinced that they (along with everyone else) like it through repeated exposure (Google "Exposure Effect" for a foray into this field). Ever wonder why the same new, summer song seems to play over and over again on the radio? Most of the time it's not because anyone likes it, in fact, most don't. But studies have shown that after only twenty exposures to such a song, the human mind convinces itself that it likes it, in a form of self-delusion, in order to make the song more palatable. When queried about the music—actually queried—the listeners will offer the same reasons for not liking it that they gave when disliking it, but now say that they "like" the song despite those misgivings. All because of a combination of two things: repeated exposure and perceived peer pressure (well, the radio keeps playing it, so everyone else must like it ...).
This is common knowledge in marketing and advertising, and odds are, pretty much anything you find aimed at you isn't just designed to be attractive or tantalizing in some way, but also packaged so that you'll "like" it without really knowing why. Whether it's positive perceived social reinforcement (cigarette and beer ads are a great example of this) or specially chosen phrases to make you more inclined to give something your attention, time, support, and money, we're bombarded every day by things that we're "supposed" to like.
And, unsurprisingly, such actions work. They work very well. Positive reinforcement, perceived pressure, carefully worded slogans ... It's the reason that a group of friends or like-minded individuals can simply move onto a site as a group and become overnight sensations simply by telling everyone they can how important and great the rest of their friends are. If Person A supports and tells everyone how much you should enjoy the product of Person B, C, D, and E, and Person B does the same for Person A, C, D, and E—and so on and so forth—Persons A, B, C, D, and E will successfully curate a large following in short time. All it takes is the right phrases and the right push. Supporters of that ring will "like" each of them ... even if the only reason for it is "Well, I liked one thing A did, so I must like B because A said I should like them."
Again, I'm not breaking new ground here. This has always happened. People have just gotten really good at it in the last hundred or so years. Computers, books, music, movies, games, foods ... You name it. Heck, even sports news does this. Next time you watch an EPSN broadcast, for example, note how many words or phrases are designed to make you decide that what they're talking about is important, valuable, and cool. If there's a benefit to doing it, you can bet an industry will do it.
Right, so with all this, where does that leave us? We can't reject this type of maneuvering. After all, reviewers, testimonials, etc, are good things, most of the time. We need to have ways of finding new entertainment and winnowing out the less-than-savory stuff to find what we're looking for. What we like. And sometimes these pushes can let us know what we might like about a story.
The trick is that quite often places aren't concerned with what we like. They want us to like what "everyone else" likes because that's profit. And to be honest, while an attitude of "Oh, I like this, I don't like this" is a good thing in moderation, the kind of wholesale acceptance that many places and people would rather see from us is often less than healthy.
Honestly, I think we need to be more discerning with what we "like." It's one thing to look at something and say "Well, X says I'll probably like it" or "X liked this, should I?" But it's another to say "X says I should like it, so I do." And quite often, this second path is the one that most take. They throw what is, quite literally, blind support behind something because they've been told it's "cool" or "popular."
And this kind of mentality? It's dangerous. Because it doesn't just limit itself to our choices in entertainment consumption. It spreads. Once you've made the concession that you'll "like" something merely based on superficial reasons, the gate is open, and you're far more likely to make similar concessions in other areas. Morals. Politics. Areas that get dangerous whenever you're inclined just to go with the flow of what others say.
Again, I'm not saying that a blurb on a book cover talking about how great a book is isn't a good thing. Or a movie review. They can be helpful and informative, but only insomuch that they aid our own judgement instead of becoming our own judgement.
Clearly, the answer isn't to reject everything. That's just as foolhardy as accepting everything. The real trick, I think, is to look at why we like or don't like something and be a little more discerning of what makes something "good." To find a happy balance somewhere in the middle. Obviously, as an author, I'm hoping that the favorable reviews of my book encourage others to look at them and then buy them. But I'd honestly be a little sad if a reader read it and didn't like it ... but then gave it a Five-Star review simply because others had. Or gave it a One-Star review without reading because another author they read told them they should dislike my stuff (and this actually does happen; I'm not making that last one up). And I'd also be disappointed if someone only read my books and "enjoyed" them simply because "I'm supposed to enjoy them, X reviewer said so" (which is also a real thing that happens, obviously).
I think far too often most are just inclined to go with the flow rather than putting some real thought to things. We shouldn't be. Not everything needs to be a life-or-death decision, but at the same time, we shouldn't just take everything as it is presented to us. No "judging a book by it's cover," essentially. Especially when so much of what we see and accept is custom tailored specifically to make us do exactly that.
We need to be more discriminating with what we like. Otherwise, we run the risk of living our lives not with things that we actually enjoy, but facsimiles of such, facsimiles which we've convinced ourselves we enjoy more than the real thing.
So again, I come back to the question I opened this whole can of worms with: Why do we like something? Is it just because someone told us that we should? Are we merely parroting another's words or an advertiser's claims when we extol a book or song? Or is it because we genuinely like it?
It's a difficult question, one a lot of people are uncomfortable with. Few want to admit that they only "like" something because the advertising told them so.
Ultimately, our own answer is up to each of us. Why do we like something? Only you can really say.
But I hope that when you do, that when each of us does, our words are actually our own.
I will help test how reproducible this is.
*Flexes ctrl+c
... And now I feel like I should go fetch a couple of the more glowing (and on-topic) comments from my stories and add them to my descriptions. Heck, the practice is good enough for published authors, and it's not dishonest, so why not?
That aside, insightful post. I'd kinda known a lot of that in the back of my mind, but this really brought it to the forefront.
I like Gravity Falls. It's a really fun and sweet show with many features that endear it to me. However, I don't like it nearly as much as I love MLP. Is there a significant quality disparity between the two shows? I don't think so. So why do I like ponies more? It's probably because I associate the show with the community. The wealth of stories, art, and friends I've made through it. This fits the pattern you put forward.
3344298
Let me know how it goes! I look forward to seeing how it works out for you.
I should note that actual numbers of readers went down after I made the change. Numbers of readers dropped by about 10% from what they were. But those readers are upvoting more. Are they swayed by the comments to be more liberal with their upvotes, or does the praise attract readers who like the sound of that praise? I don't know.
But I would like to.
3344323
Again, let me know how it goes. And huzzah! Another Gravity Falls fan! Now that I think about it, at this point I could probably say that I like Gravity Falls maybe a bit more than MLP (?) ... but for different reasons. I certainly own a ton of MLP stuff, and no GF stuff, but when I think about why, the things I like from GF aren't as tangible (at least until they release that journal) as MLP's . MLP I like the characters and moral exuberance, but with GF I love the consistent story and solid progression from one start to one end. Different reasons for each one.
Man, I am a picky with what I like.
But it's always interesting to think "Why do I like this?"
Liking or disliking things is easier when you do not have to "fit in".
Good article.
As a sidenote: I've always personally thought the radio plays nothing but mediocre things at best on repeat, and never listen to it. Even bought a 3.5mm jack adapter for my crappy car radio for that reason.
Any Hugo ceremony that givesThree Body Probleman award is fine by me. We must have seen different ceremonies.Sorry, sorry, I think I shot my mouth off again. The only place I've recently seen that whole "burn this m-f-er down" sentiment pop up was from VD and Wright, which is why I didn't think before typing. Sorry you're upset, but I had no problems with what I saw of the ceremony before I fell asleep.
As for your actual point, you've got one. I only started watching Rick and Morty (which I really hope gets a nomination next year) because two critics that I like reading extolled its virtues and talked about the best parts of season one. While I've got no problem letting the recommendations of people and communities I like influence what I experience next, I'm trying my hardest not to let that cloud my final evaluation (except maybe in the case of Top 40 radio because what's there to criticize in a lot of those songs?).
3344824
Well, Three-body Problem almost didn't make it. I've even seen a few Insular sites admit that it wouldn't have made it if not for the puppies getting involved. The withdrawal of on submission got TBP on, after all.
No, the burning was the Hugo Awards willingly voting in lock step to shut out a full third of the awards. Hugo statistics showed that in each of the categories that was given no award, roughly 3/4s of the voters only voted no award, making no other rankings or selections whatsoever. Similar voting was found for the proposed Insular vote: one vote, no other rankings or organization. Just the winner, then no award.
The conclusion is that a full three-quarters of the voters did exactly what GRRM was begging them not too: vote in lock step, solely for political reasons. Which is what Larry Correria had said would happen three years ago when he first suggested the whole thing.
I know you actually read and voted on most of the ballot, but according to the Hugo site's stats and analysis, a full three-quarters of the voting body did not, and doubled the amount of no awards given out over the years in one moment.
By voting politically, just as SP declared right from the start they would. GRRM kept asking people to not do that because it would ruin what the Hugo Awards stood for, but it happened anyway, and proved that the Hugo Awards have been hijacked by social agendas that should have no part of deciding "The best" Science-Fiction and Fantasy.
Next year, it may be even more shut out. One of the proposed rule changes that was supposed to go up in front of the Hugo board was a rule change that would make it so you could not vote unless you were an "approved fan." You know, one who's been cleared as a "real fan" rather than the rabble.
Nothing good comes of this. Also, burning down was not actually Vox Day's idea. As much a punk as he is, I believe it was Scalzi or one of his Insular cohorts who originally presented the "burn it down" idea. VD just threatened to do the same in retaliation.
3344462
And done. Even used one of your comments on Desert Spice. I think I kept the spirit of it intact.
We'll see how this goes...
3345083
Really? Because last I heard, Three Body only got on the ballot because Marko Kloos declined his sponsored nomination. This guy came up with an alternative, hypothetical ballot, but as much as I like seeing City of Stairs on it, I have no idea how he came to his results.
Whatever. We clearly aren't seeing the same things when it comes to this issue, so I'm going to just drop it and scrounge up some nominations for next year.
Using my review to boost your upvote margins, eh?
Nicely played!
Well, I have a bit to say about my own experiences with music. I generally dislike everything I hear on the radio. Lots of it isn't painful to listen to, but it takes a special song to get out of just a few months of radio play and worm its way into my playlist.
I like to think that every person has a musican soul-mate. You know, that one musician that you discover through their greatest hits album, but then you find that you love all of the filler songs from their albums. I think that everyone has one, and it's just a matter of figuring out who it is.
For me, I've found mine. I once caught one of the occasional times that the classic rock station played a Stevie Ray Vaughan song, and I immediately had to go find out more about it. Four years later, I have every single song that Stevie ever produced in his all-too-short career and many more bootleg tracks, and I genuinely enjoy every. single. one of them.
I guess I managed to beat out the system of advertising making me like something, because I guarantee that you'd be hard pressed to hear SRV even on the radio stations where the mainstream advertising forces your opinion. Maybe the positive reinforcement of all of the devoted fans has helped, but I feel that I made my own decision that his music is good, and I feel that I could tell you a few valid reasons as to why I do enjoy it so much.
...
I can't tell if I made much of a point there. Anyway, yes, I agree with the points you presented, for I have been noticing the same thing as of late. Good post, and thanks for using my review in your experiment. Seeing words that I wrote in the story description of one of my absolute favorite fics is really cool!
3345342
maxviking.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/sandifer.png?w=300&h=101
While you're at it, you should probably read this.
Again, this is one of those situations where the same old "Is this bigotry?" test applies. If Sandifier there had said "I admit to voting exclusively authors whose races do not utterly repel me," would you say that it isn't bigotry or racism?
Yet when he says he judges solely on politics, is it acceptable bigotry?
That's part of the problem here. Bigotry hasn't gone away. It's just been renamed "tolerance."
Edit: Here's someone who went to the con recalling their experience:
She's a SP-nominated author, btw. She's talking about the Insulars.
At this point, I'm surprised you seem defensive of the Insular group. This is, after all the group that has been consistently insisting Sarah Hoyt is a man in all their press releases and most of their blog posts. She's not. She's a woman.
But that fact isn't stopping the narrative.
At this point, if you're siding with the Insulars, you're siding with a group that's calling a woman a man, simply because she doesn't agree with them.
Who's the sexist group here again?
I think about this sort of thing a lot. One of the reasons I do my fairly casual reviews is actually to try and focus on that a bit more. I do very off tjhe cuff and casual reviews of things, but I write them up for pretty much every story I read. In addition, I do try to point out when I like a story for one specific reason that might be overshadowing a whole pile of flaws elsewhere in the work.
So much unconscious opinion shaping stuff out there, and not just marketing. It was curious that putting the reviews at the top of the story description caused likes to jump. I was not surprised that it caused readers to go down, since I've read several people don't like that sort of thing.