“When you’re young, you look at television and think, There’s a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It’s the truth.”
It’s still an open question how well the networks succeed at giving people what they want. We still see, for instance, Hollywood routinely spending $100 million on a science fiction film written and directed by people who know nothing about science or science fiction, over 40 years after the success of Star Trek proved that the key to a successful science fiction show is hiring professional science fiction writers to write the scripts.
I don’t think knowing about science had much to do with the success of Star Trek. You’re probably right about the professional science fiction writers, though. Did they stop using professional sf writers for the third season?
In general, does having professional science fiction writers reliably contribute to the success of movies?
A data point which may not point in any particular direction: I was delighted by Gattaca and The Truman Show—even if I had specific nitpicks with them [1] because they seemed like Golden Age [2] science fiction. When composing this reply, I found that they were both written by Andrew Niccol, and I don’t think a professional science fiction writer could have done better. Gattaca did badly (though it got critical acclaim), The Truman Show did well.
[1] It was actually at least as irresponsible as it was heroic for the main character in Gattaca to sneak into a space project he was medically unfit for.
I don’t think Truman’s fans would have dropped him so easily. And I would rather have seen a movie with Truman’s story compressed into the first 15 minutes, and the main part of the movie being about his learning to live in the larger world.
[2] I think the specific Golden Age quality I was seeing was using stories to explore single clear ideas.
And I would rather have seen a movie with Truman’s story compressed into the first 15 minutes, and the main part of the movie being about his learning to live in the larger world.
I disagree. As I see it, The Truman Show is, at its core, a Gnostic parable similar to The Matrix, but better executed. It follows the protagonist’s journey of discovery, as he begins to get hints about the true nature of reality; namely, that the world he thought of as “real” is, in fact, a prison of illusion. In the end, he is able to break through the illusion, confront its creator, and reject his offer of a comfortable life inside the illusory world, in favor of the much less comfortable yet fully real world outside.
In this parable, the Truman Show dome stands for our current world (which, according to Gnostics, is a corrupt illusion); Christoff stands for the Demiurge; and the real world outside stands for the true world of perfect forms / pure Gnosis / whatever which can only be reached by attaining enlightenment (for lack of a better term). Thus, it makes perfect sense that we don’t get to see Truman’s adventures in the real world—they remain hidden from the viewer, just as the true Gnostic world is hidden from us. In order to overcome the illusion, Truman must led go of some of his most cherished beliefs, and with them discard his limitations.
IMO, the interesting thing about The Truman Show is not Truman’s adventures, but his journey of discovery and self-discovery. Sure, we know that his world is a TV set, but he doesn’t (at first, that is). I think the movie does a very good job of presenting the intellectual and emotional challenges involved in that kind of discovery. Truman isn’t some sort of a cliched uber-hero like Neo; instead, he’s just an ordinary guy. Letting go of his biases, and his attachments to people who were close to him (or so he thought) involves a great personal cost for Truman—which, surprisingly, Jim Carrey is actually able to portray quite well.
Sure, it might be fun to watch Truman run around in the real world, blundering into things and having adventures, but IMO it wouldn’t be as interesting or thought-provoking—even accounting for the fact that Gnosticism is, in fact, not very likely to be true.
As I see it, The Truman Show is, at its core, a Gnostic parable similar to The Matrix, but better executed.
Your essay fails to account for the deep philosophical metaphors of guns, leather, gratuitous exaggerated action and nerds doing kung fu because of their non-comformist magic.
Your essay fails to account for the deep philosophical metaphors of guns, leather, gratuitous exaggerated action and nerds doing kung fu because of their non-comformist magic.
With apologies to Freud, sometimes a leather-clad femme fatale doing kung fu is just a leather-clad femme fatale doing kung fu :-)
With apologies to Freud, sometimes a leather-clad femme fatale doing kung fu is just a leather-clad femme fatale doing kung fu :-)
That’s kind of the point. A leather-clad femme fatale doing kung fu probably isn’t a costar in an ‘inferior execution of a Gnostic parable’. She’s probably a costar in a entertaining nerd targeted action flick.
In general it is a mistake to ascribe motives or purpose (Gnostic parable) to something and judge it according to how well it achieves that purpose (inferior execution) when it could be considered more successful by other plausible purposes.
Another thing the Matrix wouldn’t be a good execution of, if that is what it were, is a vaguely internally coherent counterfactual reality even at the scene level. FFS Trinity, if you pointed a gun at my head and said ‘Dodge This!’ then I’d be able to dodge it without any Agent powers. Yes, this paragraph is a rather loosely related tangent but damn. The ‘batteries’ thing gets a bad rap but I can suspend my disbelief on that if I try. Two second head start on your ‘surprise attack’ to people who can already dodge bullets is inexcusable.
In general it is a mistake to ascribed motives or purpose (Gnostic parable) to something and judge it according to how well it achieves that purpose (inferior execution) when it could be considered more successful by other plausible purposes.
I did not mean to give the impression that I judged The Truman Show or The Matrix solely based on how well they managed to convey the key principles of Gnosticism. I don’t even know if their respective creators intended to convey anything about Gnosticism at all (not that it matters, really).
Still, Gnostic themes (as well Christian ones, obviously) do feature strongly in these movies; more so in The Truman Show than The Matrix. What I find interesting about The Truman Show is not merely the fact that it has some religious theme or other, but the fact that it portrays a person’s intellectual and emotional journey of discovery and self-discovery, and does so (IMO) well. Sure, you could achieve this using some other setting, but the whole Gnostic set up works well because it maximizes Truman’s cognitive dissonance. There’s almost nothing that he can rely on—not his senses, not his friends, and not even his own mind in some cases—and he doesn’t even have any convenient superpowers to fall back on. He isn’t some Chosen One foretold in prophecy, he’s just an ordinary guy. This creates a very real struggle which The Matrix lacks, especially toward the end.
The ‘batteries’ thing gets a bad rap but I can suspend my disbelief on that if I try.
AFAIK, in the original script the AIs were exploiting humans not for energy, but for the computing capacity in their brains. This was changed by the producers because viewers are morons .
This creates a very real struggle which The Matrix lacks, especially toward the end.
This is why I’m so glad the creators realized they had pushed their premise as far as they were capable and quit while they were ahead, never making a sequel.
I don’t even know if their respective creators intended to convey anything about Gnosticism at all (not that it matters, really).
I’m pretty sure that one of the Wachowski brothers talked about the deliberate Gnostic themes of The Matrix in an interview, but as for The Truman Show I have no idea.
The only evidence I have is that it’s so obviously the way the story should be. That’s good enough for me. It does not matter precisely what fallen demiurge corrupted the parable away from its original perfection.
ETA: Just to clarify, I mean that as far as I’m concerned, brains used as computing substrate is the real story, even if it never crossed the Wachowskis’ minds. Just like some people say there was never a sequel (although personally I didn’t have a problem with it).
Is not the alternative plot as faulted as the original plot, insofar as if the brainy computing substrate is used for something other than to run the originial software (humans) there is are no need to actually simulate a matrix?
Not only that, but I’m pretty sure building an interface that’d let you run arbitrary software on a human brain would be at least as hard and resource-intensive as building an artificial brain. We reach the useful limits of this kind of speculation pretty quickly, though; the films aren’t supposed to be hard sci-fi.
An alternative is provided in the novelization and the spin-off short story “Goliath”: the machines use human brains as computer components, to run “sentient programs” (the Agents and various characters in the sequels) and to solve scientific problems. Fans continue to debate the discrepancy, but there is no official explanation.
Two second head start on your ‘surprise attack’ to people who can already dodge bullets is inexcusable.
Inexcusable? :cracks knuckles:
Try to see it from the perspective of the agent. With how close that gun was to his head, and assuming that Trinity was not in fact completely stupid and had the training and hacker-enhanced reflexes to fire as soon as she saw the merest twitch of movement, there was really no realistic scenario where that agent could survive. A human might try to dodge anyway, and die, but for an agent, two seconds spent taunting him was two seconds delay. A miniscule difference in outcome, but still—U(let trinity taunt) > U(try to dodge and die immediately).
Yes, where the meaning of ‘inexcusable’ is not ‘someone can say words attempting to get out of it’ but instead ‘no excuse can be presented that the speaker or, by insinuation, any informed and reasonable person would accept’.
With how close that gun was to his head, and assuming that Trinity was not in fact completely stupid and had the training and hacker-enhanced reflexes to fire as soon as she saw the merest twitch of movement, there was really no realistic scenario where that agent could survive.
No, no realistic scenario. But in the scenario that assumes the particular science fiction question premises that define ‘agent’ in this context all reasonable scenarios result in trinity dead if she attempts that showmanship. The speed and reaction time demonstrated by the agents is such that they dodge, easily. Trinity still operates on human hardware.
The reason companies like HBO can do a different sort of tv is that they don’t have to worry about ratings—they’re less bound by how many watch each show.
He was the guy who thought that people were too dumb to operate a two-button mouse. It’s not that the networks conspired to dumb us down, and it’s not that people want something exactly this dumb, but it’s that those folks in control at the networks, much like Jobs himself, tend to make systematic errors such as believing themselves to be higher above the masses than is actually the case. Sometimes that helps to counter the invalid belief that people will really want to waste a lot of effort on your creation.
Which has little to do with how he & his simplifications were remembered by scores of millions of Americans. Don’t you remember when he died, all the news coverage and blog posts and comments? It made me sick.
Meh, I thought of him as a brilliant but heavy-handed and condescending jerk long before I heard of his health problems. I refused to help my family and friends with iTunes (bad for my blood pressure) and anything Mac. My line was: if it “just works” for you, great, if not, you are SOL. Your iPod does not sync? Sorry, I don’t want to hear about any device that does not allow straight file copying.
Heh. I have been known to engage in “What do you mean you are having problems? That’s impossible, there’s the Apple guarantee It Just Works (tm) (r) ” :-D
Actually, no, I don’t remember because I didn’t read them. I’m particular about the the kind of pollution I allow to contaminate my mind :-)
I am too, but I pay attention to media coverage to understand what the general population thinks so I don’t get too trapped in my high-tech high-IQ bubble and wind up saying deeply wrong things like private_messaging’s claim that “Jobs’s one-button mice failed so ordinary people really are smart!”
Yeah, that’s so totally what I claimed. Not. My point is that a lot of people overestimate how much smarter they are than ordinary people, and so they think ordinary people a lot dumber than ordinary people really are.
Also, the networks operate under the assumption that less intelligent people are more influenced by advertising, and therefore, the content is not even geared at the average joe, but at the below-average joe.
Yeah, that’s so totally what I claimed. Not. My point is that a lot of people overestimate how much smarter they are than ordinary people, and so they think ordinary people a lot dumber than ordinary people really are.
Free free to elaborate how your one-button mouse example and all Jobs’s other successes match what you are claiming here about Jobs being a person who underestimated ordinary people’s intelligence. (If Jobs went broke underestimating ordinary people’s intelligence, then may heaven send me a comparable bankruptcy as soon as possible.)
The original quote itself is a fairly good example—he assumes that the networks produce something which is exactly what people want, whereas the networks should, ideally, produce something which the people most influenced by the advertising want; a different, less intelligent demographic. If he was speaking truth in the quote, he had to have underestimated intelligence of the average people.
Secondarily, if you want to instead argue from the success, you need to outline how and why underestimation of intelligence would be inconsistent with the success. Clearly, all around more complicated user interfaces also enjoyed huge success. I even give an explanation in my comment—people also tend to massively over-estimate the willingness of users to waste cognitive effort on their creations.
As for what lessons we can learn from it, it is perhaps that underestimating the intelligence is relatively safe for a business, albeit many failed startups began from a failure to properly explore the reasons why an apparent opportunity exists, instead explaining it with the general stupidity of others.
edit: also, you could likewise wish for a comparable bankruptcy to some highly successful but rather overcomplicated operating system.
The original quote itself is a fairly good example—he assumes that the networks produce something which is exactly what people want, whereas the networks should, ideally, produce something which the people most influenced by the advertising want; a different, less intelligent demographic.
Why’s that? Why aren’t the networks making most profit by appealing to as many people as possible because that increase in revenue outweighs the additional advertising price increase made possible by narrowly appealing to the stupidest demographic? And why might the stupidest demographic be the most profitable, as opposed to advertising to the smartest and richest demographics? 1% of a million loaves is a lot better than 100% of one hundred loaves.
So you’re making at least two highly questionable economics arguments here, neither of which I accept.
Secondarily, if you want to instead argue from the success, you need to outline how and why underestimation of intelligence would be inconsistent with the success. Clearly, all around more complicated user interfaces also enjoyed huge success.
Apple’s success is, from the original Mac on, frequently attributed to simplification and improving UIs. How is this not consistent with correctly estimating the intelligence of people to be low?
I even give an explanation in my comment—people also tend to massively over-estimate the willingness of users to waste cognitive effort on their creations.
You’re absolutely right about this part. And this pervasive overestimation is one of the reasons that ‘worse is better’ and Engelbart died not a billionaire, and Engelbart’s beloved tiling window managers & chording keyboards are unfamiliar even to uber-geeks like us, and why so many brilliant techies watch other people make fortunes off their work. Because, among their other faults, they vastly overestimate how capable ordinary people and users are of using their products.
As for what lessons we can learn from it, it is perhaps that underestimating the intelligence is relatively safe for a business
If one deliberately attempts to underestimate the intelligence of users, one may make less of a mistake than usual.
Why’s that? Why aren’t the networks making most profit by appealing to as many people as possible because that increase in revenue outweighs the additional advertising price increase made possible by narrowly appealing to the stupidest demographic? And why might the stupidest demographic be the most profitable, as opposed to advertising to the smartest and richest demographics? 1% of a million loaves is a lot better than 100% of one hundred loaves.
Seen any TV ads lately? I’m kind of wondering if you’re intending to win here by making an example.
Since you’re on to the markers of real world success, how does your income compare to the median for people of your age, race, sex, and economical status of parents, anyway?
and why so many brilliant techies watch other people make fortunes off their work
I don’t think making fortune is that much about not overestimating other people. Here’s the typical profile of a completely failed start-up founder: someone with a high narcissism score—massive over-estimate of their own intelligence, massive under-estimating of other people’s intelligence all across the board. Plus when they fail, it typically culminates in a conclusion that everyone’s stupider.
edit: also with regards to techies watching others walk away with their money, there’s things like this Atari story
There’s a lot of cases of businesspeople getting more money, when the products are not user interfaces at all, but messy internals. Tesla and Edison are another story—Edison blew so much money on thinking that other people are stupid enough to be swayed enough by the electrocution of the elephant. He still made more money, of course, because he had the relevant money making talents. And Tesla’s poor business ability (still well above average) can hardly be blamed on people being too stupid to deal with complex things that happen in enclosed boxes.
Seen any TV ads lately? I’m kind of wondering if you’re intending to win here by making an example.
Yes. Ads vary widely in the target audience, ranging from the utter lowest-common denominator to subtle parodies and references, across all sorts of channels. The ads you see on Disney are different from the ads you see on Fox News which are different from the ads you see on Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim block, which are different from the ones on the Discover channel. Exactly opposite of your crude ‘ads exist only to exploit stupid people’ model.
Since you’re on to the markers of real world success, how does your income compare to the median for people of your age, race, sex, and economical status of parents, anyway?
Below-average, and my own website is routinely criticized by readers for being too abstract, having a bad UI, and making no compromises or helping out readers.
Oh, I’m sorry—was I supposed to not prove the point about geeks like me usually overestimating the intelligence of ordinary people? It appears I commit the same sins. Steve Jobs would not approve of my design choices, and he would be entirely correct.
I don’t think making fortune is that much about not overestimating other people. Here’s the typical profile of a completely failed start-up founder: someone with a high narcissism score—massive over-estimate of their own intelligence, massive under-estimating of other people’s intelligence all across the board. Plus when they fail, it typically culminates in a conclusion that everyone’s stupider.
And what does this have to do with Steve Jobs? Please try to stay on topic. I’m defending a simple point here: Steve Jobs correctly estimated the intelligence of people as low, designed UIs to be as simple, intuitive, and easy to use, and this is a factor in why he died a billionaire. What does his narcissism have to do with this?
Tesla and Edison are another story—Edison blew so much money on thinking that other people are stupid enough to be swayed enough by the electrocution of the elephant. He still made more money, of course, because he had the relevant money making talents.
As I recall the history, this had nothing to do with UIs or people’s intelligence, but with Edison being in a losing position, having failed to invent or patent the superior alternating current technologies that Tesla did, and desperately trying anything he could to beat AC. Since this had nothing to do with UIs, all it shows is that one PR stunt was insufficient to dig Edison out of his deep hole. Which is not surprising; PR can be a powerful force, but it is far from omnipotent.
Thinking that average people’s intelligence is low != thinking every PR stunt ever, no matter how crackbrained, must instantly succeed and dig someone out of any hole no matter how deep.
he assumes that the networks produce something which is exactly what people want, whereas the networks should, ideally, produce something which the people most influenced by the advertising want; a different, less intelligent demographic
I’d be astonished if resistance to advertising increases linearly or better with IQ once you control for viewing time. Marketing’s basically applied cognitive science, and one of the major lessons of the heuristics-and-biases field is that it’s really hard to outsmart our biases.
I’d be astonished if resistance to advertising increases linearly or better with IQ once you control for viewing time.
Why do you think you should control for the viewing time? As a marketer, it makes no difference for you why the higher IQs are less influenced. Furthermore a lot of advertising relies on outright lying.
Why do you think you should control for the viewing time?
Because I’d expect high-IQ populations to consume less media than the mean not thanks to anything intrinsic to IQ but because there’s less media out there targeting them, and that’s already factored into producers’ and advertisers’ expectations of audience size.
Similar considerations should come into play on the low end of the distribution: the IQ 80 cohort is roughly the same size as the IQ 120 and with less disposable income, both of which should make it less attractive for marketing. Free time might have an impact, but aside from stereotype I don’t know if the lifestyles of the low-IQ lend themselves to more or less free time than those of the high-IQ; I can think of arguments for both.
Exposure to marketing tactics might also build resistance to them, and I’d expect that to be proportional in part to media exposure.
“No one in this world, so far as I know-and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me-has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”—H.L.Mencken
I think there’s a great many apes that under-estimated the intelligence of a tiger or a bear, and haven’t contributed to our gene pool. There’s also all those wars where underestimations of the intelligence of enemy masses cost someone great deal of money and, at times, their own life.
He was the guy who thought that people were too dumb to operate a two-button mouse.
Did he say this, or are you inferring it from his having designed a one-button mouse?
Having two incorrect beliefs that counter each other (thinking that people want to spend time on your creation but are less intelligent than they actually are) could result in good designs, but so could making neither mistake. I’d expect any decent UI designer to understand that the user shouldn’t need to pay attention to the design, and/or that users will sometimes be tired, impatient or distracted even if they’re not stupid.
Did he say this, or are you inferring it from his having designed a one-button mouse?
I recall reading that he tried 3 button mouse, didn’t like it, said it was too complicated, and gone for an one button one. Further down the road they need the difficult-to-teach alternate-click functionality and implemented it with option-click rather than an extra button. Apple stuck with one button mouse until 2005 or so, when it jumped to 4 programmable buttons and a scrollball.
The inventor of the mouse and of many aspects of the user interface, Douglas Engelbart, gone for 3 buttons and is reported on wikipedia as stating he’d put 5 if he had enough space for the switches.
I can’t find a citation, but the rationale I’ve heard is to make it easier to
learn how to use a Macintosh (or a
Lisa) by
watching someone else use one.
I did dial-up tech support in 1999-2000. Lots of general consumers who’d just got on this “internet” thing and had no idea what they were doing. It was SO HARD to explain right-clicking to them. Steve Jobs was right: more than one mouse button confuses people.
What happened, however, is that Mosaic and Netscape were written for X11 and then for Windows. So the Web pretty much required a second mouse button. Eventually Apple gave up and went with it.
(The important thing about computers is that they are still stupid, too hard to use and don’t work. I speak as a professional here.)
What happened, however, is that Mosaic and Netscape were written for X11 and then for Windows. So the Web pretty much required a second mouse button. Eventually Apple gave up and went with it.
And for this we can be eternally grateful. While one button may be simple, two buttons is a whole heap more efficient. Or five buttons and some wheels.
I don’t object to Steve Jobs (or rather those like him) making feature sparse products targeted to a lowest common denominator audience. I’m just glad there are alternatives to go with that are less rigidly condescending.
But did you deal with explaining option-clicking? The problem is that you get to see the customers who didn’t get the press the right button on the mouse rather than the left. Its sort of like dealing with customer responses, you have, say, 1% failure rate but by feedback it looks like you have 50%..90% failure rate.
Then, of course, Apple also came up with these miracles of design such as double click (launch) vs slow double click (rename). And while the right-click is a matter of explanation—put your hand there so and so, press with your middle finger—the double clicking behaviour is a matter of learning a fine motor skill, i.e. older people have a lot of trouble.
edit: what percentage of people do you think could not get right clicking? And did you have to deal with one-button users who must option-click?
This was 1999, Mac OS9 as it was didn’t really have option-clicking then.
I wouldn’t estimate a percentage, but basically we had 10% Mac users and 2% of our calls came from said Mac users.
It is possible that in 2013 people have been beaten into understanding right-clicking … but it strikes me as more likely those people are using phones and iPads instead. The kids may get taught right-clicking at school.
I remember classic Mac OS . One application could make everything fail due to lack of real process boundaries. It literally relied on how people are amazingly able to adapt to things like this and avoid doing what causes a crash (something which I notice a lot when I start using a new application), albeit not by deliberate design.
Most people have never even heard of these menus, and unless you have a two-button mouse (as opposed to the standard single-button mouse), you probably wouldn’t figure it out otherwise.
What I like about 2 buttons is that it is discoverable. I.e. you go like, ohh, there’s two buttons here, what will happen if I press the other one?
Now that you mention it, I remember discovering command-click menus in OS 9 and being surprised. (In some apps, particularly web browsers, they would also appear if you held the mouse button down.)
-Steve Jobs, [Wired, February 1996]
It’s still an open question how well the networks succeed at giving people what they want. We still see, for instance, Hollywood routinely spending $100 million on a science fiction film written and directed by people who know nothing about science or science fiction, over 40 years after the success of Star Trek proved that the key to a successful science fiction show is hiring professional science fiction writers to write the scripts.
I don’t think knowing about science had much to do with the success of Star Trek. You’re probably right about the professional science fiction writers, though. Did they stop using professional sf writers for the third season?
In general, does having professional science fiction writers reliably contribute to the success of movies?
A data point which may not point in any particular direction: I was delighted by Gattaca and The Truman Show—even if I had specific nitpicks with them [1] because they seemed like Golden Age [2] science fiction. When composing this reply, I found that they were both written by Andrew Niccol, and I don’t think a professional science fiction writer could have done better. Gattaca did badly (though it got critical acclaim), The Truman Show did well.
[1] It was actually at least as irresponsible as it was heroic for the main character in Gattaca to sneak into a space project he was medically unfit for.
I don’t think Truman’s fans would have dropped him so easily. And I would rather have seen a movie with Truman’s story compressed into the first 15 minutes, and the main part of the movie being about his learning to live in the larger world.
[2] I think the specific Golden Age quality I was seeing was using stories to explore single clear ideas.
I disagree. As I see it, The Truman Show is, at its core, a Gnostic parable similar to The Matrix, but better executed. It follows the protagonist’s journey of discovery, as he begins to get hints about the true nature of reality; namely, that the world he thought of as “real” is, in fact, a prison of illusion. In the end, he is able to break through the illusion, confront its creator, and reject his offer of a comfortable life inside the illusory world, in favor of the much less comfortable yet fully real world outside.
In this parable, the Truman Show dome stands for our current world (which, according to Gnostics, is a corrupt illusion); Christoff stands for the Demiurge; and the real world outside stands for the true world of perfect forms / pure Gnosis / whatever which can only be reached by attaining enlightenment (for lack of a better term). Thus, it makes perfect sense that we don’t get to see Truman’s adventures in the real world—they remain hidden from the viewer, just as the true Gnostic world is hidden from us. In order to overcome the illusion, Truman must led go of some of his most cherished beliefs, and with them discard his limitations.
IMO, the interesting thing about The Truman Show is not Truman’s adventures, but his journey of discovery and self-discovery. Sure, we know that his world is a TV set, but he doesn’t (at first, that is). I think the movie does a very good job of presenting the intellectual and emotional challenges involved in that kind of discovery. Truman isn’t some sort of a cliched uber-hero like Neo; instead, he’s just an ordinary guy. Letting go of his biases, and his attachments to people who were close to him (or so he thought) involves a great personal cost for Truman—which, surprisingly, Jim Carrey is actually able to portray quite well.
Sure, it might be fun to watch Truman run around in the real world, blundering into things and having adventures, but IMO it wouldn’t be as interesting or thought-provoking—even accounting for the fact that Gnosticism is, in fact, not very likely to be true.
Your essay fails to account for the deep philosophical metaphors of guns, leather, gratuitous exaggerated action and nerds doing kung fu because of their non-comformist magic.
With apologies to Freud, sometimes a leather-clad femme fatale doing kung fu is just a leather-clad femme fatale doing kung fu :-)
That’s kind of the point. A leather-clad femme fatale doing kung fu probably isn’t a costar in an ‘inferior execution of a Gnostic parable’. She’s probably a costar in a entertaining nerd targeted action flick.
In general it is a mistake to ascribe motives or purpose (Gnostic parable) to something and judge it according to how well it achieves that purpose (inferior execution) when it could be considered more successful by other plausible purposes.
Another thing the Matrix wouldn’t be a good execution of, if that is what it were, is a vaguely internally coherent counterfactual reality even at the scene level. FFS Trinity, if you pointed a gun at my head and said ‘Dodge This!’ then I’d be able to dodge it without any Agent powers. Yes, this paragraph is a rather loosely related tangent but damn. The ‘batteries’ thing gets a bad rap but I can suspend my disbelief on that if I try. Two second head start on your ‘surprise attack’ to people who can already dodge bullets is inexcusable.
I did not mean to give the impression that I judged The Truman Show or The Matrix solely based on how well they managed to convey the key principles of Gnosticism. I don’t even know if their respective creators intended to convey anything about Gnosticism at all (not that it matters, really).
Still, Gnostic themes (as well Christian ones, obviously) do feature strongly in these movies; more so in The Truman Show than The Matrix. What I find interesting about The Truman Show is not merely the fact that it has some religious theme or other, but the fact that it portrays a person’s intellectual and emotional journey of discovery and self-discovery, and does so (IMO) well. Sure, you could achieve this using some other setting, but the whole Gnostic set up works well because it maximizes Truman’s cognitive dissonance. There’s almost nothing that he can rely on—not his senses, not his friends, and not even his own mind in some cases—and he doesn’t even have any convenient superpowers to fall back on. He isn’t some Chosen One foretold in prophecy, he’s just an ordinary guy. This creates a very real struggle which The Matrix lacks, especially toward the end.
AFAIK, in the original script the AIs were exploiting humans not for energy, but for the computing capacity in their brains. This was changed by the producers because viewers are morons .
This is why I’m so glad the creators realized they had pushed their premise as far as they were capable and quit while they were ahead, never making a sequel.
I’m pretty sure that one of the Wachowski brothers talked about the deliberate Gnostic themes of The Matrix in an interview, but as for The Truman Show I have no idea.
I have many times heard fans say this. Not once have any produced any evidence. Can you do so?
The only evidence I have is that it’s so obviously the way the story should be. That’s good enough for me. It does not matter precisely what fallen demiurge corrupted the parable away from its original perfection.
ETA: Just to clarify, I mean that as far as I’m concerned, brains used as computing substrate is the real story, even if it never crossed the Wachowskis’ minds. Just like some people say there was never a sequel (although personally I didn’t have a problem with it).
And like any urban legend, that is why this explanation spreads so easily.
Is not the alternative plot as faulted as the original plot, insofar as if the brainy computing substrate is used for something other than to run the originial software (humans) there is are no need to actually simulate a matrix?
Not only that, but I’m pretty sure building an interface that’d let you run arbitrary software on a human brain would be at least as hard and resource-intensive as building an artificial brain. We reach the useful limits of this kind of speculation pretty quickly, though; the films aren’t supposed to be hard sci-fi.
You just need to stipulate that the brain can’t stay healthy enough to do that without running a person.
But I’m not much interested in retconning a parable into hard science.
According to IMDB,
So, I guess the answer is “probably not”. Sorry.
But… but… TVTropes says it!
Damnit, I’ve been saying that too, and now I realize I’m not sure why I believe it. Ah well, updating is good.
Inexcusable? :cracks knuckles:
Try to see it from the perspective of the agent. With how close that gun was to his head, and assuming that Trinity was not in fact completely stupid and had the training and hacker-enhanced reflexes to fire as soon as she saw the merest twitch of movement, there was really no realistic scenario where that agent could survive. A human might try to dodge anyway, and die, but for an agent, two seconds spent taunting him was two seconds delay. A miniscule difference in outcome, but still—U(let trinity taunt) > U(try to dodge and die immediately).
Yes, where the meaning of ‘inexcusable’ is not ‘someone can say words attempting to get out of it’ but instead ‘no excuse can be presented that the speaker or, by insinuation, any informed and reasonable person would accept’.
No, no realistic scenario. But in the scenario that assumes the particular science fiction question premises that define ‘agent’ in this context all reasonable scenarios result in trinity dead if she attempts that showmanship. The speed and reaction time demonstrated by the agents is such that they dodge, easily. Trinity still operates on human hardware.
I remind you that these agents were designed to let the One win, else they should have gone gnome-with-a-wand-of-death on all these people.
Isn’t that disproved by paid-for networks, like HBO? And what about non-US broadcasters like the BBC?
The reason companies like HBO can do a different sort of tv is that they don’t have to worry about ratings—they’re less bound by how many watch each show.
He was the guy who thought that people were too dumb to operate a two-button mouse. It’s not that the networks conspired to dumb us down, and it’s not that people want something exactly this dumb, but it’s that those folks in control at the networks, much like Jobs himself, tend to make systematic errors such as believing themselves to be higher above the masses than is actually the case. Sometimes that helps to counter the invalid belief that people will really want to waste a lot of effort on your creation.
And many of his other simplifications were complete successes and why he died a universally-beloved & beatified billionaire.
Seems like a bit of an exaggeration. Almost universally respected, sure.
Yep. Respected and admired at a distance, certainly. But a lot of people who knew him personally tend to describe him as a manipulative jerk.
Which has little to do with how he & his simplifications were remembered by scores of millions of Americans. Don’t you remember when he died, all the news coverage and blog posts and comments? It made me sick.
Meh, I thought of him as a brilliant but heavy-handed and condescending jerk long before I heard of his health problems. I refused to help my family and friends with iTunes (bad for my blood pressure) and anything Mac. My line was: if it “just works” for you, great, if not, you are SOL. Your iPod does not sync? Sorry, I don’t want to hear about any device that does not allow straight file copying.
Heh. I have been known to engage in “What do you mean you are having problems? That’s impossible, there’s the Apple guarantee It Just Works (tm) (r) ” :-D
Actually, no, I don’t remember because I didn’t read them. I’m particular about the the kind of pollution I allow to contaminate my mind :-)
Anyway, we seem to agree. One of the interesting things about Jobs was the distance between his private self and his public mask and public image.
I am too, but I pay attention to media coverage to understand what the general population thinks so I don’t get too trapped in my high-tech high-IQ bubble and wind up saying deeply wrong things like private_messaging’s claim that “Jobs’s one-button mice failed so ordinary people really are smart!”
Yeah, that’s so totally what I claimed. Not. My point is that a lot of people overestimate how much smarter they are than ordinary people, and so they think ordinary people a lot dumber than ordinary people really are.
Also, the networks operate under the assumption that less intelligent people are more influenced by advertising, and therefore, the content is not even geared at the average joe, but at the below-average joe.
Free free to elaborate how your one-button mouse example and all Jobs’s other successes match what you are claiming here about Jobs being a person who underestimated ordinary people’s intelligence. (If Jobs went broke underestimating ordinary people’s intelligence, then may heaven send me a comparable bankruptcy as soon as possible.)
The original quote itself is a fairly good example—he assumes that the networks produce something which is exactly what people want, whereas the networks should, ideally, produce something which the people most influenced by the advertising want; a different, less intelligent demographic. If he was speaking truth in the quote, he had to have underestimated intelligence of the average people.
Secondarily, if you want to instead argue from the success, you need to outline how and why underestimation of intelligence would be inconsistent with the success. Clearly, all around more complicated user interfaces also enjoyed huge success. I even give an explanation in my comment—people also tend to massively over-estimate the willingness of users to waste cognitive effort on their creations.
As for what lessons we can learn from it, it is perhaps that underestimating the intelligence is relatively safe for a business, albeit many failed startups began from a failure to properly explore the reasons why an apparent opportunity exists, instead explaining it with the general stupidity of others.
edit: also, you could likewise wish for a comparable bankruptcy to some highly successful but rather overcomplicated operating system.
Why’s that? Why aren’t the networks making most profit by appealing to as many people as possible because that increase in revenue outweighs the additional advertising price increase made possible by narrowly appealing to the stupidest demographic? And why might the stupidest demographic be the most profitable, as opposed to advertising to the smartest and richest demographics? 1% of a million loaves is a lot better than 100% of one hundred loaves.
So you’re making at least two highly questionable economics arguments here, neither of which I accept.
Apple’s success is, from the original Mac on, frequently attributed to simplification and improving UIs. How is this not consistent with correctly estimating the intelligence of people to be low?
You’re absolutely right about this part. And this pervasive overestimation is one of the reasons that ‘worse is better’ and Engelbart died not a billionaire, and Engelbart’s beloved tiling window managers & chording keyboards are unfamiliar even to uber-geeks like us, and why so many brilliant techies watch other people make fortunes off their work. Because, among their other faults, they vastly overestimate how capable ordinary people and users are of using their products.
If one deliberately attempts to underestimate the intelligence of users, one may make less of a mistake than usual.
Seen any TV ads lately? I’m kind of wondering if you’re intending to win here by making an example.
Since you’re on to the markers of real world success, how does your income compare to the median for people of your age, race, sex, and economical status of parents, anyway?
I don’t think making fortune is that much about not overestimating other people. Here’s the typical profile of a completely failed start-up founder: someone with a high narcissism score—massive over-estimate of their own intelligence, massive under-estimating of other people’s intelligence all across the board. Plus when they fail, it typically culminates in a conclusion that everyone’s stupider.
edit: also with regards to techies watching others walk away with their money, there’s things like this Atari story
There’s a lot of cases of businesspeople getting more money, when the products are not user interfaces at all, but messy internals. Tesla and Edison are another story—Edison blew so much money on thinking that other people are stupid enough to be swayed enough by the electrocution of the elephant. He still made more money, of course, because he had the relevant money making talents. And Tesla’s poor business ability (still well above average) can hardly be blamed on people being too stupid to deal with complex things that happen in enclosed boxes.
Yes. Ads vary widely in the target audience, ranging from the utter lowest-common denominator to subtle parodies and references, across all sorts of channels. The ads you see on Disney are different from the ads you see on Fox News which are different from the ads you see on Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim block, which are different from the ones on the Discover channel. Exactly opposite of your crude ‘ads exist only to exploit stupid people’ model.
Below-average, and my own website is routinely criticized by readers for being too abstract, having a bad UI, and making no compromises or helping out readers.
Oh, I’m sorry—was I supposed to not prove the point about geeks like me usually overestimating the intelligence of ordinary people? It appears I commit the same sins. Steve Jobs would not approve of my design choices, and he would be entirely correct.
And what does this have to do with Steve Jobs? Please try to stay on topic. I’m defending a simple point here: Steve Jobs correctly estimated the intelligence of people as low, designed UIs to be as simple, intuitive, and easy to use, and this is a factor in why he died a billionaire. What does his narcissism have to do with this?
As I recall the history, this had nothing to do with UIs or people’s intelligence, but with Edison being in a losing position, having failed to invent or patent the superior alternating current technologies that Tesla did, and desperately trying anything he could to beat AC. Since this had nothing to do with UIs, all it shows is that one PR stunt was insufficient to dig Edison out of his deep hole. Which is not surprising; PR can be a powerful force, but it is far from omnipotent.
Thinking that average people’s intelligence is low != thinking every PR stunt ever, no matter how crackbrained, must instantly succeed and dig someone out of any hole no matter how deep.
I’d be astonished if resistance to advertising increases linearly or better with IQ once you control for viewing time. Marketing’s basically applied cognitive science, and one of the major lessons of the heuristics-and-biases field is that it’s really hard to outsmart our biases.
Why do you think you should control for the viewing time? As a marketer, it makes no difference for you why the higher IQs are less influenced. Furthermore a lot of advertising relies on outright lying.
Because I’d expect high-IQ populations to consume less media than the mean not thanks to anything intrinsic to IQ but because there’s less media out there targeting them, and that’s already factored into producers’ and advertisers’ expectations of audience size.
Similar considerations should come into play on the low end of the distribution: the IQ 80 cohort is roughly the same size as the IQ 120 and with less disposable income, both of which should make it less attractive for marketing. Free time might have an impact, but aside from stereotype I don’t know if the lifestyles of the low-IQ lend themselves to more or less free time than those of the high-IQ; I can think of arguments for both.
Exposure to marketing tactics might also build resistance to them, and I’d expect that to be proportional in part to media exposure.
“No one in this world, so far as I know-and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me-has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”—H.L.Mencken
I think this is happening with Hollywood, but that would be a longer story.
I’d be interested in hearing the longer story… It seems to me that Hollywood is doing very well with a low estimate of average intelligence.
I think there’s a great many apes that under-estimated the intelligence of a tiger or a bear, and haven’t contributed to our gene pool. There’s also all those wars where underestimations of the intelligence of enemy masses cost someone great deal of money and, at times, their own life.
My parents are incapable of using the context menu in any way.
Jobs may have been on to something.
Forcing everyone to the lowest common denominator hardly counts as “onto something”.
Fictional polemical evidence is not an argument; see my reply to private_messaging.
Did he say this, or are you inferring it from his having designed a one-button mouse?
Having two incorrect beliefs that counter each other (thinking that people want to spend time on your creation but are less intelligent than they actually are) could result in good designs, but so could making neither mistake. I’d expect any decent UI designer to understand that the user shouldn’t need to pay attention to the design, and/or that users will sometimes be tired, impatient or distracted even if they’re not stupid.
I recall reading that he tried 3 button mouse, didn’t like it, said it was too complicated, and gone for an one button one. Further down the road they need the difficult-to-teach alternate-click functionality and implemented it with option-click rather than an extra button. Apple stuck with one button mouse until 2005 or so, when it jumped to 4 programmable buttons and a scrollball.
The inventor of the mouse and of many aspects of the user interface, Douglas Engelbart, gone for 3 buttons and is reported on wikipedia as stating he’d put 5 if he had enough space for the switches.
I can’t find a citation, but the rationale I’ve heard is to make it easier to learn how to use a Macintosh (or a Lisa) by watching someone else use one.
I did dial-up tech support in 1999-2000. Lots of general consumers who’d just got on this “internet” thing and had no idea what they were doing. It was SO HARD to explain right-clicking to them. Steve Jobs was right: more than one mouse button confuses people.
What happened, however, is that Mosaic and Netscape were written for X11 and then for Windows. So the Web pretty much required a second mouse button. Eventually Apple gave up and went with it.
(The important thing about computers is that they are still stupid, too hard to use and don’t work. I speak as a professional here.)
And for this we can be eternally grateful. While one button may be simple, two buttons is a whole heap more efficient. Or five buttons and some wheels.
I don’t object to Steve Jobs (or rather those like him) making feature sparse products targeted to a lowest common denominator audience. I’m just glad there are alternatives to go with that are less rigidly condescending.
But did you deal with explaining option-clicking? The problem is that you get to see the customers who didn’t get the press the right button on the mouse rather than the left. Its sort of like dealing with customer responses, you have, say, 1% failure rate but by feedback it looks like you have 50%..90% failure rate.
Then, of course, Apple also came up with these miracles of design such as double click (launch) vs slow double click (rename). And while the right-click is a matter of explanation—put your hand there so and so, press with your middle finger—the double clicking behaviour is a matter of learning a fine motor skill, i.e. older people have a lot of trouble.
edit: what percentage of people do you think could not get right clicking? And did you have to deal with one-button users who must option-click?
This was 1999, Mac OS9 as it was didn’t really have option-clicking then.
I wouldn’t estimate a percentage, but basically we had 10% Mac users and 2% of our calls came from said Mac users.
It is possible that in 2013 people have been beaten into understanding right-clicking … but it strikes me as more likely those people are using phones and iPads instead. The kids may get taught right-clicking at school.
I remember classic Mac OS . One application could make everything fail due to lack of real process boundaries. It literally relied on how people are amazingly able to adapt to things like this and avoid doing what causes a crash (something which I notice a lot when I start using a new application), albeit not by deliberate design.
edit: ahh, it had ctrl-click back then: http://www.macwrite.com/beyond-basics/contextual-menus-mac-os-x (describes how ones in OS X differ from ones they had since OS 8)
Key quote:
What I like about 2 buttons is that it is discoverable. I.e. you go like, ohh, there’s two buttons here, what will happen if I press the other one?
Now that you mention it, I remember discovering command-click menus in OS 9 and being surprised. (In some apps, particularly web browsers, they would also appear if you held the mouse button down.)
Most people didn’t (and don’t) understand the contextual difference and themes of interface to design a two-button mouse interface.
The current system is to throw design patterns against the wall and copy those that stick.