Movies that win Oscars seem to gain more viewers as a result. But it also seems that on the whole people are a lot more eager to watch Oscar nominated movies before the Oscar winners are announced. After the show, people think less about movies and more about other things. Which is odd – a burst of info comes out about which movies are good, and in response people get
Yes. On an information account, you would expect more movie watching activity based on the announcement of the nominations, because they specify the best 5-10 out of several hundred movies, while the awards are merely 1 out of 5-10. So percentile-wise, you learn several times more from nominations. Getting an Oscar nomination is a better signal than getting an Oscar win after an Oscar nomination. And unless movie quality is distributed according to some sort of fat tail where the best movie is way better than the second-best movie (and/or the award measurement is highly reliable), knowing which one wins the award reduces movie viewing regret only a little bit. This also sounds like it could explain an apparent general preference for 'potential' - many definitions of 'potential' actually measure some achievement and are more incrementally informative over base rates than accomplishments are over potential.
I wonder if this helps to explain the low volatility premium in stock (if it really exists), Take that old stogy unfashionable steadily growing divided stock over the next thing because people have bid the fastionable stocks up too high.
The Potentials give us an opportunity -psychologically- to steal their triumph! Post-potentials remind us that we are losers, or mediocrities.
The puzzle you've laid out is "choose people described as" in two cases: Potential and post-Potential. What is the difference, bias wise?
As we know, everyone is the hero of their own story. Watching someone else succeed is like saying "You aren't needed at all, in fact you missed a big opportunity, loser!", however, noticing someone with '''potential''' means that they still lack something (even it is just a small amount of time), and you -yes, you!- can provide that thing, you can provide that magical encouragement or association because you are what Mr(s). Potential *really* needed. "I am a part of this now...this amazing destiny prepared uniquely for me!".
I observed this many times: myself, or friends, would get accepted to a new prestigious school or job, and everyone would start giving 'advice' or favors. Yes, they wanted in on the ground floor, favor-wise or association-wise (the investment theory we've already discussed, "You know that famous Mr. X....I served him coffee!"), but they also wanted to *share credit* ("I know that, without my coffee, Mr. X would never have succeeded. The universe is so lucky to have me!").
Post-potentials mean that -no- the universe doesn't need you for *anything*.
You don't watch sports for the quality of the pure entertainment you are given. Competition depends on context so much more than content (don't ask me to explain the success of "Let's Play!" Youtube videos because I don't have a very convincing explanation other than "people like community and solitary gaming alone doesn't give you that"). Very few take recordings of sports games in a "desert island" scenario.
I agree that the desire for novelty and variety is distinct from the desire to be fashionable, but what is fashionable depends on how novel a thing seems within its domain to those who typically pay attention to that domain. If you get bored more quickly or more slowly than other players tracking the same categories as you, you'll often find yourself falling out of step with what is trendy.
I also think there is a general 'trendiness' factor and I'd guess it has something to do with how quickly one grows bored. But trendiness definitely seems correlated, i.e., if you're 90th percentile in 'fashion sense', you're usually around the 90th percentile in 'movie opinion sense'.
It doesn't work for sports because an important part of watching sports is not knowing the outcome. New matches are necessary to satisfy that condition.
Lets apply that argument to sports. For the most part, sports don't really change that much. People are being inefficient by watching new sports so they should just watch recordings of a few great games. If anything, this should be more convincing than watching old movies because movies can conceivably be about a new subject. Football will probably be the same in 20 years.
Now try arguing this point and see how many people will be convinced that watching new games is "inefficient" and will cease to do so.
They should move the Oscars up two weeks in February to the Sunday after Super Bowl Sunday, or even the Sunday before Super Bowl Sunday. By late February (or even March in Olympics years) last year's movies are stale.
If the preference for potential is about social credit, should we expect it to be reduced in near mode?
I'd predict it could be reversed in near mode.
Potential is far; achievement is near (except perhaps if it occurred in the distant past). The experimental manipulations (as far as I can tell from the Abstract) activated far mode.
There is also a desire for novelty and variety somewhat distinct from fashion. Accomplishment can become boring and tired. How many want to watch the same movie or eat the same dinner over and over?
"If you can figure out what value you are being motivated by, you can reflectively decide how much you wish to be motivated by that value. It is important to notice that we are often motivated by values we would, on reflection, reject."
Ah, I see. You want to put more emphasis on your far mode wishes (at least that's what you want to do when in far mode). you can do this with some effort, but do remember that it won't necessarily make you happier. That gut feeling of "yeah, I guess I am pretty happy with my life" comes mostly from near mode considerations.
Wanting is not the same as liking. When we get/achieve something we thought we wanted, it can be less exciting than the anticipation of getting that thing.
Hypothetically, if there were a startup with fewer users but more potential, that might be more exciting than a startup that's already achieved something and has the potential to grow more (but perhaps seems to have less potential than the new startup).
It would help if we separated out declines after the Oscars from general declines due to time lag, and also accounted for knowing that the non-winning movies will not win. I would guess this does not explain the whole effect but it's plausible.
Yes. On an information account, you would expect more movie watching activity based on the announcement of the nominations, because they specify the best 5-10 out of several hundred movies, while the awards are merely 1 out of 5-10. So percentile-wise, you learn several times more from nominations. Getting an Oscar nomination is a better signal than getting an Oscar win after an Oscar nomination. And unless movie quality is distributed according to some sort of fat tail where the best movie is way better than the second-best movie (and/or the award measurement is highly reliable), knowing which one wins the award reduces movie viewing regret only a little bit. This also sounds like it could explain an apparent general preference for 'potential' - many definitions of 'potential' actually measure some achievement and are more incrementally informative over base rates than accomplishments are over potential.
I wonder if this helps to explain the low volatility premium in stock (if it really exists), Take that old stogy unfashionable steadily growing divided stock over the next thing because people have bid the fastionable stocks up too high.
The Potentials give us an opportunity -psychologically- to steal their triumph! Post-potentials remind us that we are losers, or mediocrities.
The puzzle you've laid out is "choose people described as" in two cases: Potential and post-Potential. What is the difference, bias wise?
As we know, everyone is the hero of their own story. Watching someone else succeed is like saying "You aren't needed at all, in fact you missed a big opportunity, loser!", however, noticing someone with '''potential''' means that they still lack something (even it is just a small amount of time), and you -yes, you!- can provide that thing, you can provide that magical encouragement or association because you are what Mr(s). Potential *really* needed. "I am a part of this now...this amazing destiny prepared uniquely for me!".
I observed this many times: myself, or friends, would get accepted to a new prestigious school or job, and everyone would start giving 'advice' or favors. Yes, they wanted in on the ground floor, favor-wise or association-wise (the investment theory we've already discussed, "You know that famous Mr. X....I served him coffee!"), but they also wanted to *share credit* ("I know that, without my coffee, Mr. X would never have succeeded. The universe is so lucky to have me!").
Post-potentials mean that -no- the universe doesn't need you for *anything*.
The nominations contain more useful information, because you can pick a movie that matches your taste.
You don't watch sports for the quality of the pure entertainment you are given. Competition depends on context so much more than content (don't ask me to explain the success of "Let's Play!" Youtube videos because I don't have a very convincing explanation other than "people like community and solitary gaming alone doesn't give you that"). Very few take recordings of sports games in a "desert island" scenario.
I agree that the desire for novelty and variety is distinct from the desire to be fashionable, but what is fashionable depends on how novel a thing seems within its domain to those who typically pay attention to that domain. If you get bored more quickly or more slowly than other players tracking the same categories as you, you'll often find yourself falling out of step with what is trendy.
I also think there is a general 'trendiness' factor and I'd guess it has something to do with how quickly one grows bored. But trendiness definitely seems correlated, i.e., if you're 90th percentile in 'fashion sense', you're usually around the 90th percentile in 'movie opinion sense'.
It doesn't work for sports because an important part of watching sports is not knowing the outcome. New matches are necessary to satisfy that condition.
Lets apply that argument to sports. For the most part, sports don't really change that much. People are being inefficient by watching new sports so they should just watch recordings of a few great games. If anything, this should be more convincing than watching old movies because movies can conceivably be about a new subject. Football will probably be the same in 20 years.
Now try arguing this point and see how many people will be convinced that watching new games is "inefficient" and will cease to do so.
They should move the Oscars up two weeks in February to the Sunday after Super Bowl Sunday, or even the Sunday before Super Bowl Sunday. By late February (or even March in Olympics years) last year's movies are stale.
If the preference for potential is about social credit, should we expect it to be reduced in near mode?
I'd predict it could be reversed in near mode.
Potential is far; achievement is near (except perhaps if it occurred in the distant past). The experimental manipulations (as far as I can tell from the Abstract) activated far mode.
The result is weird only if you neglect CLT.
There is also a desire for novelty and variety somewhat distinct from fashion. Accomplishment can become boring and tired. How many want to watch the same movie or eat the same dinner over and over?
And the main point of my post is to suggest that this same motive drives a lot more of our behavior than we realize.
"If you can figure out what value you are being motivated by, you can reflectively decide how much you wish to be motivated by that value. It is important to notice that we are often motivated by values we would, on reflection, reject."
Ah, I see. You want to put more emphasis on your far mode wishes (at least that's what you want to do when in far mode). you can do this with some effort, but do remember that it won't necessarily make you happier. That gut feeling of "yeah, I guess I am pretty happy with my life" comes mostly from near mode considerations.
Wanting is not the same as liking. When we get/achieve something we thought we wanted, it can be less exciting than the anticipation of getting that thing.
Hypothetically, if there were a startup with fewer users but more potential, that might be more exciting than a startup that's already achieved something and has the potential to grow more (but perhaps seems to have less potential than the new startup).
It would help if we separated out declines after the Oscars from general declines due to time lag, and also accounted for knowing that the non-winning movies will not win. I would guess this does not explain the whole effect but it's plausible.
And plenty of people still hate 2001: A Space Odyssey even today.