site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   3492 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 11, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Has the popularity of “prank” shows, starting with Candid Camera and *Punk’d” and then on to the massively popular (and utterly garbage) Impractical Jokers, contributed to a lower-trust society? Or is it merely a reflection of the decline in social trust?

It seems, naïvely, that prank shows like these could not have existed in (at least American) 1940s or 1950s society; the overall sense of propriety in public spaces, and the general expectation that one should be what one purports to be and deal forthrightly and in an upstanding manner with others, seems like it was far too high to permit would-be pranksters to operate without scorn.

It seems to suggest something ugly and mean-spirited about our culture that so many TV watchers apparently enjoy watching pranks played on others, and enjoy watching grown men walk around in public creating mistrust and confusion. I don’t like the idea that people are being rewarded for helping to foster an environment in which one can never truly be sure if the guy they’re dealing with is someone totally different from who he purports to be. If I go to a restaurant or a grocery store, I want to be pretty much 100% certain that I’m not going to be forced to participate in tomfoolery instead of just getting what I wanted and expected based on normal societal functioning. If I get asked to a job interview, I want to be damn sure it’s a real job interview and not some farcical joke.

Am I just being a massive fuddy-duddy? Is my obviously-escalating cortisol level turning me into a dour misanthrope? Is the existence of popular prank shows actually helping to strengthen our society’s inoculation against actual con-men, by cultivating people’s healthy suspicion of the motives of others? Is all of this just totally irrelevant and it’s not that deep?

Technology allows us to quickly discover revealed preferences. In terms of TV you might think that most people would like X, but the ratings reveal there are some people that really have a preference for prank comedy.

We don’t know the exact motive for why people like prank TV shows, but it could partially be a social signaling behavior. It signals to other people that they aren’t a fuddy-duddy if they like a watching show about pranks even if they personally wouldn’t want a prank to played on the people they care about.

The same is true of social media. The algorithms show that prank videos will get you a good amount of engagement.

How much of the desire to watch prank comedy is driven by innate desire vs. it being an easy way to socially signal? I don’t know, but the demographics might provide a clue. The prank shows are generally more watched by younger demographics. To me this is an indicator that the revealed preference for prank shows is really more of a preference to socially signal and distinguish yourself from older generations and uptight rule-following people.

Hasn’t it gotten much, much easier to produce such content? And even easier to distribute it, thus allowing gentlemen such as ourselves to partake?

I am reminded of some of the old Chaplin or Keaton films, relying on set-based stunts and slapstick comedy. The work of dozens or hundreds of people, all to get this man and his silly costume on camera. Now an amateur can produce his own comedy without even paying another actor. I think this lowered barrier alone would increase the supply of prank comedy, just like reality TV will always have a cost advantage over high-concept dramas with elaborate wardrobes.

Decent probability this is fake, but there was a short viral video recently of a "social experiment" where you see the target pause, consider what's going on, and conclude that "no. There's no possible way this is genuine, not even as a real pick-up line. I must be on camera."

Funny, sure, but also a bit sad.

I feel the same way about most unprovoked social interactions in public, except it's almost always about money, not entertainment. One time, someone waved at me, gave a smile and said they liked my hair. This is extremely rare. I never get compliments, and this one brightened my day. Immediately, my brain screamed "scam. They're lying. They want money. It's not real", and I told my brain to shut up. Just this once, we will give this person a chance. They said something nice. There are nice people in the world. Reciprocate. So I stopped, we introduced each other. They were about my age, seemed interesting. We talked about school or something for five minutes. It was pleasant.

Then they got to the part where they just needed fifty bucks to pay cab fare across town to meet their sister. They normally wouldn't ask for money but..

I walked away mid-sentence.

I strongly suspect that some the low-tech equivalents of prank shows were existed in the 1940s and 1800s, whether that be individual groups of young people pulling pranks. Can't think of any examples off the top of my head though. Also pretty sure scams were widespread (although likely less than now, internet makes finding good marks easy and the current grant of anonymity to internet users (which could rescinded should a govt choose!) makes punishing scammers harder).

If humor is about exploring contrast or confusion, pranks serve the function of playing around with situations that are socially marginal or bad, informing individuals of what happens within them without actually causing the potential harm. So a prank where you steal a friend's trinket might help illuminate the routes by which an actual thief could steal something important. Obviously that literal prank serves no such function today, but you can imagine how something something evolution and how humor might serve that function in some ways today.

And that doesn't mean prank shows are good - it's still a simulacra of something that once had purpose but no longer does - but it's not really reducing trust as the thing it mimics normally builds trust, in the same way that fucking around with your friends builds trust.

Okay, a quick google found this. Which, after I googled, I noticed was in your OP! But wikipedia describes it as a popular TV show beginning in 1948. So, clearly, they did exist in the 1950s? "it often featured practical jokes" ... "The show involved concealed cameras filming ordinary people being confronted with unusual situations, sometimes involving trick props, such as a desk with drawers that pop open when one is closed or a car with a hidden extra gas tank. When the joke was revealed, victims were told the show's catchphrase, "Smile, you're on Candid Camera." The catchphrase became a song with music and lyrics by Sid Ramin."

I've also never been 'pranked' in a grocery store, or a job interview, and don't think many randomly-selected americans have been either. I haven't met anyone who has. I think in at least half of all pranks (e.g. on youtube or tiktok), the supposed victims are in on it, and the other half are infrequent enough that pranks themselves aren't an issue.

I had no idea that Candid Camera was that old!!! I’ve only seen episodes from like the 80s onward. That certainly does poke a significant hole in my theory.

It is certainly true that scammers were widespread in the 19th century and earlier, and even that fairly benign flim-flam artists and carnival barker sorts, like P.T. Barnum, were able to secure significant financial gain and celebrity even from people who acknowledged their dishonesty. Perhaps it’s just the ubiquity/saturation of “prank” content now, and the particularly grating and lowbrow aesthetics of the ones that seem popular, that have unjustly triggered my snobbish instincts.

I highly recommend the candid camera movie spin off "What would you say to a naked lady" which I believe is still on Amazon prime. It's the basic premise, but the hidden camera just films people confronted with a naked young woman in various quotidian circumstance. Some laugh, some ogle, some try to cover her up or help her, some proposition.

Is is a consequence of shitty behavior no longer being unacceptable. These shows are the symptom of the enshittening of the culture. Which, I suspect, is a consequence of post-modernism, ultimately - if nothing has any meaning or value, then everything is equally shitty, so why bother not being shitty? Some people find their answers to that question, but many don't.

I think you are on to something, of all the entertainment genres comedy seems to be the most dependent on the mood of the times. Standup, comedy films and TV shows rarely age well (there are notable exceptions).

But there's another element, people today enjoy cringe which also seems to be a more recent phenomenon. People like seeing others humiliated. Schadenfreude is a natural human vice, but enjoying that feeling you get when you watch a video of someone be humiliated? I don't recall America's Funniest Home videos featuring cringe to that extent, really /r/cringe on Reddit portrays a genre that doesn't seem to have a pre-internet equivalent.

I think the rise of cringe humor is mostly due to the popularity of The Office and its various copycats. I also feel like cringe humor was more of a 2010s phenomenon (the way "random" humor was a 2000s phenomenon) and this decade we're seeing more of what I would call "saccharine" humor in shows like Ted Lasso where the goal is to making jokes that no one could possibly find offensive (and I therefore find totally unfunny).

It really is incredible how quickly the reddit tier comedy memes come and go, and you look back and wonder how anyone found them funny. Comedy seems to be a very communal form of entertainment where everyone is on the same wavelength through some sort of psychic powers. Other genres seems more individualistic and timeless, like romance or adventure. Comedy ages like milk.

I don't know if comedy always ages like milk, even if it's very "of its time." For example, Beavis and Butthead is very characteristic of 90s "dumb idiot" humor (Homer Simpson, Adam Sandler movies, Dumb and Dumber, etc.) but has stood the test of time quite well IMO.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats