site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   1904 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 1, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why do people enjoy reaction videos? I can understand the appeal for content creators: they are cheap and quick to make and please the gods of YT algorithms.

But why would I watch someone watch a video? Is it a parasocial thing, enjoying things you liked "together" with your "friend"?

I suspect a lot of it is just content theft with the minimal effort required to make it unique. The reactor finds some content, and since he is a more savvy marketer/promoter/algorithm-manipulator/staring-with-open-mouth-thumbnail-maker than the original he can simply slap his reaction in a corner and hijack the views.

There are lots of different types of reaction vids, but for a lot of them yeah, it's just you watching the thing but with a parasocial friend there too.

I've only watched a few of these but for me it was primarily a way to vicariously relive the excitement of seeing or playing something awesome for the first time. Probably a parasocial element too, like streaming.

I'm so superior to these people watching reaction videos, I can't even ...

vicariously relive the excitement of seeing or playing something awesome for the first time.

Aw, damn it, you're right. This is why the reaction shots are the most moving parts of the first Falcon 9 landing and Falcon Heavy debut recaps, isn't it?

A good reaction video combines someone with expertise in a rare area at least tangemtially related to the video. I like watching an animation expert react to an animated video I liked because he'll observe things about the animation I'd never have seen and will never take the time to scratch the surface of the skill. You can learn a lot from these, it's more like watching the commentary tracks of a DVD.

I don't generally watch a general interest star reacts to a video of the original still exists.

Seeing what other people think of a work of media can be interesting and entertaining if you're interested in the work, in commentary from those people, or both. People read reviews and analysis of works they have already seen. Sites like Reddit and 4chan have discussion threads when an episode/movie/etc. comes out, and people read those threads even if they have no interest in commenting themselves or long after the thread is dead (for 4chan the threads expire but there's sites like desuarchive.org).

It's not that weird that people like reading Scott's review of One Thousand And One Nights, right? You could say that it is "parasocial", in some sense it is playing the same role as a two-way conversation on the subject with an entertaining friend, but that isn't normally how you would describe the appeal. Well, Scott isn't going to write a review for the latest episode of anime you watched, likely no writer of his ability will, but it might still be interesting to see what people have to say on /a/ or /r/anime or one of the few surviving anime blogs. Reaction videos are another variant of the same thing - generally more in-depth than an internet comment, with the moment-to-moment commentary of a live-watch thread or chatroom, but generally without the more thorough analysis of someone writing about the work in retrospect. (Though there are reaction videos that will spend over an hour going back over and talking about the work after it's finished, like an impromptu blog post or review.)

That isn't to say the low-status reputation of reaction videos doesn't have justification. Unlike earlier psuedo-reaction videos like MST3K, they have a very low barrier to entry and are unscripted, so naturally quality is typically low. (However the combination of the low barrier to entry and more detail than a typical internet comment may mean they are the most detailed commentary that exists for a particular piece of obscure media.) They appeal to people who prefer video to text, and while there are various reasons for such a preference one is that some people struggle to read, so when they appeal to the lowest common denominator that is often lower than the lowest common denominator for writing. Video is much less time-efficient than text (mitigated by running concurrently with the original work, so it also functions as a rewatch). Less time to think than reviews or literary criticism means commentary is often more shallow. (Though it can be more detailed and unfiltered, watching someone play a videogame can tell you a lot more than some 3-minute scripted GameStop video review.) Of course high-status media commentary is no guarantee of quality either, academics at English departments or writers for magazines like the London Review of Books churn out plenty of garbage. The very element of status often makes this worse, such as by incentivizing viewing everything through the lens of a currently high-status ideology. This is especially bad for professional writing about pop-culture, like video-game reviewers, which often aims for the ideology and pretentiousness of academic writing with less intelligence or knowledge. In any case, the point is that reaction videos are just another subset of media and cultural commentary with various advantages and disadvantages over the other kinds, rather than some alien psychological phenomenon.

I can only suspect it's mainly parasocial. It looks like a substitute for hanging out with an entertaining friend. It probably also serves up affirmations - I liked x, popular person y also likes x, pleasant vibe.

I think that watching "let's plays" is often similar. Possible hot take, but I almost want to say it's an indictment against modern society. Some people (quite a few?) are too low on energy and too lonely to even play a game alone or wrangle someone to play it together with, so they watch a parasocial video instead.

I used to watch them as a young teen, like 12-13.

As a teen they gave a rough idea on what I "should" think of a game movie or event or whatever. And regurgitating even what a stupid adult says make you somewhat of a "smart" teen. I didn't watch only with the express intent of that, I often just found them entertaining, but that was an added bonus.

Why do adults watch them? Because are developmentally impaired.

As a teen they gave a rough idea on what I "should" think of a game movie or event or whatever.

Why not watch an actual review then? I am talking about literal reaction videos, where some youtuber is literally watching another video and at most pausing it to comment. I can kinda tolerate it when it's an actual review, like Uncle Roger's BBC fried rice, although I rapidly grow weary of this format. But I just had to search YT for the link to a music video, and it helpfully suggested I would also enjoy watching reactions to a music video.

How many music videos actually have written or scripted reviews? Reaction videos have a lower barrier to entry than a blog post or scripted video, since you just have to watch and say what you're thinking, but a higher barrier and probably more detail than a Youtube comment. So if someone wants to hear what someone else thinks of a particular music video, they might be pretty much the only choice available. Also if a youtuber or streamer already has an audience they might be interested in what he has to say about something, even if they aren't very interested in the actual subject matter and it's low-effort content.

Want me to go back in time and ask my 12 year old self ?

Also don't you get it? 12yome doesn't want to parrot the opinions of some nerd who does reviews, but instead some player who does reactions.

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