That's Interesting! (Davis 1971)

That's Interesting! (Davis 1971)
---------------




So, do you know about this-? (If not you should; it's: interesting!)

That's Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology, Murray S. Davis in Phil. Soc. Sci. 1 (1971, pp. 309-344)

It's about: The Sociology of the Interesting...
Here's an online summary of it... (but then, so is this post you're already reading...)
Davis (1971) says:

"It has long been thought that a theorist is considered great because his theories are true,
but this is false. A theorist is considered great, not because his theories are true, but because they are interesting." 

Note the below quote from Davis (1971), in the light of Dawkin's meme theory from The Selfish Gene (1976):

`Students who follow to the letter all of the injunctions of current textbooks on theory construction, but take into account no other criterion in the construction of their theories, will turn out work that will be found dull indeed. Their impeccably constructed theories will go unnoted — or, more precisely, unfootnoted — by others. But should these students also take into account that criterion, to be detailed below, that distinguishes interesting theories from uninteresting theories, they will find that their theories will make their readers literally sit up and take notice. Their theories will then be discussed among colleagues, examined in journals, confirmed or denied in dissertations, and taught to students as the most recent instances of progress in their profession.' 

(Davis 1971, bold emphasis mine)  

...Here's an excerpt of Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, 1976) on memes:

`Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain.' 

(Dawkins 1976, p. 192, bold emphasis mine) 

This interestingness- (or even: fascinatingness-) factor of units of culture / `memes' (words, sentences, catchphrases, cliches, etc) partly explains why some viral memes (units of culture, ideas, scientific models, etc.) are memes...

Davis (1971) first sets aside certain categories of the interesting:

`I will not be dealing with (1) findings, which confirm or disconfirm hypotheses, (2) clues, which indicate the way a problem can be solved, (3) aesthetic descriptions, which refine perception, (4) analogies, which render the unfamiliar in terms of the familiar, and (5) models, which simplify the integration of complex relationships.'

In a nutshell, (specifically, discussing social theories) Davis suggests:

`...a new theory will be noticed only when it denies an old truth (proverb, platitude, maxim, adage, saying, commonplace, etc.).'

And, in short(er), they: attack/overturn/disrupt the worldview of the reader/audience... (!)
They are (that great buzzword, that I first encountered via consulting with Deloitte Consulting, when working on a new Augmented Reality Viseogames hardware/software system back in 2004/5): 
...Disruptive Technology...!




Davis notes that a lot of research is presented as interesting, due to the following format:

`The standard form of the books and articles about this research is the following:  

(1) The author articulates the taken-for-granted assumptions of his imagined audience by reviewing the literature of the particular sub-tradition in question ("It has long been thought . . .").  

(2) He adduces one or more propositions that deny what has been traditionally assumed ("But this is false . . .") 

(3) He spends the body of the work proving by various methodological devices that the old routinely assumed propositions are wrong while the new ones he has asserted are right ("We have seen instead that . . .").  

(4) In conclusion, he suggests the practical consequences of these new propositions for his imagined audience's on-going social research, specifically how they ought to deflect research onto new paths (Further investigation is necessary to . . .).'   

Of course, this `argument-structure' is reflected in most PhD dissertations - the compressed version of what a PhD study is, is the following algorithm:

1. What do we already know? (i.e., A Prior-Literature Review/Summary) 

2. What do I now know? (This new study - focused, by a Research Question/s) 

3. What does this mean? (i.e., So what? Does this change anything/everything?)

And finally:

4. Which Philosophical Question(s) does this lead back to? 

(Side Note: For this reason, I also suggest, #4 above is the answer to the unsolved problem of What is the Theme of the work? within the study of: literature/fiction/songs, etc... But I digest.)
[...You shouldn't take it for granite that I don't know, the phrase is, really: But I digress...]
Now we're getting to the knob of it all:
Here's the selection criteria used by Davis (1971), and I like it. 

`For the purposes of this investigation, I considered a social theory to be interesting if it has been in wide circulation. Wide circulation here is meant to encompass both those social theories that have been considered interesting in times past and those that have been considered interesting recently — that is, those that were and those that are in the air. (The former are now usually taught to students in introductory courses; the latter in substantive courses beyond the introductory level.)'  

This all reminds me of my PhD (from 2016). ...It's what I did, in looking at: the popular works of `How-To' Screenwriting Manuals for writing Movies. But I digest.
Davis (1971) presents: [and in the article, he also provides examples]

`The Species of Interesting Propositions... 

A — The Characterization of a single phenomenon: 

(i) Organization
a. What seems to be a disorganized (unstructured) phenomenon is in reality an organized
(structured) phenomenon. 

b. What seems to be an organized (structured) phenomenon is in reality a disorganized
(unstructured) phenomenon. 

(ii) Composition 

a. What seem to be assorted heterogeneous phenomena are in reality composed of a single element.   

b. What seems to be a single phenomenon is in reality composed of assorted heterogeneous elements.  

(iii) Abstraction 

a. What seems to be an individual phenomenon is in reality a holistic phenomenon.  

b. What seems to be a holistic phenomenon is in reality an individual phenomenon. 

 (iv) Generalization 

a. What seems to be a local phenomenon is in reality a general phenomenon. 

b. What seems to be a general phenomenon is in reality a local phenomenon. 

(v) Stabilization 

a. What seems to be a stable and unchanging phenomenon is in reality an unstable and changing phenomenon.  

b. What seems to be an unstable and changing phenomenon is in reality a stable and unchanging phenomenon. 

(vi) Function 

a. What seems to be a phenomenon that functions ineffectively as a means for the attainment of an end is in reality a phenomenon that functions effectively.  

b. What seems to be a phenomenon that functions effectively as a means for the attainment of an end is in reality a phenomenon that functions ineffectively. 

(vii) Evaluation 

a. What seems to be a bad phenomenon is in reality a good phenomenon.  

b. What seems to be a good phenomenon is in reality a bad phenomenon.

B — The Relations Among Multiple Phenomena 

(viii) Co-relation 

a. What seem to be unrelated (independent) phenomena are in reality correlated
(interdependent) phenomena.  

b. What seem to be related (interdependent) phenomena are in reality uncorrelated (independent) phenomena. 

(ix) Co-existence 

a. What seem to be phenomena that can exist together are in reality phenomena that cannot exist together. 

b. What seem to be phenomena that cannot exist together are in reality phenomena that can exist together. 

(x) Co-variation 

a. What seems to be a positive co-variation between phenomena is in reality a negative co-variation between phenomena.  

b. What seems to be a negative co-variation between phenomena is in reality a positive co-variation between phenomena. 

(xi) Opposition 

a. What seem to be similar (nearly identical) phenomena are in reality opposite phenomena.   

b. What seem to be opposite phenomena are in reality similar (nearly identical) phenomena.  

(xii) Causation  

a. What seems to be the independent phenomenon (variable) in a causal relation is in reality the dependent phenomenon (variable). 

b. What seems to be the dependent phenomenon (variable) in a causal relation is in reality the independent phenomenon (variable).

...What a great Typology / Taxonomy, Davis (1971) has created there...!
In short, he shows how:

`...an audience finds a proposition interesting not because it tells them some truth they did not already know, but instead because it tells them some truth they thought they already knew was wrong.'

 I like this, too:

`It should be clear from the above discussion that those who lack what is called "the creative spark" are in fact those who fail to take into account the assumption-grounds of their audiences.'  

At the same time he warns that if you present something: (1) obvious, (2) irrelevant, or (3) absurd (the latter, denying an entire worldview, not just an assumption within a worldview) it will be found: uninteresting.

Davis also distinguishes between: the Traditional Assumption, the Contemporary Assumption, and the Vanguard Assumption. 

This point below (in the article's Endnotes) is interesting for would-be creatives:

`2. The quality of being imaginative, which interesting theorists are praised for possessing, consists less of their ability to imagine inventively something novel than of their ability to imagine empathetically what others consider to be traditional.' [And then deny / refute something, in these `traditional' assumptions... - JTV]  

And this one, for those writing a Masters or a PhD:

`5. Although it might be thought that the "review of the literature" section of research articles and books serves this function, in most cases it does not do so adequately. Most social researchers do not clearly understand that the purpose of their review of the literature is to articulate the assumptions of their audience, and not merely to fulfil a rhetorical ritual. Nor do they clearly understand that the purpose of the rest of their research presentation is to increase our interest by refuting these assumptions, and not merely to "increase our knowledge" by confirming or ignoring them.'  

... At any rate, I found "That's Interesting!" (Davis 1971) to be most: interesting...!

...Nice classic style writing too! e.g. "the fault in our stars" (Shakespeare) reworking that he did. (Clever!) Also, I really like his: "past, present, or prophetic" poetry...

Also; this bit below reminds me of The Robo-Raconteur...


`Qualitative correlations are more likely to be interesting than quantitative correlations because the human mind, unlike the computer, is programmed (in various degrees of clarity) with the additional rule for the construction of interesting propositions described in this paper. This additional step in one's mental program between conception and assertion serves as a filter to screen out (censor) those correlative propositions that are not worth saying.' 
(i.e. The Robo-Raconteur uses a "scoring system" to rate/rank/`judge' the best solutions (movie premises), and thus filter out all the lower-scoring ones...)



And I really like this end-flourish too; after setting up the importance of the "So what/Who cares?" in the sociology of the interesting, he ends the paper on a cool gag:

`This report should be regarded as an introductory investigation of that residual category of 'genius' that separates the great theorists from the mediocre. 

So what? Who cares?'   

...And, that (the `genius' thing, there) reminds me of The 5-C Model of Creativity .




...All of which, is: interesting! *




*Well, if you like that kind of thing.


--------------
PS - I heard about That's Interesting! (Davis 1971) when listening to this Sam Harris podcast with Gad Saad.

MAKING SENSE #47 - THE FRONTIERS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS - A Conversation with Gad Saad


-----------------------------

You have been reading/viewing a blog-post by:

Dr J T Velikovsky
AI Researcher & Enthusiast...  & Evolutionary Culturologist & Filmmaker & Writer & Artist & Actor & Muso & Random Guy
(and, also The  StoryAlity  Guy) 
aka Humanimal 


Transmedia Blog: On Writering
IMDb (Movies, Videogames): Music: Texas Radio & Zen StupidityYoutube channel: https://www.youtube.com/joeteevee (over 100 videos, some are even: good)
Academia page: https://newcastle-au.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky
Researchgate page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jt_Velikovsky
My ouvre...
etc etc.


For more, see On Writering and StoryAlity News
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPS - And; no, you shouldn't take it for granite that I am a Rick & Morty fan.



(Though I am.)