Spoiler test of depth - Revision history

Issa at 22:18, 3 August 2020

2020-08-03T22:18:06Z

Issa at 22:07, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T22:07:53Z

Issa at 22:05, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T22:05:51Z

Issa at 21:44, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T21:44:11Z

Issa at 21:33, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T21:33:26Z

Issa at 21:27, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T21:27:05Z

Issa at 21:26, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T21:26:05Z

Issa at 21:10, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T21:10:42Z

Issa at 21:09, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T21:09:13Z

Issa at 21:07, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T21:07:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:18, 3 August 2020
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Vipul points out a connection with the "curiosity gap", which is the thing where people lead you on without telling you the secret. This is another thing I don't like.		Vipul points out a connection with the "curiosity gap", which is the thing where people lead you on without telling you the secret. This is another thing I don't like.
		+
		+	Some related discussion here: https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/yfwXf9Y4hpEsKvNKo/what-are-examples-of-scientific-studies-that-contradict-what#82abTfTNWRwwgqW6q

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:07, 10 May 2020
Line 18:		Line 18:

	This post makes a similar point: https://medium.com/humungus/spoiler-madness-d48340e9233d		This post makes a similar point: https://medium.com/humungus/spoiler-madness-d48340e9233d
		+
		+	Vipul points out a connection with the "curiosity gap", which is the thing where people lead you on without telling you the secret. This is another thing I don't like.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:05, 10 May 2020
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Similarly with people -- a person who is ''actually deep'' cannot be spoiled by finding out their "mysteries". They can't hide behind some aura of mystery to seem more interesting (which is something that can be spoiled). A person who is actually interesting still seems interesting even after you've found out all the things about them. Even when you get to know someone so well that you have a pretty good simulation of them in your head, you're still surprised often enough in delightful ways that makes you want to keep interacting with them. You still regularly learn new things from them even if you've known them for many years.		Similarly with people -- a person who is ''actually deep'' cannot be spoiled by finding out their "mysteries". They can't hide behind some aura of mystery to seem more interesting (which is something that can be spoiled). A person who is actually interesting still seems interesting even after you've found out all the things about them. Even when you get to know someone so well that you have a pretty good simulation of them in your head, you're still surprised often enough in delightful ways that makes you want to keep interacting with them. You still regularly learn new things from them even if you've known them for many years.
		+
		+	This post makes a similar point: https://medium.com/humungus/spoiler-madness-d48340e9233d

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 The '''spoiler test of depth''' states that if something can be "spoiled" by spoilers, then it isn't deep, or in other words, that truly deep things cannot be spoiled by giving away some secret.
-The spoiler test is distinct from the related question of whether one would like to hear spoilers before consuming a story. (If you search online about discussions of spoilers, this is usually the thing people talk about.)
+The spoiler test is distinct from saying "I like to read spoilers before watching a movie/reading a book" (i.e. the related question of whether one would like to hear spoilers before consuming a story). (If you search online about discussions about spoilers, this is usually the thing people talk about.)
 I notice that in math, I often want to be spoiled -- I want to understand something, and I want people to tell me the answers. That doesn't mean that I won't eventually try to re-derive everything from scratch. When someone explains something in math really well, or comes up with a novel way to explain something, I'm glad that I heard about it, rather than being upset that it has been spoiled for me.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 10 May 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:

	I notice that in math, I often want to be spoiled -- I want to understand something, and I want people to tell me the answers. That doesn't mean that I won't eventually try to re-derive everything from scratch. When someone explains something in math really well, or comes up with a novel way to explain something, I'm glad that I heard about it, rather than being upset that it has been spoiled for me.		I notice that in math, I often want to be spoiled -- I want to understand something, and I want people to tell me the answers. That doesn't mean that I won't eventually try to re-derive everything from scratch. When someone explains something in math really well, or comes up with a novel way to explain something, I'm glad that I heard about it, rather than being upset that it has been spoiled for me.
		+
		+	There is this thing where if you hear the answer, you don't appreciate the answer, so you learn less. That's definitely a thing. In practice, this isn't really a problem since people forget things all the time in math. But another reply is that someone could "spoil" something in math even further by explaining how they came up with the answer. In that case, you would be able to appreciate the answer, and that seems like a good thing.

	I started having thoughts along these lines because [[Jonathan Blow]] often mentions spoilers (especially when talking about The Witness), and how he doesn't want to spoil the game for people. I think I have a disagreement or a personality difference with him. The disagreement isn't whether enjoyment from playing the game will be diminished by reading analyses about the game and watching let's plays -- I think we both agree that doing that does diminish the enjoyment you get. Rather, the disagreement is about whether a game whose enjoyment can be diminished in such a way is even worth playing in the first place.		I started having thoughts along these lines because [[Jonathan Blow]] often mentions spoilers (especially when talking about The Witness), and how he doesn't want to spoil the game for people. I think I have a disagreement or a personality difference with him. The disagreement isn't whether enjoyment from playing the game will be diminished by reading analyses about the game and watching let's plays -- I think we both agree that doing that does diminish the enjoyment you get. Rather, the disagreement is about whether a game whose enjoyment can be diminished in such a way is even worth playing in the first place.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, 10 May 2020
Line 13:		Line 13:
	I think this also explains some fiction consumption preferences that I have. I usually don't like stories with plots in them. Plots are basically the thing that gets spoiled by spoilers.		I think this also explains some fiction consumption preferences that I have. I usually don't like stories with plots in them. Plots are basically the thing that gets spoiled by spoilers.

−	Similarly with people -- a person who is ''actually deep'' cannot be spoiled by finding out their "mysteries". They can't hide behind some aura of mystery to seem more interesting (which is something that can be spoiled). A person who is actually interesting still seems interesting even after you've found out all the things about them. Even when you get to know someone so well that you have a pretty good simulation of them in your head, you're still surprised often enough in delightful ways that makes you want to keep interacting with them.	+	Similarly with people -- a person who is ''actually deep'' cannot be spoiled by finding out their "mysteries". They can't hide behind some aura of mystery to seem more interesting (which is something that can be spoiled). A person who is actually interesting still seems interesting even after you've found out all the things about them. Even when you get to know someone so well that you have a pretty good simulation of them in your head, you're still surprised often enough in delightful ways that makes you want to keep interacting with them. You still regularly learn new things from them even if you've known them for many years.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:26, 10 May 2020
Line 12:		Line 12:

	I think this also explains some fiction consumption preferences that I have. I usually don't like stories with plots in them. Plots are basically the thing that gets spoiled by spoilers.		I think this also explains some fiction consumption preferences that I have. I usually don't like stories with plots in them. Plots are basically the thing that gets spoiled by spoilers.
		+
		+	Similarly with people -- a person who is ''actually deep'' cannot be spoiled by finding out their "mysteries". They can't hide behind some aura of mystery to seem more interesting (which is something that can be spoiled). A person who is actually interesting still seems interesting even after you've found out all the things about them. Even when you get to know someone so well that you have a pretty good simulation of them in your head, you're still surprised often enough in delightful ways that makes you want to keep interacting with them.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 10 May 2020
Line 10:		Line 10:

	If something can be "spoiled" by a spoiler, that means there's this one trick to it, one secret where once you have that secret, it gives away the purpose of consuming it.		If something can be "spoiled" by a spoiler, that means there's this one trick to it, one secret where once you have that secret, it gives away the purpose of consuming it.
		+
		+	I think this also explains some fiction consumption preferences that I have. I usually don't like stories with plots in them. Plots are basically the thing that gets spoiled by spoilers.