A Theory on the Interesting
Growing Meta #23
Hello all!
I have been reading on the industry of pop-science (science that made easy for the public to consume). Most work covered by science influencers like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are led by what the consumer wants to read. And the reader wants what’s interesting (not necessarily what’s deterministically true). But how do we define interesting?
In 1971, Murray Davis investigated this phenomena in an influential paper (conveniently dubbed “That’s Interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology.” [1]). He asked a simple question:
“How do theories that are generally considered interesting differ from theories that are generally considered non-interesting?”
Short answer according to Davis: Interesting theories go against our assumptions, non-interesting theories confirm our assumptions. His paper is considered a “cult classic” among sociologists.
In his work, he created an “Index of the Interesting” by studying ‘interesting’ and ‘non-interesting’ social science works.
The Index of the Interesting
When Davis was comparing works, he divided works into single phenomena research (e.g. bird migration) and research done on relationships between phenomena (e.g. bird migration & magnetic fields).
In studying single phenomenon research, he broke down the many aspects research can be ‘interesting’: through organization, composition, abstraction, generalization, stabilization, function, or evaluation.
In studying research on relations among phenomena, he listed the aspects a research can be strikingly interesting: through correlations, coexistences, covariation, oppositions, or causations.
To illustrate, here are some examples:
These examples are taken from a synopsis of the paper [2]
Single Phenomenon (ii) Composition: What seem to be assorted heterogeneous phenomena are in reality composed of a single element.
e.g., Freud's assertion that seemingly diverse things like slips of the tongue, jokes, dreams, neuroses, and adult behaviour are all manifestations of the same instinctual drives; or people like Marx, Foucault, McLuhan, who bring it all down to economics, power, or communication.
Single Phenomenon (iii) Abstraction: What seems like an individual phenomenon is in reality a holistic phenomenon. (sociologizing)
e.g., Durkheim's assertion that suicide was not an individual phenomenon, but a culturally determined one.
Single Phenomenon (v) Stabilization: What seems to be an unstable and changing phenomenon is in reality a stable and unchanging phenomenon.
e.g., Simmel's`view that conflict could go on forever.
Single Phenomenon (vi) Function: What seems to be a phenomenon that functions effectively as the means for the attainment the attainment of an end is in reality a phenomenon that functions ineffectively.
e.g., Jails make people criminals, mental hospitals create mental illness.
Relations Among Multiple Phenomena (ix) Co-existence: What seem to be phenomena which cannot exist together are in reality phenomena which can exist together.
e.g., Freud's discussion of ambivalence in which he talks about the coexistence of love and hate.
Relations Among Multiple Phenomena (x) Co-variation: What seems to be a positive co-variation between phenomena is in reality a negative co-variation between phenomena.
e.g., Caplovitz's observation in The Poor Pay More that expenditures for many goods and services, which were assumed to decrease at lower income levels, in fact increased at lower income levels.
Relations Among Multiple Phenomena (xii) Causation: What seems to be the dependent phenomenon (variable) in a causal relation is in reality the independent phenomenon (variable).
e.g., Weber's view that it was not the case that the economy of a country determined the religion of a country, but that the religion of the country was determined by the ecomony.
If you want your research to be interesting
Davis found a formula among these ‘interesting works’ in social sciences.
Researchers/theorists begin with explaining “it has long been thought that ….”. Then they begin denying the validity of these assumptions “but this is false …”. Then they explain their findings which suit an opposing version of the assumption “we have seen instead that …”. Finally they conclude by listing some practical consequences of their work “further investigation is necessary to …”.
What does this work mean?
It means that attention is not evenly distributed. Those who know how to play the drums will always attract more attention. Attention translates to funding and actual influence. Some important ‘boring’ research will progress slower. These are my thoughts.
[1] Davis, Murray S. "That's interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology." Philosophy of the social sciences 1.2 (1971): 309-344.