Home
The common notion about entertainment is that the better the quality, the bigger the audience. There's some truth to that. But what I find more interesting is that it works the other way too: You need popularity before you have the luxury of developing quality.

There are plenty of examples of popularity creating quality. The first season of The Simpsons, for example, was awful in terms of quality. The writing and animation were primitive. The voice actors hadn't found their groove yet. But because it was so different - an adult cartoon with an edge - it gained an immediate huge audience, mostly from curiosity and buzz. This audience allowed them to stay on the air, develop their show through practice, and hire highly talented writers. Within a few seasons The Simpsons became arguably one of the best TV shows ever aired.

The TV show Friends had a similar path. The first few episodes were awful in terms of writing and acting. But because the actors had charisma, and the concept of young, single friends was appealing, the ratings were immediately high and the cast and creators had time and money to develop it into a phenomenon. Quality followed popularity.

Dilbert was a bit like that too. The first few years of Dilbert were so poorly drawn and written it seems a miracle it found a home in any newspapers at all. But there was something different about it, and people saw just enough potential that I was given the luxury of years to learn how to draw (better) and learn how to write for my audience.

You can see this phenomenon work the other way too. Lately I've been watching on Hulu.com a cancelled TV series called Firefly. The show is part science fiction, part western, part action, part comedy. That makes it nearly impossible to explain, and evidently harder to market. When it originally aired on TV, I never saw a commercial for it or a mention of it. Yet in my opinion it was one of the best TV shows aired, and that was its first season right out of the gate. Quality wasn't enough to find a mass audience. It needed the curiosity factor, or some other appeal to get an audience.

Entertainment gets a chance to find an audience only if the concept is so simple it can be understood in a few words. Examples:


Friends: It's about some young, single friends


The Simpsons: cartoon about a dysfunctional family


Dilbert: Comic about a nerd and his dog


Garfield: About a cat


When you find an exception to the simplicity rule, it often proves the point. For example, Seinfeld was famously "about nothing." That should have been a recipe for failure, and indeed it had poor ratings for the first few dozen shows. I forget the details, but somehow it ran below the radar at the network because it was financed or produced in a different division than usual. That difference allowed it to stay on the air and develop quality, and an audience, while other shows with low ratings came and went.

So here is the key learning. If you are planning to create some business or other form of entertainment, you will need quality at some point to succeed. But what is more important than quality in the beginning is some intangible element that makes your project inherently interesting before anyone has even sampled it. That initial audience will give you the luxury of time to create quality.

I have a twofold test for whether something can obtain instant popularity and thus have time to achieve quality:


1. You must be able to describe it in a few words.


2. When people hear about it, they ask questions.


I saw this at work with my restaurant. We recently started what we call after hours dancing. (See how easily explained it is?) And as soon as we started talking about the idea, everyone had lots of questions. Was it live music or a DJ? What kind of music? What time does it end? Is there a cover charge? And so on. Rarely did anyone say, "That's nice. Good luck with it." Something about the idea makes people curious. And sure enough, it has been a solid success with no advertising, just word of mouth. And this immediate audience has allowed us to improve on it every week. Quality followed popularity.

 
As regular readers know, I can mention any idea whatsoever and a dozen of you will leave comments telling me who already thought of it, or who wrote the fascinating scifi book with that plot. This post is a test of that phenomenon.

Today's hypothesis is that the evolution of sentient creatures is influenced by their aspirations. In the simplest example, if a creature wishes its entire life that it could reach tasty fruit that is higher in the trees, it slightly increases the likelihood that its offspring will be taller, or have longer necks, or be able to leap higher, or climb better. In other words, the longings of the parents affect how their genes get passed on.

I'm not saying the hypothesis is true or false, just verifiable. And it doesn't conflict with the fact that some traits improve survivability of the species.

Who already thought of that hypothesis, and who wrote the book? (Don't say Lamarck.)
 
Suppose President Obama asked citizens to exercise more, smoke less, and eat healthier foods to reduce healthcare costs. And let's say he was frank about telling us we have no choice because there isn't enough money to keep going the way things are going. Would citizens respond?

I think so. One of the frustrations people have with the current economic downturn is feeling they are helpless to do anything about it. We are told by the media that only the government is big enough to fix our problems. I think people would feel happier knowing that exercising and eating broccoli was part of something larger than their own health.

Or suppose the president asked the citizens who still have money to spend a bit more freely to stimulate the economy. Suppose Obama explained that our only two choices are that the government taxes us and spends the money inefficiently or citizens spend more of their own money than they would normally spend, buying things they actually want, and it adds up to the same thing. Would the citizens who still have extra money respond?

I think they would. Again, it would feel like you were doing something patriotic to help the country, and as a bonus you would get some new stuff.

Suppose President Obama ordered the power companies to make one change in policy. Not only would they credit the bills of customers who have solar panels on the roof when they generate more power than they use, as is the current situation, but they would actually pay customers cash for any energy created beyond the limit of their own monthly bill. That would make any home with a Southern exposure a potential generator of electricity. The President could ask citizens to invest in solar panels, as an act of patriotism, knowing the payoff would take years, but the collective benefit to the country would be great. It would stimulate the economy, create jobs, and drive down the cost of solar panels. And your neighbors could see your new solar panels and know you were doing your part.

What would stop Obama from asking the citizens to contribute in these ways?
 
Online simulated worlds such as Second Life are growing in popularity. Lately I have been wondering where that trend ends.

Today the little avatars that represent you in the simulated world look like cartoon dolls. It has all the realism of a puppet show. And yet many people still find that addictive. What happens when the technology arrives at a point where your avatar looks and acts just like you, or at least just like a real human?

We humans are so influenced by visual cues that the power of the online world to influence our real world emotions will jump to a new level. Pair that with the fact that you will have more control over events in your simulated world than in your real world, and fewer problems, and you have a recipe for a society-shifting phenomenon. There will be mass addiction to online virtual living via avatar. You will be able to transact real world business and do all of your socializing online via your avatar.

In the real world, going outdoors and doing real things will become increasingly unpleasant, thanks to global warming, pollution, expense, crime, etc. In my community, for example, no one has a front or back yard. If I want to go outside, for any reason other than walking the dog, I plan a trip and drive there. It's hardly worth it.

Humans are wired to fall in love with babies and puppies because of the immediate visual impact. I think we will form the same emotional bond with our avatars once they look more like ourselves, or like a human that attracts us on some level. People will literally come to love their avatars in the same way they love their own children and themselves.

At some point your avatar will become a combination of artificial intelligence plus the commands you give it. While you sleep it will wander the online world and acquire new knowledge and even new relationships. I wonder how stimulating it will be in the real world once your avatar can form a loving or sexual relationship with another avatar. You will still prefer sex in the real world to sex in the online world, but you might only have regular access to the online version. And online you will never worry how you look naked.

I also imagine that the scenery and environments of the online world will become so visually captivating that the drabness of your real world experience will pale in comparison. Once that happens, no one will ever mow his lawn again, if he even has one. Beauty will be something you see on a computer. It will stop making sense to beautify the real world because it can never keep up.

Eventually, as I have written before, and futurists predict, you will be able to scan your brain with such precision you can port your personality into a computer. The obvious place to store that personality will be in the avatar you used while you were alive. So over time the online world will be populated with a combination of avatars controlled by the living plus online "ghosts" that are the personalities of the deceased, operating independent of any living human.

Eventually humanity will die from some mutant strain of virus, but the online world will live on, maintained by robots. Inside the simulation you will live a full life, die, and reincarnate into a new avatar to experience the breadth of life all over again.

You're way ahead of me and you know the punch line here is that the future already happened and you are already an avatar. And god is the robot that maintains the system.
 
Our government is preparing to pass something called a stimulus package. According to the experts, this stimulus package won't directly stimulate much of anything in the short term, when we need it. But with any luck it will bamboozle a hundred million morons into thinking their government did something useful, and that in turn will cause them to become more confident and spend additional money on cigarettes and lottery tickets, thus stimulating the economy.

The funny thing about this scheme is that it might work. The other funny thing is that no one is trying to hide the fact that the entire plan depends on bamboozling the aggressively ignorant portion of the population. We need to get those bozos spending again, and if it requires a fraudulent stimulus package to get it done, most people seem okay with that.

This is yet another situation where smart people are ironically incompetent if left to their own devices. If the world were populated only with the smart and well-informed, we'd all sit around waiting for someone else to spend money first, so they can take the highest risk. Eventually society would crumble and all of us geniuses would be eaten by rats. But if you throw a bunch of clueless bastards into the mix, suddenly the economy is supercharged. Money is flying everywhere, confidence becomes warranted, and the economy flourishes.

Our past economic booms depended heavily on morons. Those wonderful stimulators of the economy had to buy stock in perpetually unprofitable tech companies, or invest in real estate after it was clearly overpriced. Every economic boom is powered by the clueless. I see no reason why the next one should be different, except that the government is doing the bamboozling this time.

I plan to do my patriotic duty by no longer following the news coverage of the economic stimulus plan. This will allow me to imagine that all of the pork and special interest garbage will be removed from the final bill that gets approved. I will blissfully assume that the economic stimulation will be short term and effective. Oh, and long term and effective too. And then I, and my fellow ignorami, will spend, spend, spend our way out of this slump.

You're welcome.
 
In response to my previous post, some noted that if another planet of humans had terraformed our own Earth for their future use, millions of years ago, they made a big mistake because Earth got populated by people who evolved here before they could use it.

To that I say once again you make the mistake of assuming Earth is special. If we had the technology to terraform planets, and the predicted need, we wouldn't take a chance on just one other planet. We'd spray a thousand probes into space all searching for their own planets to seed. Then when the time came, millions of years later, we'd colonize whichever one came out best, pushing aside any prehuman species that got in the way.

Therefore, if Earth was seeded for life by earlier humans, there is actually a very small chance they would choose Earth as one of the new planets they colonized. And that might be especially true if we evolved and populated the planet with humans before they had need for this planet.


 
Someday, when almost everyone is connected to almost everyone else via the Internet, I would argue that humans will have evolved into a single collective organism for all practical purposes. It would be much like the way individual cells of your body are united as one human.

Sure, humans aren't physically connected to each other, but neither are the atoms in your body if you shrink down to their level and take a look. You'd see more empty space in your body than matter. So proximity doesn't seem to be relevant to the definition of a living entity. It has more to do with how the parts communicate and act in a generally shared purpose for survival. Thus, when humans are linked via a central nervous system called the Internet, we can call humanity a newly evolved creature.

Humanity will eventually develop the scientific wherewithal to create new worlds, create new life, and manipulate existing life. And humanity will be immortal for all practical purposes, as long as it diversifies its parts across multiple planets, which seems likely.

If science progresses at a normal pace, it seems inevitable that we would someday terraform a planet and seed it with life designed to evolve. Prepping new planets for our eventual colonization might be part of our long term plan for survival. We'll always need more real estate if we keep reproducing. And it is the only way this new entity called humanity can reproduce.

Once we future humans get rolling with all the terraforming and seeding planets with life, we'll probably repeat the process thousands of times over millions of years. And that brings us to the interesting part. Logically, it is far more likely we are the product of previous human tinkering than it is likely we are the original humans who start it all. There can be only one first planet of humans, but there will be (or has been) thousands of subsequent versions that are essentially man-made.

So even if you assume a traditional God exists, it is far more likely that your more proximate creator is people. And even if you believe in evolution, it is far more likely we are a human designed version than the very first version.


And the odds that somewhere there is at least one planet inhabited with some version of advanced humans is very high indeed, for there is no rational reason to believe we are the first of what will be thousands to come. It's more likely we are somewhere in the middle of the process.

[Note: Yes, I know all of the individual ideas in this post are borrowed from places such as the old TV show Firefly, Boltzmann's Brains, my own book God's Debris, and more. But you probably haven't seen them all together. I hope.]

 
Talk about your favorable media coverage, check out this photo of Obama standing in front of, I assume, the Presidential Seal. It looks like he is glowing.

http://news.aol.com/?feature=329973
 
Have you noticed that people with impressive voices tend to become leaders? I first noticed this during my corporate years. Every male executive seemed to have a voice that resonated on more than one level, as if two or three people were talking simultaneously when they opened their mouths. I know that's a poor explanation so I just went to Youtube and searched for a CEO speech. The second one I viewed had the distinctive "leader voice."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUjoQPUsr4Q


Sometimes you hear a guy with a leader voice in a non-leader job and it immediately seems out of place. I wonder if the voice quality makes leadership more feasible or if the body chemistry that promotes leadership (say testosterone levels for the sake of argument) create an excellent voice as a side benefit.

There are plenty of leaders with sketchy voices, of course. Bill Gates comes to mind, as does the first President Bush. Obviously there's more than one way to get to the top. But I wonder if we will ever see a medical procedure to turn normal voices into leadership voices for the purpose of furthering a career.

My guess is yes.

 
A reader caught me using the same joke twice. See today's Dilbert:  http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-02-04


Then check out the comic I drew way back on 3/13/95.



I never repeat intentionally, but I often get a nagging feeling that something looks vaguely familiar. That's probably because the human mind is tuned to recognize patterns, and almost everything you see reminds you of something you already saw.

I suppose I'm most prone to repeating a line spoken by Dogbert because his voice is the one that plays in my mind all day. He says the things I am thinking but could never say in polite company. When someone tells me they got a "new position" at work, what I say aloud is "Congratulations!" But what I think in the deepest Dogbert part of my brain is "Grabbing your ankles?"

Okay, that's three times I've used that same joke. Ithink it's out of my system now.

 
 
 
Showing 941-950 of total 1123 entries
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog