One Sided Policy Debate - The Science of Literature

kremlin

On HackerNews, this article was linked. The general idea is that companies are studying what people like to read, to help authors produce books that people like to read.

Now, for me, when I look at this idea, I see some down sides, but I certainly see some benefits as well.

Almost none of the commenters on NYTimes seemed to see any benefit whatsoever to studying reader behaviour. There were a few who saw the downsides as more mild than the other commenters. But most of the commenters basically saw this technology as some sort of 1984-esque idea that will turn all books into uninteresting, unimaginative pieces of paper that would better serve as a door stopper than as something for literary consumption. Out of 50 comments that I've read, only one person has said something along the lines of, 'This technology can possibly offer something to help authors improve their books'.

Is this just technophobia? Or am I missing something, and this really is a horrible, evil technology that should be avoided at all costs? [That's a rhetorical question -- I'd be surprised if even one LWian held that position]

I guess what I'm asking is, what are the psychological roots for the almost-unanimous aversion to this attempt at gathering and using information about what people want?

On HackerNews, this article was linked. The general idea is that companies are studying what people like to read, to help authors produce books that people like to read.

Now, for me, when I look at this idea, I see some down sides, but I certainly see some benefits as well.

I guess what I'm asking is, what are the psychological roots for the almost-unanimous aversion to this attempt at gathering and using information about what people want?

I sincerely think that the mediums of TV and books are largely the same in intellectual requirements(subject to necessary levels of literacy, of course). I think the sort of people who read a lot of books and don't watch much TV read intellectual books and come across drivel on TV, which gives them a false impression, but the same thing happens the other way for someone who watches Breaking Bad religiously and only comes across Fifty Shades of Grey as far as books go. The choice of medium is, so far as I can tell, completely irrelevant. Passive entertainment is passive entertainment. Now, if you were comparing either one to computer games I'd say the games win an a heartbeat, but books = TV = radio = movies = plays = listening to your buddies bullshit over a couple drinks.

The distinction I'm making is that Facebook is only drivel if your friends lead drivelly lives. If you have interesting friends, Facebook is an interesting place. And I was unaware that calendars inform me of my friends getting hatched, matched, and dispatched. Here I just thought they told me what date it was.