I would advice against participating. It's not impossible for this to be a worthwhile project that would result in overall beneficial PR for the community, but I estimate the odds as HEAVILY against it.
All storytelling is based around drama and conflict, this show will be no different. The only question is how nuanced and truthful is that conflict and as I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone here, the reality TV genre is not known for its nuance or truthfulness.
I believe Mr. Inman is sincere in his desire and ambition, but without any other information, heavily doubt his artistic vision would carry through to a portrayal that most people here would be happy with or deem beneficial. TV/film production is a team effort and Mr. Inman will likely be one voice in a chorus. He may fight battles with the network executives about the direction of the show, but in this case, I doubt he would win.
I think it's also fairly obvious to say that one should be tremendously wary of participating in any narrative about oneself where one isn't in control of that narrative, as would be the case here.
For context, I live in Los Angeles, work in film production, and have worked on reality TV shows in the past (and know many people who work on them in various capacities).
I believe Mr. Inman is sincere in his desire and ambition
Why? Do you know something about TV that I don't?
Because I know enough people in the entertainment industry that I'm not applying Fundamental Attribution Error? I'm not sure what your question is.
Why? Do you know something about TV that I don't?
It seems this is answered by:
For context, I live in Los Angeles, work in film production, and have worked on reality TV shows in the past (and know many people who work on them in various capacities).
I hope this doesn't need to be said, but anyone here who's planning on doing this should carefully think about the PR issues around talking about, say, cryonics or AI risk on TV. Rounding to the nearest available cliché will be in full effect and so forth.
They're going to be engineering drama and conflict. This doesn't exactly sound like it'd be attractive to the average nerd.
I think I'd find it somewhat gratifying if the show aired and revealed that nerds are much harder to engineer drama and conflict amongst, and the show showcased some methods the participants used to disperse what drama the directors (or whoever is in charge) tried to cultivate, in such a way that the viewers could learn from them.
But I suspect if that turned out to be the case, the show would be very unsuccessful and wouldn't have a long run.
It wouldn't happen that way. The person participating in the story has no power compared to the person orchestrating the story.
I think most people here would be surprised to know the tremendous extent to which narratives are manipulated in editing in reality TV. Watch ten minutes of any of the ghost hunter/paranormal type shows. Those will show how much can be constructed from the barest of actual events.
I've read that part of how they engineer drama is by sleep deficiency. That's a hard one to beat.
It still pales in comparison to the power of invented meaning through editing.
It's the Kuleshov Effect turned up to 11.
If the participants are actually spending time with each other though, rather than making their impressions through video footage, then it's much harder to drive them into conflict than to make them appear to be in conflict. And if the participants actually manage to communicate and work out their issues, then engineering the appearance of a long term conflict would be liable to be more trouble than it was worth.
I don't think I would personally be surprised by how much of the narratives of these shows are constructed, and I suspect many other people here would not be surprised, and as a result my inclination would be to treat any sort of footage the directors showed me of the other contestants in order to provoke a reaction as being meaningful only in light of how the directors want to manipulate us. If the nerds in question are good at dissolving disputes, attempting to manipulate them in such a way is likely to be ineffective.
But since the show is likely not to sell without it, an avoidance of conflict would mean the end of the show, not just the end of conflict on the show.
Also, since the Less Wrong cluster is only a small portion of nerdspace, and nerds are not all particularly good at communicating and dissolving disagreements, it may not be so difficult for them to find contestants with whom their direction plan is workable.
What makes you think that the 'Less Wrong cluster' is particularly good at dissolving disagreements?
Keep in mind that the forum mechanics and policies are highly engineered to disincentivize discussion of divisive topics, which might create the illusion of agreement.
By dissolving, I don't mean resolving, but recognizing that there wasn't a basis for disagreement in the first place. That's the principle of dissolving a question.
That's what makes me suspect it might be more difficult to engineer conflict among them, they'd be more likely to notice that there weren't substantial grounds for them to be at odds in the first place, and prevent the conflict from becoming self perpetuating.
I've certainly seen cases of this happening here, where I would expect a much longer and more drawn out conflict elsewhere.
That's what makes me suspect it might be more difficult to engineer conflict among them, they'd be more likely to notice that there weren't substantial grounds for them to be at odds in the first place, and prevent the conflict from becoming self perpetuating.
Well, these show tend to work on a "there can be only one" principle: each week one contestant is removed until the last man standing wins. The confilct that this mechanic creates seems pretty hard to "dissolve".
I've certainly seen cases of this happening here, where I would expect a much longer and more drawn out conflict elsewhere.
As I said, forum mechanics and moderation policy: Karma penalities, banned topics, etc: people don't "dissolve" their disagrement, they just avoid discussing divisive topics.
It hasn't been my experience that people here particularly avoid talking about divisive topics.
The mechanism of implementing karma penalties for replying to heavily downvoted comments is fairly recent, as are most of the topic bans. For a long time, there was only one banned topic, and that one had a built in expiration date which ran up years ago.
Politics isn't banned, just discouraged, I've seen a number of political discussions here, and participated in a few. As long as they stick to actual issues of policy rather than Blues vs. Greens, they generally don't attract objection.
What Desrtopa said. Also one can get away with discussing the basilisk as long as one doesn't go into too many details and/or attract enough attention.
I've read that introverts in general deal better with sleep deprivation than extroverts. I don't know just how resilient against sleep deprivation their cast is likely to be, but I'm personally resistant enough that I doubt sleep deprivation would do a great deal to assist in engineering drama. In college, none of my peers were able to notice the difference when I went over 130 hours without sleep, and I doubt the show would be able to engineer deprivation levels approaching that without courting allegations of abuse.
I have not found nerds as a class to be all that good at conflict resolution per se. The relative peace they enjoy appears to me to arise from simply not all caring about the same few limited resources (status markers). If you get 10 nerds with the same set of interests together, sparks could well fly...
...
... either they fight a lot, or they form a poly commune.
The mechanics of these shows are intrinsically designed to create conflict: typically they kick out a player every week, based on audience polls, players polls, or some games. This puts each player against the others.
Even if some player found some clever way to subvert the rules, it doesn't matter since the show authors can change them or simply ignore them as they see fit.
I had similar thoughts. But there is also obligatory xkcd link.
And even if nerds are better at resisting drama, they would be fighting against an entire team of ethically challenged people with large amount of control over their living environment. That would be like deciding to try your hand at Formula 1 racing because you've never had a car accident in your life.
I wonder if nerds have a higher variance of resistance to drama. The idea is that stronger inclination towards deliberate cognition makes it more dependent on the quality of drama-related memes they carry in their heads rather than temperament alone.
That's described as the initial idea, which this producer hopes to change to something better. In any case, there are potentially large benefits to getting this kind of TV exposure. If nothing else, it would be good comfort zone expansion.
Television networks are businesses. They want to get large audiences to watch their shows, so that they can sell a lot of ads for a lot of money. They do not make a lot of money by telling stories that appeal to a niche audience; they want to appeal to a mainstream television audience — the audience, specifically, who is now watching something on a different network. (The network's shows don't compete against each other so much as they compete against other networks' shows in the same time slot.)
What kind of stories about "nerds" are likely to appeal to an audience who is right now watching whatever is in the other time slot?
My suspicion is that somebody is thinking of this (and possibly pitched it) as the reality version of "The Big Bang Theory." If that's the case, consider that the BBT's showrunner, Bill Prady, is himself a genuine nerd. Then imagine how bad BBT is and how bad it would be if its showrunner wasn't a nerd. Then turn that into a reality show.
The network's shows don't compete against each other so much as they compete against other networks' shows in the same time slot.
Excepting, of course, that shows compete against each other to be put in prime time slots---which is enough to make or break a show. (Well, enough to break it anyway.)
We received the following email, so figured I'd pass it along here. You can say you heard about it from Sam Bhagwat at Blueseed.
Could be free publicity (alert startupers!), but I make no claims as to quality or anything else.
-----
Subject: Improving the Portrayal of Nerds on TV
I came across your website while searching for math/science/tech-related groups and wanted to reach out to you. I'm currently casting a TV series about "the real life of nerds" for a major network. The network's initial casting idea was to find awkward+intelligent people with no social lives and to do the typical "reality TV thing" by engineering drama and conflict between them. My company ended up with the casting contract, so I'm trying to find a solid cast of real people to change the network's idea of making a project that feels like Jersey Shore (<-my words, not the network's).
I thought you might be willing to point me in the direction of one or two people in your network who would be interested in taking part in the pilot and, potentially, the full series (if the project gets a full greenlight). I think that there is potential here to create positive portrayals of "nerds" that are far different than their typical depictions in media.
If you have someone who meets most or all of the criteria below, please feel free to contact me, or to pass along my contact details to them.
Basics:
-18-26 years old, male or female
-Involved in the hard sciences (research or applications) or IT field
-Passionate about science, math, technology, research, or a related pursuit
The next few bullets are not requirements, but would be awesome to find:
-Anybody involved in hackerspaces/hardware hackers
-Aerospace/aeronautics background
-PhD or Masters research at a university
-Programmer involved at a small startup
-Security/IT fields (penetration testers, etc.)
Thanks very much for taking the time to read this email. Let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Stuart Inman
Executive Producer
No Title Entertainment
209.747.0688 c
Stuart@NoTitleEntertainment.com