November 2013 The Science of Entertainment Issue I V SPLITTING PERSONALITIES In this issue of the Science of Entertainment, we look at a new way of breaking down audiences. Rather than the conventional ways of segmentation, personalities-­‐ and specifically temperament, can be a powerful way to group audiences. Here we explore the four different temperaments that capture the whole population and explain what motivates their viewing. . December 2013
In 1994, the film PULP FICTION set world cinema alight. In the process, it also angered a lot of people who found the story of small time criminals in suburban Los Angeles both revolting and offensive because of the offhand way it treated issues like drugs, racism, and murder. A conservative backlash against the film claimed that it represented everything wrong with the excessively violent, morality-­‐free modern cinema of the 1990’s. The film has since become recognized as a classic, standing the test of time, and The hugely controversial and successful movie, Pulp Fiction
the outcry around its release forgotten. The furore behind PULP FICTION was not that unusual. Similar controversy erupted when James Joyce’s book ULYSSES came out in 1922, when JD Salinger’s THE CATCHER IN THE RYE came out in the 1950’s and when Stanley Kubrick’s film A CLOCKWORK ORANGE came out in 1971. These were all new and exciting works of fiction that caused powerful emotional reactions in audiences because they were so new and challenging. The original script for PULP FICTION was so extreme that it even shocked some seasoned Hollywood executives. Essentially though, all of these stories were accused of the same fault: of treating immoral behaviour too lightly. We once thought that certain people just didn’t “get” new cool stuff like Tarantino, or dubstep music, or cronuts; but actually, there may be a scientific basis for these differences of opinion. Since the 1950’s, audiences have usually been grouped into segments by traditional concepts like age and gender, and education and income. Today, these concepts are becoming less useful as science pushes back the boundaries of what we know about the human mind. Neuroscientists like Dario Nardi, one of Attentional’s scientific advisers from UCLA, are doing original work that may change the way we approach audiences. As part of his quest to understand how the human mind responds to entertainment, Nardi is applying what’s called Temperament Theory, using a matrix of four Temperaments (or personality types) that have been identified by him … each of which have © Attentional Ltd 2013. All Rights Reserved.
1
December 2013
different responses to fictional material. These preferences are being tested with equipment that monitors brain activity to understand what makes audience’s tick. Let’s take a look at these four different personality types, and what each likes or doesn’t like. In the process, we will hopefully explain why some people just did not “get” Tarantino’s greatest film: Stabilizers The largest group of the four temperaments identified by Dario Nardi are called Stabilizers. These people make up 45% of the US population and are usually a plurality in any audience. They value rules, look to respected authorities, and embrace tradition because of the continuity it expresses and the meaning and membership it grants. We might think of them socially as “conservatives.” These people like heroes who epitomize their own values in fiction—action heroes like John Wayne in the past or actors like Tom Hanks in the present. They tend to enjoy movies like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, which emphasize patriotic values in service to the community, and shows like CSI in which criminals are caught and justice delivered. These people don’t like shows that play with their value system and they tend to cleave to authority in Stabilizers tend to enjoy procedurals like CSI
times of social uncertainty, trusting society’s leaders implicitly. They’re patriotic and do not like it when others question societal norms, regarding community and “Family Values” as sacred concepts. This group knows what it wants and represents a valuable demographic for producers. Stabilizers are perhaps the easiest group to appeal to, if one is willing. However, the group presents a challenge: it’s uncomfortable with novelty and is likely hostile to change that isn’t carefully packaged with people and ideas that they already respect. As a result, they are often angry or dismissive of social change. In fact, they are prone to view society as “going to the dogs” and deplore phenomena like “political correctness”, Dirty Harry, a movie that can appeal to Stabilizers
© Attentional Ltd 2013. All Rights Reserved.
2
December 2013
which they view as morally corrupting. Good examples of films likely to appeal to Stabilizers include conventional, straightforward action stories like TITANIC or DIE HARD. They also enjoy films where characters learn to take responsibility or battle corruption, such as WAR HORSE, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, and MICHAEL CLAYTON. Their tastes may sometimes allow for interesting and sophisticated tales such as violent vigilante movies like TAKEN or MAN ON FIRE, in which the heroes have “to go it alone” to right wrongs. A perfect example of a more advanced film made for Stabilizer sensibilities is the violent seventies classic DIRTY HARRY—even though he is “against” society, the society in question has been corrupted by Liberal “Politically Correct” values from within. Harry dispenses justice to evildoers and reinforces the community when government is no longer effective. We can see Stabilizers in every culture. When General Viljoen helped convince Afrikaners to respect black majority rule in South Africa in 1994, his audience felt comfortable with him and listened to his message of change because he was a man they already respected. Just by their numbers, his audience clearly contained many Stabilizers! Improvisers The second audience group identified by Nardi are Improvisers. These differ greatly from Stabilizers and are a little bit more difficult to identify, mainly because they do everything off the cuff — hence their name. They tend to like action, sex, and raucous comedy, such as THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY or THE HANGOVER. They also enjoy films that feature exotic locales and danger, such as ALIVE, ALONE IN THE WILDERNESS, or THE BLUE LAGOON, and THE GREY. They respond to situations and feel free to bypass or repurpose rules as “Stabilizers are easy to appeal to. they see fit. These people trust luck, trial-­‐
However, the group has a and-­‐error, and the power of basic human liability; it’s not comfortable drives like ambition and revenge. They are with new things and likely to be typified by their improvisation in response to hostile to change unless carefully situations, and their ability to therefore cope packaged by people and things brilliantly with crises. Because they tend to that they already respect.”
be physically active and attentive to their own and others’ visceral reactions, they are easily bored by slow-­‐paced, repetitive, or predictable media. There’s one simple challenge this group poses to writers and producers: getting their attention is fairly easy, but keeping their attention actually takes a LOT more effort. © Attentional Ltd 2013. All Rights Reserved.
3
December 2013
In terms of fiction, they like anything where they can respect the ingenuity of the main characters, which means that they also like detective shows, but those with a little more variety like MONK or HOUSE (which we’ll come to later). They have a deep appreciation for comedy, something Stabilizers only like in a “safe” form. These people like to laugh. They love variety and get easily bored. They like to see and experience “tactics”, which includes the competition of sports and cat-­‐and-­‐
mouse stories; films like SPEED and ROCKY both appeal to them. They like exciting fast moving shows and those that show realistic behavior in highly dangerous situations, as in THE WALKING DEAD. They want to be able to step into a riveting, exciting show as if they are the main mover and one having fun. Improvisers form the second largest group of US society at 35%. Catalysts The third and fourth temperaments identified by Nardi are more nuanced in their tastes and represent much smaller portions of the overall population. The third group are the Catalysts, who make up 15% of America—this segment of society is likely to be in creative and socially engaged professions, including writers and artists. They’re the actual creators of the stories the other groups watch! Catalysts look for meaning in the Universe. They like to explore human nature, and they search out people, ideas, that are unique and authentic in the world. They like to put their experiences together into narratives called stories, which are the perfect “delivery device” for communicating their observations and inspirations to others. Catalysts often have strong personalities. These people like sophisticated examinations of concepts like Good and Evil, and are romantically inclined. They engage in fantasy on an almost daily basis, imagining what-­‐if, or envisioning how-­‐to scenarios: how would the world react to an alien invasion or what would happen if you discovered they were living next door to a coven of devil worshippers. These stories are often opportunities to explore real but uncomfortable human issues in a fun way, which can get them into trouble with society. Plato (a Theorist, see the next group) suggested the poets be expelled from Athens in the fourth century BC for this exact reason! Catalysts look for meaning all around them and can create beautiful ideas that advance our understanding of events, like George Orwell’s novel 1984 or Picasso’s © Attentional Ltd 2013. All Rights Reserved.
“Catalysts often have strong personalities. These people like examinations of huge concepts like Good and Evil, and are naturally romantically inclined – engaging in fantasy on an almost a daily basis.”
4
December 2013
painting of The Bombing of Guernica. Catalysts are Utopians; to them the world can and should become a better place, and by nature they’re optimists, because they believe people CAN change if given the chance. They always see the best in humanity, and the best qualities of every human, but are often highly emotional and prone to extreme behavior. The most successful novelist of our age, Stephen King, admitted he wrote many books so high on a cocktail of drugs that he nearly died in the process, and Ernest Hemingway, the most famous writer of the 20th century ate a shotgun for breakfast in 1961. In terms of fiction, they particularly like stories that confirm deep soul searching, from THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (although to be fair, nearly everyone likes this movie!) to even more challenging dramas like PRISONERS and CITY OF GOD and SEXY BEAST, ONCE WERE WARRIORS, or VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA. In terms of TV, Catalysts are almost guaranteed to enjoy quality shows like THE WIRE or BREAKING BAD. Theorists The last group, Theorists are in many ways the opposite of Catalysts. Theorists are the most mysterious of the groups, the most profound and most brilliant; the deepest thinkers and the true home of humanity’s geniuses – men and women who can change the world and the course of history. These people are likely to be technologists, academics, and scientists, found in professions where interactions with other people are structured around broad impersonal goals or kept to a minimum. Theorists may suffer difficulty dealing with others and can be hard to get along with, perhaps offending easily, even though they do not necessarily intend to. Theorists are highly competent thinkers, and they like to be Right. They intensely value science and anything that can be studied and perhaps “proven”– they don’t like things that they can’t believe in, though they may choose to “suspend disbelief” for a time in the name of exploring ideas. In terms of fiction, they naturally like science fiction and complicated narratives where they can find patterns. They love intricate, densely created and plotted worlds which you can get a lot out of by intense viewing and studying several times – shows like STAR TREK, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA or GAME OF THRONES and films like THE NAME OF THE ROSE are almost made for them, because they © Attentional Ltd 2013. All Rights Reserved.
“Theorists… are the most mysterious of all the groups, the most profound and most brilliant; the deepest thinkers and the true home of humanity’s geniuses…”
5
December 2013
take place in densely plotted universes. Interestingly, these favorites also let Theorists secretly believe in what they find most difficult to accept: the Possibility of Hope. This is because to them, the world is a huge place, and man’s influence is miniscule, and thus their outlook is by definition: gloomy. The film CONTACT follows a Theorist and her struggles with science, proof, exploration, and hope. Another great example is the TV show BONES, whose characters are Theorists, investigating old murders that require careful and delicate research. The challenge for writers and producers with this group is that while they understand facts and figures and the shortest distance between solar systems or the causes of cancer, they do not understand human nature as easily and often struggle to relate to others. They sometimes adopt bleak outlooks on humanity and the world, the basis of which is their belief in the fleeting and impermanent nature of existence. Science is on their side here, and they know it. They can be difficult therefore to engage as an audience. Consider the classic flaws of brilliant scientists like Albert Einstein, the awkward (but highly successful) Bill Gates, or the notoriously abrasive (but visionary) Steve Jobs who was once ejected from his own company. Thus, in many ways, Theorists are the opposite of Catalysts, though they share a single intriguing similarity: they’re both deep thinkers and dislike shallowness. The Temperaments in Action Two popular TV shows can illustrate the differences between these four groups more clearly: HOUSE and DEXTER. HOUSE is one of the most popular shows in the world. The program’s main character, an asbergerish, socially awkward but brilliant medical doctor, is a Theorist, a member of the smallest group. He deals with extremely complicated diseases and conditions that baffle other doctors, and TV series, House appeals to all temperaments
his secret is that he looks for unexpected patterns in things. He is aware that he is the most qualified man on the spot, and therefore has no problem with his elitist attitude, even though it constantly makes his own life more difficult by alienating people. This dramatic conflict is at the center of the show, and almost everyone can relate to it because it’s so clear. © Attentional Ltd 2013. All Rights Reserved.
6
December 2013
HOUSE manages to appeal to almost every one of the four groups above – Improvisers love the twists and turns, Catalysts the real human storylines and realistic emotional drama between doctors and patients, Theorists love the science and Houses’ brilliance – and even Stabilizers grudgingly respect HOUSE’s excellence and service to society as a doctor. The Temperaments recap
DEXTER is more of a difficult show to watch than HOUSE because it has a protagonist who is a dark and challenging character. He is a serial killer, but he is essentially “good” because he uses his dark powers for the service of society, by hunting down and murdering other serial killers – whom he is uniquely qualified to recognize because of his own personality. Catalysts enjoy the show because it explores implicitly such profound ideas of what does it mean to be good or evil, Theorists enjoy the complex investigation, and Improvisers love the show’s action. However, Stabilizers are mostly excluded, finding it really challenging to get behind such a morally compromised main character even if what he does is “essentially good.” Generally speaking, this speaks to what is known in the industry; shows with darker main characters like DEXTER find it hard to have mass appeal and are therefore not found on the big networks. This is because they are automatically excluding 45% of the population at the outset! So what about PULP FICTION? The controversial film that some tried to ban, but which almost single handedly changed the global film industry. How do we explain its ultimate success? © Attentional Ltd 2013. All Rights Reserved.
7
December 2013
The reason why it was so successful in 1994 is that there was something for almost everyone. Improvisers enjoyed the energetic, high emotion twists and turns and the dark humor. Catalysts valued the weaving together of many storylines and the creation of a richly moving whole, which explored many different aspects of the human condition and the fleeting nature of life in an irreverent way that gave it a powerful, poetic meaning, resonant of the greatest works of Shakespeare but told in the language of modern pop culture. Even Theorists who are drawn to complexity, loved the meticulously detailed stories and world of the film – the seedy side of 90’s Los Angeles, which was depicted in unbelievably minute detail right down to invented brands of cigarettes and donuts! The biggest draw in PULP FICTION for them is the complex narrative structure, with 4 short stories, one of which is sliced up in half and bookends the whole movie.) In fact, there was something for everyone in Tarantino’s film – except the Stabilizers who were completely outraged at being left out! Today, Attentional has placed itself at the very cutting edge of this kind of scientific research that we’ve looked at above, and understanding how the brain responds to entertainment is our company’s mission. Over the next few months, our company will be using sophisticated EEG helmets designed to give us greater evidence over what secures audience attention. Given that 85% of consumer behaviour is unconscious, these techniques will have the ability to be revolutionary, giving content owners unparalleled insight into audience behavior. © Attentional Ltd 2013. All Rights Reserved.
8
December 2013
9469 Jefferson Blvd, Suite 114, Culver City, CA 90232, USA +44 (0) 1823 322829, +1 (310) 479 3613 e: [email protected] www.attentional.com About Dario Nardi: Dario Nardi, PhD is a fellow in the Center for Governance at University of California (Los Angeles), where he taught in social science and computing from 1998 to 2011 and was recognized with UCLA’s annual Distinguished Teaching award. His expertise in personality theory was accredited with Myers-­‐Briggs certification in 1994 under the instruction of Dr. Linda Berens. He has been intimately involved in product development, research, and training with personality-­‐based tools ever since. Since 2007, Dario has conducted intensive and varied hands-­‐on neuroscience research using EEG technology. He is currently developing use of EEG with small TV and film audiences, gamers, students, and work groups to objectively evaluate and improve the effectiveness of particular media, such as the likely reception of a pilot TV show. Dario conducted his doctorate in Systems Science (1995-­‐1998) from the State University of New York and his bachelor's degree in aerospace engineering (1988-­‐1992) from the University of Southern California, where he enjoyed USC’s Academic Scholarship for Excellence, a full-­‐tuition undergraduate scholarship. Dario is owner of Radiance House, a publishing company. See http://www.darionardi.com for details. © Attentional Ltd 2013. All Rights Reserved.
9