The origins of detective stories are shrouded in mystery (go figure). However it is believed that the Gong'an (crime case) fiction of China can claim credit to be one of the earliest in the world. The interesting thing in the Gong'an is that it introduces the criminal first, and then proceeds to deduce the solution leading to the closure of the case. Now the earliest listeners, or readers of the Chinese detective fiction you might argue have not figured out the powers of spoilers, and it might be true. So, I will give you the example of Columbo which starred Peter Falk and ran for 10 seasons and almost always the identity of the perpetrator of the crime was revealed in the first half. Columbo mostly made it into the plot sometime in the second part and solved the case. The solution of the crime was thrilling to watch.
There is a large community that believes in keeping the integrity of the stuff they read, or watch, and believe that spoilers spoil it for them. However, it is a very recent phenomena, in 1976 George Lucas discussed the entire plot of the film which a year later was to be released as the first of the Star Wars in the New York Times. The article did not say spoiler alert anywhere!
There is however now an industry that has grown around not having spoiler alerts. Media critics have to write spoiler alert before they discuss the next big cultural thing. Or face outrage. There are also some reports of violence. A movie fan was assaulted outside a cinema for revealing loudly the plot line of the Avengers: Endgame. So spoilers are a serious matter for some people.
The questions is, what do spoilers spoil? Not the enjoyment of the story as it turns out. In a study by Johnathan Leavitt, and Nicholas Christenfeld in 2011, they concluded that spoilers actually add to the enjoyment instead of spoiling it. See the graph below from their paper which you can download.
The paper is largely around narrative fiction and the sample size is certainly not small (n=819). The group of 176 men, and 643 women were made to read three stories with different versions of spoiler, and one non spoiler story. They were then asked to give a hedonistic rating out of 10. The researchers wanted to understand how we interact with different type of stories, and what it means to have an experience with a story.
They build on the theory of perceptual fluency and positive story engagement in psychology to illustrate that stories where the ending is known makes interacting with them slightly better, as the readers can anticipate story changes, growth of the character, the story arc, and to resolve ambiguities in the story. Remember the time in Harry Potter that Snape turned out to be one of the good'uns. The highlight to the paper is that they conclude that surprise is over-rated!
They conclude their paper with the following paragraph. I am highlighting it below for you to enjoy.
“Erroneous intuitions about the nature of spoilers may persist because individual readers are unable to compare spoiled and unspoiled experiences of a novel story. Other intuitions about suspense may be similarly wrong: Perhaps birthday presents are better when wrapped in cellophane, and engagement rings when not concealed in chocolate mousse.”
Something to ponder over, are spoiler alerts a massive case of groupthink?
René Descartes was a champion doubter of things. So much so that he refused even to believe in his own existence. He tried finding ways to seek truth through his own senses, and experience. He finally hit upon an unarguable truth Cogito, ergo sum - “I think therefore I am”.
This did not beholden him to the authorities in France which he had to leave in order to escape the ire of the Catholic dispensation and the wrath of Cardinal, Duke of Richelieu. Descartes made amazing contributions to many fields of the human knowledge from music to mathematics. There is also a school devoted to his work called Cartesianism.
However there is another side to Descartes that has always fascinated the speculator in me. He loved making investments, speculations, and was a keen gambler to support his love for all things good in life. As a person not convinced by the truths long held by people, he refused to believe that the folk wisdom around gambling, or investing in bonds should be governed by what a large group holds to be true. Descartes always made bets while weighing the odds against the wisdom of the time. He rarely lost.
Descartes had to leave Paris due to his unorthodox world view. However, he kept on returning under false identities, to play on what were amongst the best gaming tables in the world. He would often play games like poker, and bridge whose outcomes depend on mathematical thinking, and applied psychology more than luck. Descartes always came away from Paris a much richer man than when he came in.
Although it is easy in hindsight to find wisdom and ascribe to it a halo, but that is not the intention here but two axioms that we can use for walking away from group-think. Something that Descartes used to not bow to popular opinion.
Axiom 1. Never follow fads, look for value.
This is a very simple axiom to hand out but very hard to follow. Let me illustrate this with an example. We all learnt in school that we must save and invest in the stock market when it is priced low, and must sell when it is high. Simple, right? How do we decide what is low, and high. We often ask people we trust. How do they know? If they are not a quant savant, or Dalal Street native chances are they believe colleagues, friends, and the tribe called investment advisors.
Majority is not always wrong. However, it often leads to bad decisions in how we think abut money, savings, and our future. There is a whole school of investors known as the contrarians, and they have been having a whale of time for the last decade. They automatically take positions against the wisdom of the crowd. They position themselves to gain from massive wins but minimise losses.
It is not easy to avoid the comfort of being embedded in a larger group. It is secure, and we trust the larger wisdom. Therefore the axiom warns to not walk lockstep with the majority, but question the basics.
The best way to do it is realise the presence of group-think, and manage their insidious power. The other is to create a mental framework of dealing with them, it is something that one has to find for themselves. What works for one individual might not work for other. One good place to think about such decision making is Annie Duke's wonderful book, Thinking in Bets.
Axiom 2. Always be aware of the historian's trap.
Historian's trap is an illusion of orderliness, it is a trait of our pattern based intelligence. We spot patterns where none exist. We believe that history tends to repeat itself in a way that we can make gainful investment from these. This is an extension of group-think as it is now powered by the most powerful things that we come face to face with these days. Data. Data in any way, shape, and form can be charted on two axis to make you believe whatever you want to believe.
It becomes very important to think about patterns in an objective manner. There is a strong emotion around order that makes us believe that certain configurations of event lead to another event as it happened a decade, two, or three ago. Maybe it happens, maybe it does not.
Coupled with data, and the presence of statistical resources at the beck and call of everyone there is a widespread belief in ever expanding orderliness. At the start of the pandemic many people would speculate on the progression of the pandemic, and many models were made, and failed. Perhaps the greatest lesson was drawn by people who watched a movie about the spreading contagion, or read a book about the Influenza epidemic from the last century, and were ready with a theory or two about the current pandemic. If they would have spoken to a good statistician they would have been reminded of the famous aphorism attributed to the great George E P Box.
“All models are wrong, but some are useful”
Though history is an interesting guidepost for future decision making it should never be a tool for decision making. History is often the greatest reference point that a large group uses for guiding future decisions in market, finance, and other things where the path is not based on hindsight attributes, and it leads to losses that can be averted.