http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/spoilers-dont-spoil-anything/
"I’ve always assumed that this reading style is a perverse personal habit, a symptom of a flawed literary intelligence. It turns out, though, that I was just ahead of the curve, because spoilers don’t spoil anything. In fact, a new study [upcoming in _Psychological Science_] suggests that spoilers can actually *increase* our enjoyment of literature. Although we’ve long assumed that the suspense makes the story — we keep on reading because we don’t know what happens next — this new research suggests that the tension actually detracts from our enjoyment.
The experiment itself was simple: Nicholas Christenfeld and Jonathan Leavitt of UC San Diego gave several dozen undergraduates 12 different short stories. The stories came in three different flavors: ironic twist stories (such as Chekhov’s “The Bet”), straight up mysteries (“A Chess Problem” by Agatha Christie) and so-called “literary stories” by writers like Updike and Carver. Some subjects read the story as is, without a spoiler. Some read the story with a spoiler carefully embedded in the actual text, as if Chekhov himself had given away the end. And some read the story with a spoiler disclaimer in the preface.
...The first thing you probably noticed is that people don’t like literary stories. (And that’s a shame, because Updike’s “Plumbing” is a masterpiece of prose: “All around us, we are outlasted….”) But you might also have noticed that *almost every single story*, regardless of genre, was more pleasurable when prefaced with a spoiler. This suggests that I read fiction the right way, beginning with the end and working backwards. I like the story more because the suspense is contained."
The major fallacy here is that spoiler warnings are not the opposite of spoilers. You can have a spoiler warning and a spoiler at the same time; people who see the warning can choose to ignore it and read the spoiler anyway.
However they will obviously enjoy the spoiler more, since the warning has spoiled it.
On 12/08/2011 20:08, Ken Arromdee wrote:
The major fallacy here is that spoiler warnings are not the opposite of spoilers. You can have a spoiler warning and a spoiler at the same time; people who see the warning can choose to ignore it and read the spoiler anyway.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011, Richard Farmbrough wrote:
However they will obviously enjoy the spoiler more, since the warning has spoiled it.
Why don't we set up Wikipedia so that it's impossible to get certain information without watching a few episodes of Pokemon first? After all (if I was a fan of Pokemon) I'd conclude they'd enjoy themselves more if they watched the episodes, so we're actually doing them a favor.
Seriously, it's our job to give people the information they are looking for. It's not our job to make it impossible to get that information without something they don't want, even if getting what they don't want is better for them. We're not here to give people things against their wishes just because we think they'd enjoy it more.
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
However they will obviously enjoy the spoiler more, since the warning has spoiled it.
They shouldn't be called "spoiler warnings", but "enhanced enjoyment notices".
Seriously though, this study is misleading. Everyone knows the proper way to watch Star Wars is 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.