Being a free thinker I do NOT mind figuring out things on my own, if I can simplify and get something functional. And a few times have had to come up with functional definitions when dictionary ones were not good enough for me to figure something out. And is pertinent to mention too as I explore the concept of the science of entertainment.
Am using MY definitions want to emphasize, so doing a lot to be sure that is clear. Am continuing with things I made up.
___________________________________
science (noun): the art of prediction using methodologies and tools to expand zones of certainty by discovery of a predictive framework.
entertainment (noun): any socially accepted activity chosen in order to alter mood in a desired way which is unlikely to bring harm in any way.
Where am putting them together for once. I call those functional definitions, which makes them remarkably short for what I claim they can do. Like the first? Can encompass ANY scientific discipline known or yet to be known. So let's make up one.
Time to ponder as I like giving myself these challenges to figure something out as I type up a post. Feel confident. Besides if I fail you just won't see it.
So at first blush, a science of entertainment should involve discovery of a framework of tools and methodologies to expand zones of predictive certainty in producing a desired mood for a human being or groups of humans with a socially accepted activity, unlikely to bring harm in any way.
The art of it is in choices made in building that framework.
Isn't creativity something? Fascinates me how far I can go with things I made up.
What makes it science then is the zone of predictive certainty which I think for many is way far from entertainment, as how can you be certain, say that something is funny? Turns out with the science done correctly, you can, maybe. Just because I can put up what a science of entertainment would do, doesn't mean it can exist!
The hypothesis aspect of science is well-known, and by my system is a prediction, testable by the predictive framework. That is, you can make a hypothesis and test it by experiment.
For instance, I will admit now, as have been evaluating for over a year that I have checked and continue to check things accepted as entertainment for their safety level. And compare with near things if can find which are NOT considered entertaining.
Which can explain how a celebrity, who is an entertainer and I think most are, can seem to do ok with one thing, and crash and burn with another as a public may laugh off one thing as safe, so harmless and see something else as not, though both may look very similar which I find fascinating.
Perceptions there can vary, so there can be effort in determining if a person sees something as safe or not. One person may see something as perfectly safe that another finds not. Which can cause differential assessment across groups as well.
And that's enough for a post I want to be short. And it has been heavily edited, which is ok. I DID just start typing pulling from my two definitions. And luckily can edit as consider over time and ponder the usefulness as well--what can I DO with it?
One desired thing? Figure out rapidly any entertainment system on the planet, as to efficacy, likely duration, and methodology as to why people find it entertaining. And don't worry, I work to keep musings about current entertainment to myself. And carefully move as to show appropriate concern for the mystery, of course.
Because with me? Mystery matters.
Actually building out a science is where things get interesting. At least can now see how two of my functional definitions can come together.
And I do not consider this post to be a brainstorming post, which is kind of a note to myself.
James Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment