Just my personal experience, but I would say this does not hold with regard to observing nature. Once I know the name of a new fly, fish, or flower, I care more about it, and I enjoy seeing it, and connecting that knowledge with other ecological knowledge.
That's also true in other domains - the more I learn about a sport the more interesting it is to watch because there is more to see and understand.
I can see the opportunity though for analysis to overcome emotion. You want to respond instinctively to something, but learning to be an expert in something sometime requires nurturing a dispassionate, analytical response. I can completely see how learning about wine might take away some of the joy that you might experience trying something new, because you're just cataloguing it.
Semi-related: my wife has a friend who became a "serious" coffee person over the pandemic. He firmly warns everyone that it's the worst decision he's ever made - he's become too much of a snob and now can't drink any coffee apart from that made at home. He can't even get it from a high street vendor and enjoy it.
> Once I know the name of a new fly, fish, or flower,
Does knowing the name of something make you an expert? I am not sure, I think perhaps the definition of "expertise" at use in this paper is more precise and demands more. I am not familiar with this area of research, it appears to me that this paper draws on a well-understood meaning of "expertise", probably one that is established in one or several of the citations (or, perhaps, it is a contested definition even today).
That said - I think your intuition is a useful one - knowing something can enhance your enjoyment more than knowing nothing. I think this paper asks, can you know too much?
I feel the same way. Since the subject of this interest is alive, and endlessly diverse, the more I learn about nature, the more wonder I feel. Definitely not numb.
Maybe what needs to be a focus of this study is measuring "numbness" across different subjects of interest.
Nature? Bah! How do you market nature? People can just get it for free! Get with the program, we need to exploit hedonism-seeking for the widest possible range of consumers to keep our numbers up! Keep them lusting after the next big thing, keep them confused and incompetent for as long as possible so they keep buying new versions of it. From us.
I only read the abstract but it seems like the dislike comes with a recognition of the buzzwords and an understanding that a good product isn't the goal, my money is. With nature, it's not trying to impress me. It's not trying to take my money. So there's no loss of wonder when I learn something. I don't pull back the curtain to find a cynical exec trying to get me to pay for something. There is no curtain, there is no sales pitche, nature just is.
It's proved that kids that name their chicken, pig, lamb, rabbit, fish, dog or horse cannot accept them to be killed and cannot eat them. thus numbers on farm cattle.
I can see the truth in what you say; but I have also found that increased ecological literacy has sapped much of the joy I used to feel in nature, because it comes mixed with grief.
Seems related to the reason Buddhism seeks to recreate the state of "Beginner's Mind".
I've found that the real emotional content is in going beyond your previous experience or comfort zone, regardless of skill level.
One thing I noticed after getting to the top international levels of alpine ski racing, was that listening to a novice-intermediate skier enthusiastically exclaim about a cool run or move that they had was nearly indistinguishable from the emotion and content of a fellow top racer telling of an exceptional run. The same enthusiasm, the same energy, and almost the same words, again and again.
While there were of course differences in the actual details, the common denominator was always having gone outside their comfort zone and succeeding. Of course achieving this after a decade+ of intense training requires much higher speed, energies, risks, skills, etc., but it still happens very regularly, and to some degree is what we did it for; competition is a continuous deliberate effort to push beyond your comfort zone every week.
But the article is right in that I'd have no clue how to achieve that again with wine/beer/food tasting, but then I'm no expert there...
"Consumer experience" seems like such a strange way to frame this research, when it's just about the general flattening of pleasurable activities over time as they're repeated.
I suspect that another reason might be that the mechanics of competitive gaming focus on maximizing players' control over whether they win rather than on maximizing joy.
It's like the difference between backyard football and professional football. In backyard football most people play with house rules that make the game more fun but less competitive. On the other hand, in professional football the rules are designed to help ensure that the better team wins.
Often the game mechanics themselves aren't actually fun (at least after the novelty wears off) but players keep playing because they enjoy the sensation of winning. The player can't have fun unless they win because the game is not intrinsically fun.
You know it's a good game when you can reflect back on a match you lost and think "yeah that was worth it, I had fun."
They're joyless because they become increasingly toxic the higher you get. At least in mainstream games. Do something outside of meta and you're enemy number one.
Perhaps this holds true more to fields that stem from hedonic experiences themselves like the arts, sports, games etc. I felt this way about music after graduating from music school. I became bored and jaded to music and had to spend several years not consuming music at all. Eventually I regained my love of it.
Conversely I don’t think this applies as much to sciences. After I pivoted away from music to become a software engineer, I discovered a world that never ceases to captivate me and elicit curiosity no matter how much I grow. In fact the more expertise I’ve developed, the more intense my interest becomes.
I work in tech and the arts and my experience is that some of the most emotionally disengaged people are in STEM, not everyone of course, but comparing the two, it’s not even close. It’s actually pretty rare to find anyone serious in the arts emotionally dimmed, a large part of the job there is dialing into emotion. That said, seems people at the top in STEM (shaping the field) and on the fringes (doing experimental, cutting edge work) are usually experts and highly emotionally engaged. Take it all with a grain of salt, I guess.
Interesting that they take a consumer angle, I see the same when I reflect on my career in the professional services business. Initially I enjoyed the process and feedback of becoming an 'expert' in a specific area, and now it's just mundane.
People crave change has been my main lesson learned.
(From Study 5 discussion)
These results are consistent with the idea that, while those with low expertise engage with the domain hedonically as a default approach, this is not experts’ default. Second, rather than experts being inevitably numb, these results suggest that it is not the acquisition of knowledge that leads to numbness, but the application of that knowledge. Indeed, when expert’s attention is redirected toward the hedonic aspects of a stimulus they can regain their feelings.
So, as I understand it: beginners focus on enjoying the experience by default, and experts engage intellectually by default. And experts who were told to just relax and enjoy the experience had the same emotional experience as beginners.
It would be far more interesting to see whether this emotional numbness is caused by actual expertise, or if it's just the result of significant amounts of time spent doing a particular activity. I didn't see them differentiate between these two anywhere in the paper, but I only skimmed it.
And yet, you could have told me the exact opposite was true - that increasing knowledge and experience created increased joy in experiences like wine instead of less, and a large segment of people would have also said it was obvious.
This article makes sense and explains a great deal. Learning and training trigger dopamine release. Both "learning how" and "learning that." The photography example they use (tool mastery) is a great example. Amateur photographers will regularly change their tools and subject matter to maintain the "sense of wonder." Meanwhile, wedding photographers will be bored with their professions.
We can see this with software engineers routinely trying out new languages and tools and hobby projects.
rhyme-boss|2 years ago
rkangel|2 years ago
I can see the opportunity though for analysis to overcome emotion. You want to respond instinctively to something, but learning to be an expert in something sometime requires nurturing a dispassionate, analytical response. I can completely see how learning about wine might take away some of the joy that you might experience trying something new, because you're just cataloguing it.
Semi-related: my wife has a friend who became a "serious" coffee person over the pandemic. He firmly warns everyone that it's the worst decision he's ever made - he's become too much of a snob and now can't drink any coffee apart from that made at home. He can't even get it from a high street vendor and enjoy it.
Fripplebubby|2 years ago
Does knowing the name of something make you an expert? I am not sure, I think perhaps the definition of "expertise" at use in this paper is more precise and demands more. I am not familiar with this area of research, it appears to me that this paper draws on a well-understood meaning of "expertise", probably one that is established in one or several of the citations (or, perhaps, it is a contested definition even today).
That said - I think your intuition is a useful one - knowing something can enhance your enjoyment more than knowing nothing. I think this paper asks, can you know too much?
damnesian|2 years ago
Maybe what needs to be a focus of this study is measuring "numbness" across different subjects of interest.
frud|2 years ago
6D794163636F756|2 years ago
scaradim|2 years ago
marssaxman|2 years ago
toss1|2 years ago
I've found that the real emotional content is in going beyond your previous experience or comfort zone, regardless of skill level.
One thing I noticed after getting to the top international levels of alpine ski racing, was that listening to a novice-intermediate skier enthusiastically exclaim about a cool run or move that they had was nearly indistinguishable from the emotion and content of a fellow top racer telling of an exceptional run. The same enthusiasm, the same energy, and almost the same words, again and again.
While there were of course differences in the actual details, the common denominator was always having gone outside their comfort zone and succeeding. Of course achieving this after a decade+ of intense training requires much higher speed, energies, risks, skills, etc., but it still happens very regularly, and to some degree is what we did it for; competition is a continuous deliberate effort to push beyond your comfort zone every week.
But the article is right in that I'd have no clue how to achieve that again with wine/beer/food tasting, but then I'm no expert there...
edit: punctuation, para breaks, clarity
gipp|2 years ago
subract|2 years ago
kojiromike|2 years ago
Lariscus|2 years ago
harimau777|2 years ago
It's like the difference between backyard football and professional football. In backyard football most people play with house rules that make the game more fun but less competitive. On the other hand, in professional football the rules are designed to help ensure that the better team wins.
ydnaclementine|2 years ago
>feel nothing
>lose
>day ruined
mcpackieh|2 years ago
You know it's a good game when you can reflect back on a match you lost and think "yeah that was worth it, I had fun."
wiseowise|2 years ago
Pannoniae|2 years ago
Those games are frustrating on purpose.
thealienthing|2 years ago
Conversely I don’t think this applies as much to sciences. After I pivoted away from music to become a software engineer, I discovered a world that never ceases to captivate me and elicit curiosity no matter how much I grow. In fact the more expertise I’ve developed, the more intense my interest becomes.
moshun|2 years ago
snordgren|2 years ago
And I'm really thankful for that, because I spent way too much time on video games growing up, before I saw behind the curtain.
inSenCite|2 years ago
People crave change has been my main lesson learned.
benterix|2 years ago
kevlarrelic|2 years ago
(From Study 5 discussion) These results are consistent with the idea that, while those with low expertise engage with the domain hedonically as a default approach, this is not experts’ default. Second, rather than experts being inevitably numb, these results suggest that it is not the acquisition of knowledge that leads to numbness, but the application of that knowledge. Indeed, when expert’s attention is redirected toward the hedonic aspects of a stimulus they can regain their feelings.
So, as I understand it: beginners focus on enjoying the experience by default, and experts engage intellectually by default. And experts who were told to just relax and enjoy the experience had the same emotional experience as beginners.
XCSme|2 years ago
abramN|2 years ago
fiso64|2 years ago
HWR_14|2 years ago
JohnFen|2 years ago
You quickly learn to never dissect books that you love, because after you do, you'll never be able to enjoy reading that book again.
yakubin|2 years ago
Pixelbrick|2 years ago
ebiester|2 years ago
naltroc|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
Chiba-City|2 years ago
We can see this with software engineers routinely trying out new languages and tools and hobby projects.