WEBVTT - The Nature of Fun, Part 1 0:00:03.040 --> 0:00:05.360 Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind production of My 0:00:05.480 --> 0:00:14.520 Heart Radio. Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. 0:00:14.600 --> 0:00:17.520 My name is Robert Lamb, and I'm Joe McCormick. And 0:00:17.760 --> 0:00:22.560 today I wanted to talk about fun because the other 0:00:22.640 --> 0:00:25.560 day I was thinking about trying to explain what we 0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:30.120 mean when we say something is fun, uh, particularly about 0:00:30.160 --> 0:00:34.760 how the idea of fun is strongly related to the 0:00:34.840 --> 0:00:38.839 idea of pleasure, but not exactly the same thing as it. 0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:42.440 Most things that are fun are pleasurable, though maybe not 0:00:42.479 --> 0:00:45.040 all things. And then there are tons of things that 0:00:45.080 --> 0:00:48.960 are pleasurable but are not really fun, Like, despite the 0:00:48.960 --> 0:00:52.080 the infamous name of the fun sized candy bar, I 0:00:52.080 --> 0:00:54.720 think it would be really weird to say that eating 0:00:54.760 --> 0:00:57.520 a piece of candy is fun, even though it is 0:00:57.640 --> 0:01:01.560 pleasing in a sense. What might be fun in relation 0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:03.520 to a candy bar, maybe like I don't know, making 0:01:03.600 --> 0:01:05.880 candy bars with a friend, or like going out trick 0:01:05.959 --> 0:01:11.440 or treating or something. Uh, And candy bars? Whoa making candy? 0:01:11.440 --> 0:01:13.800 Who makes candy bars? Joe? I don't know. People do 0:01:13.840 --> 0:01:16.280 all kinds of like kitchen projects with friends for fun, 0:01:16.360 --> 0:01:18.280 don't they. I don't know. I've seen it on Great 0:01:18.319 --> 0:01:21.280 British Baking Show. It looks fun. They're okay, fair enough. 0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:23.800 I've never done it, though, I I do cook, but 0:01:23.840 --> 0:01:26.840 I've never made candy. I don't know. It seems seems sticky. Yeah, 0:01:27.000 --> 0:01:29.440 I guess it is generally generally sticky. I mean, there 0:01:29.480 --> 0:01:33.319 are candy I can I can picture people making various candies, 0:01:33.319 --> 0:01:36.440 but for some reason, the candy bar in my mind anyway, 0:01:36.600 --> 0:01:40.160 it instantly feels like this can only be produced by industry. 0:01:40.200 --> 0:01:43.880 This is not something that is achievable by the by 0:01:43.920 --> 0:01:47.039 the kitchen. I'm likely wrong about that. Well, so, yeah, 0:01:47.080 --> 0:01:48.480 I guess it's got to be hard to make the 0:01:48.480 --> 0:01:50.760 ones with all the layers and stuff. But I mean, 0:01:50.760 --> 0:01:54.200 people make multi layer of cakes and at also, why 0:01:54.240 --> 0:01:56.960 not candy bars? Sure, okay, I was just throwing it 0:01:56.960 --> 0:01:59.880 out there. It seemed like a potentially possibly fun act. 0:02:00.040 --> 0:02:03.800 It somebody does, I don't know, trigger treating. That's fun, right, right? 0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:06.920 And I think I think that's what Ultimately, that's what's 0:02:06.920 --> 0:02:09.280 fun about fun sized candy bars. It's the idea that 0:02:09.360 --> 0:02:13.480 since it is smaller, it may open itself up for 0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:20.400 fun possibilities like trigger treating, like a fun additional treat 0:02:20.480 --> 0:02:23.080 that's put into your lunch or something by your parents, 0:02:23.200 --> 0:02:25.640 that sort of thing, Right, So I want to open 0:02:25.680 --> 0:02:27.920 this up to the original context in which I was 0:02:27.960 --> 0:02:30.800 thinking about trying to define fun and finding some of 0:02:30.840 --> 0:02:35.320 these difficulties. So, something I've noticed when we do our 0:02:35.440 --> 0:02:38.720 Weird House Cinema episodes, the episodes we release on Fridays 0:02:38.760 --> 0:02:41.800 where we we we just have fun talking about weird movies. 0:02:42.240 --> 0:02:45.120 When we pick movies for this show, I feel like 0:02:45.160 --> 0:02:48.080 one of the core things we look for is a 0:02:48.160 --> 0:02:53.000 quality of fun. Though this does not correlate in any 0:02:53.080 --> 0:02:57.520 consistent way that I can find with internal features of 0:02:57.520 --> 0:03:00.280 a movie like a fun Weird House Cinema move movie 0:03:00.720 --> 0:03:06.240 could be a an elegant, imaginative fantasy movie like Returned 0:03:06.280 --> 0:03:10.320 to Oz. Or it could be an audacious, technically incompetent 0:03:10.400 --> 0:03:13.400 cheese fest like Plan nine for Matter Space. Or it 0:03:13.400 --> 0:03:17.720 could be a grainy, juicy barbarian movie like Conquest. These 0:03:17.720 --> 0:03:20.720 are all movies we've done recently that have very little 0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:24.079 or almost actually nothing in common with one with one 0:03:24.080 --> 0:03:28.560 another in terms of objective contents or qualities. But what 0:03:28.760 --> 0:03:32.400 unites them is that they're all these unusual genre exercises 0:03:32.440 --> 0:03:34.680 and at least for you and I as viewers. They're 0:03:34.680 --> 0:03:38.320 all fun. And there are lots of good movies that 0:03:38.440 --> 0:03:41.080 I love that are not fun. The other day we 0:03:41.080 --> 0:03:43.640 were talking about we're talking off Mike at least about 0:03:44.080 --> 0:03:47.200 the movie Under the Skin, which is a good movie, 0:03:47.240 --> 0:03:49.560 but it would be hard to say it's fun. So 0:03:49.640 --> 0:03:53.080 fun isn't some necessary quality of good films or of 0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:55.920 art or entertainment in general. But I think it's a 0:03:55.960 --> 0:03:58.880 core element of weird house cinema. Yeah, I know what 0:03:58.920 --> 0:04:03.119 you mean. I think most of, if most certainly most 0:04:03.200 --> 0:04:04.880 of the films we've picked for weird health cetema I 0:04:04.920 --> 0:04:08.800 would classify as fun. If in the cases where maybe 0:04:08.800 --> 0:04:10.800 a film didn't turn out as fun as I was 0:04:10.840 --> 0:04:13.040 hoping it was going to be, uh, you know, those 0:04:13.040 --> 0:04:16.280 are more of the exceptions to the rule. But but yeah, 0:04:16.360 --> 0:04:19.280 it is. It is hard to really figure out exactly 0:04:19.320 --> 0:04:21.839 what is the fun thing because you know, like you said, 0:04:21.839 --> 0:04:24.520 it maybe a children's movie and may be very lighthearted, 0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:27.320 it may not be lighthearted, and maybe technically competent, it 0:04:27.360 --> 0:04:30.640 may not be competent. They put together. Um, I was 0:04:30.680 --> 0:04:32.840 trying to think of what would be a good example 0:04:32.880 --> 0:04:35.560 of a film that feels this way to me, where 0:04:35.600 --> 0:04:37.719 it's it's good, it's something I like, but it is 0:04:37.760 --> 0:04:40.320 not maybe not fun. And I was thinking, well, maybe 0:04:40.320 --> 0:04:44.120 the Texas Chainsaw Masker. It's an example that the original. 0:04:44.160 --> 0:04:46.599 You know, it's it's a film I would hesitate to 0:04:46.720 --> 0:04:51.159 call fun, but I enjoyed it a lot when I, uh, 0:04:51.360 --> 0:04:53.960 you know, saw it. In times that I've seen it, 0:04:53.960 --> 0:04:55.919 it remains stuck in my head. Is kind of like 0:04:55.960 --> 0:04:59.760 an easy reference point for things. It has excitement in it, 0:05:00.200 --> 0:05:03.080 it's in one is engaged in it, and yet I 0:05:03.120 --> 0:05:05.839 don't know if I would say it is a fun movie. 0:05:06.360 --> 0:05:09.359 And as we'll discuss, they're all sorts of qualifiers on that, 0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:12.520 especially when we start talking about about media. Right So, 0:05:12.560 --> 0:05:15.680 it's interesting that we have this word that we use 0:05:16.080 --> 0:05:18.680 extremely casually, and we both know what we mean when 0:05:18.680 --> 0:05:21.800 we're talking about fun movies, and yet there are tons 0:05:21.800 --> 0:05:24.960 of movies we like that are not fun, and the 0:05:25.000 --> 0:05:28.440 fun movies that we like don't necessarily have really anything 0:05:28.440 --> 0:05:32.760 in common. Right um Now, when we're talking about movies especially, 0:05:32.880 --> 0:05:35.800 but also the other forms of media, I've I've heard 0:05:35.800 --> 0:05:40.040 this employed for non cinematic media as well. Oftentimes you'll 0:05:40.040 --> 0:05:44.919 see the fun description used as a positive counterpoint to good, 0:05:45.360 --> 0:05:48.000 as in, hey, how is the new Jurassic World movie? 0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:52.680 Was it good? It was fun? And maybe you're being 0:05:52.880 --> 0:05:55.440 you know, you don't want to yuck anyone's yum, But 0:05:56.400 --> 0:05:58.839 this is actually how I felt about the I guess 0:05:58.839 --> 0:06:01.560 maybe the all three of the Jurassic World movies. I 0:06:01.600 --> 0:06:04.040 would never argue that they were they were good movies 0:06:04.800 --> 0:06:08.000 or great movies. Um. I wouldn't say they were my 0:06:08.080 --> 0:06:11.760 favorite films. They weren't my favorite rampaging dinosaur movies, but 0:06:12.480 --> 0:06:17.160 they were fine. They delivered on fun and um. And 0:06:17.200 --> 0:06:21.320 of course it's just it's very subjective to even try 0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:23.880 to explain like what that means, because at this point 0:06:23.920 --> 0:06:27.279 we're just absolutely knee deep and subjective vaguary when it 0:06:27.279 --> 0:06:29.120 comes to saying, well, this movie was good and this 0:06:29.120 --> 0:06:31.560 one was fine. Well, you know one thing I would say, 0:06:31.600 --> 0:06:34.440 they're uh, they're probably multiple ways of coming at this. 0:06:34.520 --> 0:06:37.279 But when somebody asks is a movie good, you kind 0:06:37.279 --> 0:06:41.200 of interpret that question is being about the intrinsic qualities 0:06:41.279 --> 0:06:43.919 of the movie itself. I mean putting aside questions of 0:06:43.960 --> 0:06:48.760 like whether you could actually objectively judge something like, you know, 0:06:49.000 --> 0:06:52.760 is the script good? Is the acting good, but putting 0:06:52.880 --> 0:06:55.640 you know that caveat aside. You're at least asking about 0:06:55.680 --> 0:06:58.719 something that is true of the movie, no matter who's 0:06:58.760 --> 0:07:01.240 looking at it. And when you talk about fun, you're 0:07:01.279 --> 0:07:06.159 saying something more about like your experience of watching the 0:07:06.200 --> 0:07:08.719 movie at the time and place that you did, like 0:07:08.920 --> 0:07:13.480 I had a good time. Yeah, yeah, I mean there's 0:07:13.520 --> 0:07:15.760 some like you said, there's so many ways of looking 0:07:15.800 --> 0:07:17.600 at a film. You can just you can look at 0:07:17.600 --> 0:07:20.000 it technically, you can, you can think of it, you know, 0:07:20.040 --> 0:07:22.720 in terms of the acting, you can. You can purely 0:07:22.720 --> 0:07:24.960 base it in your own experience of watching it or 0:07:25.240 --> 0:07:27.600 a communal experience of watching Adam. And there's so many 0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:30.400 ways to go to go at it. And yeah that 0:07:30.440 --> 0:07:32.800 it is a vague question when someone asked is this 0:07:32.840 --> 0:07:34.960 a good movie? Because on one level they're sort of 0:07:35.000 --> 0:07:37.000 asking like what, they just want to know what did 0:07:37.040 --> 0:07:39.600 you think about it? And should I see it? Would 0:07:39.640 --> 0:07:43.880 I like it as well? Um? And uh yeah. Answers 0:07:43.880 --> 0:07:45.480 can be all over the board. Sometimes it could be 0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:48.240 like it's a great movie, you would hate it, it's 0:07:48.560 --> 0:07:51.080 I loved it, You should not see it, and if 0:07:51.120 --> 0:07:52.880 you do see it, please don't tell me about it 0:07:52.920 --> 0:07:54.920 because I know that you won't like it, that sort 0:07:54.920 --> 0:07:57.640 of thing, yep, yep. So I wanted to look at 0:07:57.680 --> 0:08:03.160 fun on the show because fun is clearly extremely important 0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:06.240 in our lives. It's a type of experience that we 0:08:06.560 --> 0:08:09.720 seek constantly as one of the core ways of of 0:08:09.920 --> 0:08:13.560 enriching our existence, and yet it actually seems to be 0:08:13.640 --> 0:08:18.480 a rather complex and elusive concept to define. Uh So 0:08:18.560 --> 0:08:20.480 I thought it would be worth spending a couple of 0:08:20.520 --> 0:08:23.680 episodes trying to examine the concept of fun and try 0:08:23.720 --> 0:08:27.840 to see if we can draw any interesting conclusions about it. Now, 0:08:27.960 --> 0:08:30.320 the immediate question that comes to my mind and all 0:08:30.360 --> 0:08:33.520 of this, of course, is not only what is fun 0:08:34.080 --> 0:08:35.880 and how can it be research, which of course we'll 0:08:35.880 --> 0:08:39.559 get into, but also is it distinct from other areas 0:08:39.559 --> 0:08:42.319 that have been researched so such as play, Because the 0:08:42.559 --> 0:08:44.280 study of play would seem to be a big one, 0:08:44.320 --> 0:08:48.360 as this is generally understood as the spontaneous activity of children, 0:08:48.440 --> 0:08:52.080 as well as being central to game sports, many different 0:08:52.120 --> 0:08:57.920 hobbies among all ages, and especially in children, play has cognitive, physical, emotional, 0:08:57.960 --> 0:09:00.680 and social benefits. And I think that we've covered play 0:09:00.720 --> 0:09:03.880 on the show before. I think the research we're about 0:09:03.920 --> 0:09:07.640 to look at here considers play part of fun, but 0:09:07.840 --> 0:09:11.000 not fun in and of itself, right right, I mean, 0:09:11.040 --> 0:09:12.720 I think there are a lot of ideas that have 0:09:12.840 --> 0:09:16.000 a significant overlap with the concept of fun, but are 0:09:16.040 --> 0:09:20.000 not the exact same thing as it. Play is a 0:09:20.040 --> 0:09:24.359 type of activity that I think would usually be described 0:09:24.559 --> 0:09:27.760 as fun, though you could imagine types of play that 0:09:27.840 --> 0:09:30.680 maybe are not fun, uh, and yet people would still 0:09:30.720 --> 0:09:33.240 call them play. And you can also say that there's 0:09:33.240 --> 0:09:35.400 tons of stuff that is fun that is not play. 0:09:35.480 --> 0:09:40.000 So fun is bigger than play, but play often seems 0:09:40.040 --> 0:09:43.000 aimed at fun. Yeah, Like if you had a camp 0:09:43.040 --> 0:09:46.720 fund then and you had like really strict rules, you know, 0:09:46.960 --> 0:09:49.040 you might be you couldn't really kick people out by saying, 0:09:49.040 --> 0:09:51.839 well what you are you? Are you having pleasure over there? 0:09:51.920 --> 0:09:54.920 No pleasure? This is camp fun? Get out? Or are 0:09:54.920 --> 0:09:57.640 you playing? No playing? This is serious business. This is 0:09:57.679 --> 0:10:00.360 camp fun. Out of here? Right. So to trying to 0:10:00.440 --> 0:10:03.640 get underneath this, you know, the seemingly elusive and variable 0:10:03.720 --> 0:10:07.920 characteristics of fun, One interesting thing to start with is 0:10:08.000 --> 0:10:10.079 just say, okay, what if we just did a survey 0:10:10.480 --> 0:10:13.560 and and see out in the wild, what types of 0:10:13.600 --> 0:10:17.120 experiences do people consider fun? Like if you ask people, 0:10:17.600 --> 0:10:20.640 tell me something fun you did recently. What are the 0:10:20.640 --> 0:10:23.960 types of things that people are most likely to talk about, 0:10:24.360 --> 0:10:28.120 and what do those experiences have in common? And here 0:10:28.160 --> 0:10:31.080 I thought it might be useful to, uh, look at 0:10:31.080 --> 0:10:33.880 a couple of parts of a paper that I found, uh, 0:10:34.120 --> 0:10:36.600 that was published in two thousand ten in the journal 0:10:36.679 --> 0:10:39.800 Psychology by a couple of researchers based out of University 0:10:39.840 --> 0:10:45.480 College London. These authors are I See McManus and Adrian Fernhum. 0:10:45.520 --> 0:10:48.760 And the paper is called fun Fun Fun, Types of fun, 0:10:48.840 --> 0:10:53.880 attitudes to fun and the relationship to personality and biographical factors. 0:10:54.360 --> 0:10:57.480 So already, even with the title, we're getting into the 0:10:57.520 --> 0:11:00.560 fact that this is going to be highly dependent on 0:11:00.600 --> 0:11:04.320 an individual's background and sensibilities. Well, you have to to 0:11:04.360 --> 0:11:07.720 spoil one of their major conclusions. Uh, We're gonna end 0:11:07.800 --> 0:11:10.319 up finding that there really is no such thing as 0:11:10.360 --> 0:11:14.160 saying something is fun for everyone. Different groups of people 0:11:14.240 --> 0:11:17.280 find different things fun and uh and often a lot 0:11:17.320 --> 0:11:19.360 of people just seem to go around assuming that whatever 0:11:19.400 --> 0:11:21.439 they find fun is what other people are going to 0:11:21.559 --> 0:11:23.880 find fun. But it's not true. It made me think 0:11:23.880 --> 0:11:28.120 of old Mickey Mouse magazine covers. I don't think I've 0:11:28.120 --> 0:11:30.280 seen one of these and forever, but at least for 0:11:30.320 --> 0:11:33.839 a very long time, the run of these magazines had 0:11:33.880 --> 0:11:36.840 the slogan at the bottom, fun for the whole family 0:11:37.720 --> 0:11:42.160 was guaranteed. And I mean even I have a small family, uh, 0:11:42.280 --> 0:11:45.120 just talking about immediate family that my wife and my 0:11:45.160 --> 0:11:47.960 son and and sometimes it's a challenge for us to 0:11:48.040 --> 0:11:51.240 find fun for the whole family. And I think anyone 0:11:51.240 --> 0:11:53.600 out there with a much larger family unit you can 0:11:53.600 --> 0:11:55.800 certainly attest that this is not the case that Mickey 0:11:55.840 --> 0:11:58.880 Mouse Magazine was lying to us. And yet at the 0:11:58.920 --> 0:12:01.240 same time that that could make you feel, well, then 0:12:01.320 --> 0:12:03.319 is it hopeless? Is there just nothing we can say 0:12:03.320 --> 0:12:06.680 about fun? It's totally random. Obviously that's not the case either. 0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:10.600 There are there are clearly certain types of activities that 0:12:10.800 --> 0:12:14.160 large numbers of people agree on is fun, and so 0:12:14.200 --> 0:12:16.480 it would be useful to figure out what are those 0:12:16.520 --> 0:12:20.160 types of activities? Now, I wanted to mention a few 0:12:20.200 --> 0:12:23.079 things from the background section before the authors get into 0:12:23.160 --> 0:12:26.400 describing their original research, and one of the things they 0:12:26.440 --> 0:12:29.720 start off with is discussing just the pervasive role of 0:12:29.920 --> 0:12:33.839 fun in culture. And I had a thought about this 0:12:33.880 --> 0:12:36.120 which Robert I wonder if you agree with this. I 0:12:36.160 --> 0:12:39.960 was thinking about how while you know, it's it's it's 0:12:40.000 --> 0:12:42.800 part of basic human life to seek pleasure. We all 0:12:42.840 --> 0:12:46.200 seek pleasure in some ways, a lot of pleasure seeking 0:12:46.240 --> 0:12:50.520 activity is not openly discussed the same way that the 0:12:50.640 --> 0:12:54.200 quest for fun is, even though there's a huge overlap 0:12:54.280 --> 0:12:59.040 between fun and pleasure. It's it's totally normal and acceptable 0:12:59.360 --> 0:13:03.280 to talk about trying to find fun and like seeking 0:13:03.320 --> 0:13:06.440 out activities that will be fun, But it's kind of 0:13:06.480 --> 0:13:09.640 weird to talk about trying to seek pleasure and seek 0:13:09.640 --> 0:13:12.360 out activities that will feel good, do you know what 0:13:12.400 --> 0:13:15.439 I mean? Yeah, I mean unless you make a point 0:13:15.480 --> 0:13:17.920 of it, if you're like really embracing a kind of 0:13:18.120 --> 0:13:23.160 hedonistic uh um lifestyle, or it's you know, something you 0:13:23.200 --> 0:13:27.440 know like Lavayan Satanism, where you're like, no, the purpose 0:13:27.520 --> 0:13:29.800 of life is pleasure and that's what I'm all about, 0:13:29.960 --> 0:13:33.200 you know. Otherwise, Yeah, it's it's it's kind of Another 0:13:33.240 --> 0:13:36.960 example might maybe be coming around to like the ideas 0:13:37.000 --> 0:13:41.440 of mindfulness and like a non attachment and seeking that 0:13:41.640 --> 0:13:44.480 out and seeing that this is this is the way 0:13:44.520 --> 0:13:46.920 to go through life and the sort of of mental 0:13:47.200 --> 0:13:50.360 landscape to try to cultivate in your own mind. Oh well, 0:13:50.400 --> 0:13:53.160 speaking of cultivating a sanctum in the mind. Uh. The 0:13:53.240 --> 0:13:55.800 authors here, actually they include what I thought was a 0:13:55.840 --> 0:13:58.760 kind of interesting quote from a different paper by a 0:13:58.800 --> 0:14:01.960 couple of researchers and the C. D. Bryant and C. J. Forsyth, 0:14:02.000 --> 0:14:04.080 And I'm not going to read the whole thing, but 0:14:04.200 --> 0:14:08.720 they're speaking particularly about the place of fun in US culture. 0:14:09.320 --> 0:14:12.000 And these other authors right quote the pursuit of fun 0:14:12.080 --> 0:14:15.160 as a place of dominant centrality in our daily lives. 0:14:15.200 --> 0:14:19.280 But fun seeking is not a compartmentalized area of our 0:14:19.320 --> 0:14:24.160 cultural fabric. Rather, it is a constituent to almost every 0:14:24.240 --> 0:14:27.640 aspect of our daily lives. Fun seeking is very much 0:14:27.720 --> 0:14:31.400 integrated into our to our entire culture, in our daily 0:14:31.480 --> 0:14:36.240 cycle of life, home, work, rest, maintenance, even sleep. Our 0:14:36.320 --> 0:14:40.000 hedonistic quest has become a deified entity of its own, 0:14:40.360 --> 0:14:43.840 the fun God, as it were. Uh. And elsewhere this 0:14:43.880 --> 0:14:46.720 is phrased as the great God fun as kind of 0:14:46.720 --> 0:14:50.000 like the great God pan um. But but I kind 0:14:50.000 --> 0:14:53.480 of see what they're saying that, like, seeking fun is 0:14:53.520 --> 0:14:57.160 not a separate activity to the other things we do 0:14:57.240 --> 0:14:59.720 in our life, but rather seeking fun is sort of 0:14:59.760 --> 0:15:03.200 in degraded as a part of all the other activities. 0:15:04.200 --> 0:15:07.520 Now you could easily comment though in this case, especially 0:15:07.680 --> 0:15:12.000 in the United States and many in many Western countries, 0:15:12.520 --> 0:15:17.240 like to what extent is um is consumerism the dominant 0:15:17.240 --> 0:15:21.520 way of life and the idea that things must be 0:15:21.560 --> 0:15:24.800 purchased like so many of our purchases are made in 0:15:24.840 --> 0:15:27.640 the name of fun. I mean, certainly, yes, not not 0:15:27.720 --> 0:15:30.800 all of them is this. They're necessary purchases, the bills 0:15:30.840 --> 0:15:34.160 to be paid, etcetera. But we if we have the 0:15:34.160 --> 0:15:36.000 money to spend on fun, we tend to spend the 0:15:36.000 --> 0:15:38.640 money on fun. Think about all of the attempts to 0:15:38.720 --> 0:15:41.240 make you believe, I mean, whether or not these actually 0:15:41.280 --> 0:15:44.480 work at least somebody's always trying to convince you that 0:15:44.600 --> 0:15:48.600 shopping is fun, that work is fun, that education is fun. 0:15:49.120 --> 0:15:51.720 It's it's fun to go to school, it's fun to sleep, 0:15:51.880 --> 0:15:55.040 it's fun to work out, it's fun to eat your vegetables. 0:15:55.080 --> 0:15:57.600 Like it's all supposed to be fun, at least according 0:15:57.640 --> 0:16:01.920 to somebody. Yeah. Well, and to be fair, most of 0:16:01.920 --> 0:16:05.840 these things can be fine but are not exclusively fun. 0:16:06.440 --> 0:16:09.200 Um And some of these things are worth doing but 0:16:09.320 --> 0:16:12.120 are not fun. Like well, one one example that came 0:16:12.200 --> 0:16:15.360 up in the article. I noticed. The main study we're 0:16:15.360 --> 0:16:19.480 going to discuss here is that is they brought up swimming. Um, 0:16:19.520 --> 0:16:21.680 it's brought up kind of off handedly, as as just 0:16:21.720 --> 0:16:24.680 a comment one might make or judge swimming is fun. 0:16:24.720 --> 0:16:26.800 And then it's also brought up a little later a 0:16:26.800 --> 0:16:31.840 little more specifically regarding like social context for swimming, which 0:16:31.880 --> 0:16:35.240 which is interesting because on one hand, swimming with people 0:16:35.720 --> 0:16:39.080 and enjoying a pool with people like, yes, I think 0:16:39.120 --> 0:16:41.200 a lot more people might say that's fun. I would 0:16:41.200 --> 0:16:45.040 say that's fun. But if it's like swimming laps for exercise, 0:16:45.520 --> 0:16:50.240 which which I do most weekday mornings, I would never 0:16:50.280 --> 0:16:53.280 classify that as fun. I do it. I think it's beneficial, 0:16:54.800 --> 0:16:57.440 but I do not enjoy doing it in a way 0:16:57.440 --> 0:17:00.600 that I would classify as fun. You know, is and 0:17:00.640 --> 0:17:03.280 it's and it's nice to have done it, but then 0:17:03.320 --> 0:17:05.119 it is not, but it's still not fun to have 0:17:05.240 --> 0:17:07.400 done it, and I do not reflect on it as 0:17:07.440 --> 0:17:09.840 having been a fun time. I think that's true, and 0:17:09.920 --> 0:17:12.280 yet there are some people who do that and would 0:17:12.359 --> 0:17:16.280 say it's fun. Yet again back to the interesting subjective variability, 0:17:16.600 --> 0:17:19.560 and I think that may be related to certain types 0:17:19.600 --> 0:17:22.159 of personality differences, even ones that you can sort of 0:17:22.160 --> 0:17:25.960 measure on like a five factor personality model. Um, we'll 0:17:25.960 --> 0:17:27.879 get more into that in a bit. To be clear too, 0:17:27.920 --> 0:17:30.399 it probably depends on where you're swimming your laps. But 0:17:30.760 --> 0:17:33.840 if it's just the same pool some in every day, um, 0:17:33.880 --> 0:17:35.960 I don't know, the fun factor probably wears off a 0:17:35.960 --> 0:17:38.840 little bit. Oh yeah, I mean novelty. Novelty is a 0:17:38.880 --> 0:17:40.640 big part of all this will will probably come back 0:17:40.680 --> 0:17:42.760 to that. Yeah, yeah, I would say, In fact, I 0:17:42.840 --> 0:17:45.960 suspect novelty is especially an important part of fun for 0:17:46.040 --> 0:17:48.399 you because Robert, I think you are probably a person 0:17:48.440 --> 0:17:52.600 who is high in openness to experience generally. So yes, yes, 0:17:53.400 --> 0:17:55.320 So the authors are talking about how, at the time 0:17:55.320 --> 0:17:58.439 they published this paper, the fundamental nature of fun was 0:17:58.520 --> 0:18:01.719 an understudied subject in psychology. Remember a thing. This came 0:18:01.720 --> 0:18:04.960 out in two thousand and ten, and most studies involving 0:18:05.000 --> 0:18:07.760 fun at the time. We're about using fun as a 0:18:07.880 --> 0:18:11.680 motivation or outcome state in something like education or healthcare 0:18:11.720 --> 0:18:15.560 in some other context, rather than asking the basic question 0:18:15.640 --> 0:18:19.359 like what types of experiences are most often categorized as fun? 0:18:19.680 --> 0:18:21.600 What does it feel like to have fun? How do 0:18:21.640 --> 0:18:26.080 people describe it, what other you know life and personality factoris, 0:18:26.119 --> 0:18:29.280 does it correlate with? And Just as a side note, 0:18:29.320 --> 0:18:31.800 I wanted to point out that while this study provides 0:18:31.800 --> 0:18:34.359 a lot of insights, sometimes the authors phrase things with 0:18:34.400 --> 0:18:38.520 an almost hilariously square addiction. I was singling out a 0:18:38.560 --> 0:18:42.560 sentence where they say, conceptualizing fund is not straightforward, in 0:18:42.640 --> 0:18:45.160 part because of the number of synonyms for funds such 0:18:45.160 --> 0:18:49.520 as amusement, enjoyment, and entertainment. And in addition, every generation 0:18:49.560 --> 0:18:52.320 seems to produce its own synonyms for funds, such as 0:18:52.520 --> 0:18:57.720 far out or cool. But but they are correct, of course. 0:18:57.760 --> 0:19:00.960 I mean, I absolutely agree that fun is its own 0:19:01.000 --> 0:19:04.439 psychological and social phenomenon, but it can be difficult to 0:19:04.440 --> 0:19:08.520 study because of its significant but not exact overlap with 0:19:08.560 --> 0:19:13.480 other concepts like amusement, like entertainment, etcetera. And another thing 0:19:13.520 --> 0:19:15.480 they point out is that we use the concept of 0:19:15.520 --> 0:19:19.560 fun in different sort of grammatically functional roles. Like fun 0:19:19.680 --> 0:19:23.520 can be just an adjective that describes an activity you know, 0:19:23.600 --> 0:19:27.680 like that game was fun, or it can be a 0:19:27.760 --> 0:19:31.040 state you are in, like I am having fun. It 0:19:31.119 --> 0:19:34.760 is describing something about your sort of mental state in 0:19:34.800 --> 0:19:37.800 the moment or it can be like a trait of 0:19:37.840 --> 0:19:41.680 an activity or even a person like he's a fun guy. Yeah, 0:19:41.720 --> 0:19:44.320 like the the experience of it, like it's sometimes when 0:19:44.320 --> 0:19:46.399 you're watching a movie, you may not be sure of 0:19:46.440 --> 0:19:48.879 it is fun. Uh, and then you think back on 0:19:48.960 --> 0:19:51.560 it and you have to decide, yes, it was fun. 0:19:52.440 --> 0:19:55.679 It was fun. Ha ha, it was fun. Well, and 0:19:55.720 --> 0:19:57.439 you know what, And in fact, I think that actually 0:19:57.480 --> 0:20:00.359 does come down to some of the fun as a 0:20:00.440 --> 0:20:04.639 trait of personalities, because you know people like this, right that, 0:20:04.800 --> 0:20:07.479 Like you know certain people who they can take an 0:20:07.520 --> 0:20:11.199 activity that would otherwise not be fun, and merely by 0:20:11.240 --> 0:20:15.520 them participating in or reflecting on it, they make it fun. 0:20:16.600 --> 0:20:18.760 That's a powerful kind of personality and a good friend 0:20:18.800 --> 0:20:22.760 to have. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Um. Likewise, though, you do 0:20:22.840 --> 0:20:26.520 encounter people who, maybe especially in work environments, who maybe 0:20:26.520 --> 0:20:31.119 how that they need to make it fun. Situations to 0:20:31.280 --> 0:20:35.200 the person who um whoo, who not not only will 0:20:35.240 --> 0:20:37.960 try to make it fun, must make it fun. Um. 0:20:38.040 --> 0:20:40.240 And then of course you have the opposite, someone who 0:20:40.440 --> 0:20:43.680 can take something that otherwise would be fun and make 0:20:43.680 --> 0:20:47.880 it dull and depressing. Well, there go straight into one 0:20:47.920 --> 0:20:49.439 of the next things they talked about, which is that 0:20:49.800 --> 0:20:53.360 sometimes you can get inside on a slippery concept by 0:20:53.359 --> 0:20:56.560 looking at its opposites. So if you say an activity 0:20:56.680 --> 0:20:59.880 is fun, what what would be the most common descriptors 0:21:00.000 --> 0:21:03.760 who describe the exact opposite type of experience. The authors 0:21:03.760 --> 0:21:08.400 here suggest the the opposite descriptors would be tedious, boring, 0:21:08.680 --> 0:21:11.880 or dull, which indicates to me that we often think 0:21:11.920 --> 0:21:15.280 of fun as an activity that's stimulating. It's high engagement, 0:21:15.320 --> 0:21:18.920 it easily holds our attention. And I think this is true. 0:21:19.119 --> 0:21:23.240 But the semantic equation doesn't balance perfectly here, because it 0:21:23.320 --> 0:21:26.919 does not follow that everything that is not tedious or 0:21:26.960 --> 0:21:31.159 boring is fun. For example, being in danger is not 0:21:31.320 --> 0:21:34.000 tedious or boring, but for most people it would not 0:21:34.040 --> 0:21:37.560 be fun either, right right though? Of course, even there, 0:21:38.480 --> 0:21:40.280 I mean it's good that you mentioned and not everyone, 0:21:40.320 --> 0:21:43.200 because you see that creep to with adventure seeking, Like 0:21:43.480 --> 0:21:47.119 some people's idea of fun and excitement is being is 0:21:47.200 --> 0:21:50.720 jumping out of an airplane with a parachute. For other people, 0:21:50.800 --> 0:21:52.879 that does not sound like a good time and not 0:21:53.080 --> 0:21:57.440 something they are interested in doing for fun, exactly right. So, 0:21:57.960 --> 0:22:01.200 based on all this so far, I think we very 0:22:01.240 --> 0:22:03.800 often use the word fund to characterize activities that are 0:22:03.840 --> 0:22:06.600