Satt's Paradox

[Xerographica]

Satt's Paradox (SP) - smarter people have more money to spend than dumber people... yet... the vast majority of movies/shows on Netflix are dumber rather than smarter.

This economic paradox is "fun" on so many different levels...

1. Is SP even real? If it isn't, then there's no paradox. And you can't resolve a paradox that doesn't exist.

1a. How is smartness being defined?

1b. Is it even true that smarter people have more money to spend? Kinda maybe? The huge debate/concern regarding increasing income inequality seems somewhat relevant.

1c. Is it even true that the vast majority of shows/movies on Netflix are dumber rather than smarter? Personally, I consider The Man From Earth, which I saw on Netflix, to be a good example of a smarter movie. It was full of history, science, philosophy and thoughtful discussion on religion. From my perspective... it was the best (that I know of) mix of entertainment and education. And it seems like there's a real shortage of shows/movies in this category. If you know of any others... then please don't hesitate to mention them! Given enough eyeballs, all Easter Eggs are shallow.

2. If SP is real, more or less, then how would you explain/resolve it?

2a. Perhaps smarter people demand far less entertainment than dumber people do? The opportunity cost of spending 2 hours watching a movie is far higher for a brain surgeon than it is for somebody who earns the minimum wage.

2b. Perhaps smarter people prefer dumber entertainment? If you get paid to use your brain all day, then maybe you prefer your entertainment to be mindless rather than mindful.

2c. Perhaps smarter people prefer nonfiction to fiction?

2d. "I'm not saying that television is vulgar and dumb because the people who compose the Audience are vulgar and dumb. Television is the way it is simply because people tend to be extremely similar in their vulgar and prurient and dumb interests and wildly different in their refined and aesthetic and noble interests." - David Foster Wallace

3. Assuming that the supply of smarter entertainment does indeed fall considerably short of demand... and assuming that this is a problem... then how could this problem be solved?

I think I might have resolved SP and come up with the logical explanation/solution (verdict)... but if I share it... then maybe it will influence your own verdict? Of course I'd like to hear your thoughts on my verdict... but I'd also like to know what you come up with on your own. It's entirely possible that yours will be better than mine! This means that I'd prefer it if you allocated (at least initially) your intelligence to coming up with your own verdict.

So I'll share my verdict here.  This way, if you're so inclined, you can post your own verdict and then see how it compares to mine. You might have to ignore the replies at first as well... just in case anybody addresses my verdict.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

1. The majority of people are what you and I would call dumb.
2. Since dumb people make up the majority, it would make economic sense to appeal to this larger audience. Smart people may make more money (not necessarily always true), but by quantity alone dumb people are the better demographic to appeal to.
3. Making shows specifically with smart people, or any minority demographic in mind requires charging more to offset the smaller audience. Indeed a lot of the channels that broadcast interesting documentaries and the like require a more expensive cable package. Other channels that broadcast with minorities in mind also require the expanded cable package.

I don't see a paradox, I see economics in action.

[missingnocchi]

I agree with skeletal, and I would also say that a smart person can understand a dumb show or movie, whereas the reverse is not always true.

[stromboli]

I did a thread on how people see themselves not long ago. Smart people tend to view themselves as questioning and seek more answers to confirm their stance. Dumb people don't because they think they are smart. Given the 100% scale of IQ, at least 50% of any large group is of less than average intelligence.

It is easier to sell things to people who think they are smart than people who question what they see/hear and double check it. Also, dumb people are more likely to be watching commercial media than smart people. So I agree with Skeletor- dumb people are more likely the target of marketing because they are more gullible.

No paradox- economics in action.

[Solitary]

I think the same can be for people's choice in music that sells the most. 

[aitm]

By exactly what criteria is being used to determine how many movies are being watched be "smarter" people? How do they establish that? Are they suggesting that by their criteria "smarter" movies are being rented more thus they must be rented by "smarter" people? I smell a fish here.

Indeed, how do they even know "smarter" people even watch movies?

[Xerographica]

I don't see a paradox, I see economics in action.

You're seeing economics 1.0 in action...

Let's say that Bob creates a thread that is worth $0.10 to you.  You know in your heart of hearts that it's worth ten cents.  If Bob was standing right next to you... and you had a dime in your hand... then you would readily put your money in Bob's hand and say "Thanks for the thread Bob!".  But Bob isn't standing right next to you.  He's on the other side of the world.  And neither do you have ten cents in your hand.  As a result, your valuation of Bob's thread stays locked away in your heart of hearts.  The supply of threads will not reflect what you don't communicate. 

Let me show you economics 2.0 in action...

Bob is still on the other side of the world... and you still don't have ten cents in your hand.  But, you do have ten cents in your forum bank account (FBA).  Spending that ten cents on Bob's thread is as easy as giving a Youtube video a thumbs up.  As a result, your valuation of Bob's thread does not stay locked away in your heart of hearts.  The supply of threads will reflect what you have communicated. 

Do you see the difference?  The purpose of payment isn't just to compensate... it's also to communicate.  By facilitating payments, economics 2.0 wouldn't just facilitate compensation... it would also facilitate communication. 

If producers were mind readers... then the communication aspect of payment wouldn't be that important.  But nobody is omniscient.  How can Bob make truly informed decisions about what to create/supply when consumers don't share their information? 

Bob can't act on information that's trapped in your heart of hearts.  Therefore, what you're seeing is economics in inaction.  Well... Bob is always going to act... the problem is that his actions can't possibly reflect information that he doesn't have.  So what you're really seeing is economics in misaction.