I just listened to an episode of 99% Invisible with Emily talking about her book and the rise of reality television. Honored to have partnered with you on the latest iteration of the reality shlock that’s slowly rotting our collective minds.
Nice! I read this Economist article last year which cited a crazy statistic -- something like 70% of hours watched was reality TV -- and that sparked my interest in learning more about the genre. Emily's book coincided with my research, which was a sign from the universe, or the simulation, or whomever.
My next novel is set in the world of reality TV, which could be a career-ending choice...
That TRHHoS piece was an absolute blast and will have a very long tail. Stoked to have worked together on it.
Thanks, Matthew! I have a "soundtrack" for LEVERAGE and deciding which track to match with today's theme was an interesting challenge. Ultimately, I settled on "Survival of the Fittest" since it fit the "competition" aspect of reality TV.
By the way, due to the upcoming election, I don't plan to start actively promoting LEVERAGE until mid-November. But this post, which I just published last night, has everything you need to know about the novel: https://agowani.substack.com/p/leverage-a-novel
First off, that Mobb Deep album is so dope. Excellent choice.
Secondly, to piggy back off your polling section because your sentiment is 100% right. As someone who studied both journalism and did my master's thesis on political strategy, I can say it's not the polling as much as it's the media coverage of polling. Polling is just a snapshot of public sentiment on an issue or politician at a given time. Trying to extrapolate that to predict the future would be like trying to guess the weather six months from now. If you're into horserace politics, FiveThirtyEight would be the most reliable source of polling since they aggregate, assess polling based on validity, and show trends.
Polling only matters to you as a voter if "electability" is your top concern for who you want to elect, which, the last two presidents have been a self-admitted pussy grabber and a guy whose brain is egg yolk leaking out of his ears. Ask yourself, what is "electability" in 2024?
Even 2016, the polling wasn't THAT off, it was the media coverage. Plenty of statewide polls showed Hillary and Trump in a close tie, with Trump even polling ahead (Bernie cleaning up in the Rust Belt in the primaries should've been a major red flag to Hillary voters). And Hillary in the national poll was within the margin of error. Nate Silver gave Trump a 25% chance of winning, while the national news was giving him a 2% chance, which is insane given how polarized the country is.
Where polling gets tricky is on issues like healthcare, because it all depends on how the question is worded to elicit a specific kind of answer. Like a question about healthcare that only focuses on the tax increase without the benefits is obviously going to generate a more negative sentiment than if you framed it in a more positive way. Ok, sorry for the rant...
You're spot on. Polling is just statistics, but people can't get basic statistical concepts correct -- like normal distribution, sample bias, anchoring, margin for error, etc. This is why eugenics talk continues to prosper and proliferate on this profitless platform.
I think it's also really hard for people to accept that the media isn't corrupt, it's just incompetent. I have refused to read any NYT articles since November 2016.
I watched "Dirty Pop" on Netflix on a whim. It's a docu-series about the guy that "invented" boy bands, Lou Pearlman. Not sure if his "scheme" would be defined as "Ponzi" but it was seriously effed up.
And THANK YOU for braving and massacring "Couple to Throuple" for us. I pulled muscles cringing/dry heaving during those promos. UUUUGGGGGGGG!!!!!
My sister is obsessed with "Love is Blind." Have you gotten around to that one???
Oh yes, I've watched LOVE IS BLIND and it's a mess. I literally watch through my fingers like a horror movie. It's breathtakingly nightmarish.
BUT, the thing about LOVE IS BLIND is some people really do click and have legit chemistry, and each season at least one couple gets -- and stays -- married. I watched the first half of season six and this one couple was really cute and seemed legit happy, so that was nice. I then read the recaps for the rest of the season because I don't have enough bandwidth to waste on this kind of stuff.
I started season seven and it already felt boring. I may watch a few episodes here and there just to see how they organize the show, edit the footage, etc. I strongly, strongly recommend UnREAL because it teaches you how to watch reality TV, and that makes the genre a little more interesting. As bad as COUPLE TO THROUPLE was, I enjoyed picking apart how it was made and why it sucked so, so bad.
Well, it's TV, so I get it. Just the premise suggests that contestants should be challenged by the possibility of falling for someone and then potentially not being physically attracted to them. If they're all “pretty”, it lowers the stakes a bit. I'll have to check it out before I pass further judgement… and hope I don't like it enough to keep watching. 😂
I haven't watched enough seasons to say for certain, but I've inferred a lack of physical attraction after "the reveal" has caused a few couples to not move forward.
I just listened to an episode of 99% Invisible with Emily talking about her book and the rise of reality television. Honored to have partnered with you on the latest iteration of the reality shlock that’s slowly rotting our collective minds.
Nice! I read this Economist article last year which cited a crazy statistic -- something like 70% of hours watched was reality TV -- and that sparked my interest in learning more about the genre. Emily's book coincided with my research, which was a sign from the universe, or the simulation, or whomever.
My next novel is set in the world of reality TV, which could be a career-ending choice...
That TRHHoS piece was an absolute blast and will have a very long tail. Stoked to have worked together on it.
Funny, smart, informative. With Mobb Deep as the soundtrack. LFG
Thanks, Matthew! I have a "soundtrack" for LEVERAGE and deciding which track to match with today's theme was an interesting challenge. Ultimately, I settled on "Survival of the Fittest" since it fit the "competition" aspect of reality TV.
By the way, due to the upcoming election, I don't plan to start actively promoting LEVERAGE until mid-November. But this post, which I just published last night, has everything you need to know about the novel: https://agowani.substack.com/p/leverage-a-novel
Enjoy!
On goldmaxxing: paranoia and gambling addiction, natural enemies, coexist with inspiring ease. Maybe there’s hope for all of us.
The Invisible Hand works in mysterious ways.
First off, that Mobb Deep album is so dope. Excellent choice.
Secondly, to piggy back off your polling section because your sentiment is 100% right. As someone who studied both journalism and did my master's thesis on political strategy, I can say it's not the polling as much as it's the media coverage of polling. Polling is just a snapshot of public sentiment on an issue or politician at a given time. Trying to extrapolate that to predict the future would be like trying to guess the weather six months from now. If you're into horserace politics, FiveThirtyEight would be the most reliable source of polling since they aggregate, assess polling based on validity, and show trends.
Polling only matters to you as a voter if "electability" is your top concern for who you want to elect, which, the last two presidents have been a self-admitted pussy grabber and a guy whose brain is egg yolk leaking out of his ears. Ask yourself, what is "electability" in 2024?
Even 2016, the polling wasn't THAT off, it was the media coverage. Plenty of statewide polls showed Hillary and Trump in a close tie, with Trump even polling ahead (Bernie cleaning up in the Rust Belt in the primaries should've been a major red flag to Hillary voters). And Hillary in the national poll was within the margin of error. Nate Silver gave Trump a 25% chance of winning, while the national news was giving him a 2% chance, which is insane given how polarized the country is.
Where polling gets tricky is on issues like healthcare, because it all depends on how the question is worded to elicit a specific kind of answer. Like a question about healthcare that only focuses on the tax increase without the benefits is obviously going to generate a more negative sentiment than if you framed it in a more positive way. Ok, sorry for the rant...
You're spot on. Polling is just statistics, but people can't get basic statistical concepts correct -- like normal distribution, sample bias, anchoring, margin for error, etc. This is why eugenics talk continues to prosper and proliferate on this profitless platform.
I think it's also really hard for people to accept that the media isn't corrupt, it's just incompetent. I have refused to read any NYT articles since November 2016.
Finally, LEVERAGE has an unofficial "soundtrack" which you can check out, in addition to all the other relevant info, on this post: https://agowani.substack.com/p/leverage-a-novel
I'm going to wait to start promoting the novel until after this election madness, but all the details are now in the public domain.
Oh, fuck yeah! Gonna pre-order this. Will let you know if I decide whether I love Jeff Bezos more or Big Book more.
Thank you! I think you’re gonna love it.
Of the two, I prefer Big Book.
Social science is horseshit 😂😂😂😂
Just calling balls and strikes on this one.
Unreal is absolute fire—one of the funniest shows I’ve ever watched 😂
Hell yeah! Good man.
Did you watch all four seasons? Would you recommend I continue the series beyond season one?
I still can't believe this show originally aired on Lifetime. Newfound respect for that network.
We watched one and a half—got bored and left.
Checks out.
I watched "Dirty Pop" on Netflix on a whim. It's a docu-series about the guy that "invented" boy bands, Lou Pearlman. Not sure if his "scheme" would be defined as "Ponzi" but it was seriously effed up.
And THANK YOU for braving and massacring "Couple to Throuple" for us. I pulled muscles cringing/dry heaving during those promos. UUUUGGGGGGGG!!!!!
My sister is obsessed with "Love is Blind." Have you gotten around to that one???
Oh yes, I've watched LOVE IS BLIND and it's a mess. I literally watch through my fingers like a horror movie. It's breathtakingly nightmarish.
BUT, the thing about LOVE IS BLIND is some people really do click and have legit chemistry, and each season at least one couple gets -- and stays -- married. I watched the first half of season six and this one couple was really cute and seemed legit happy, so that was nice. I then read the recaps for the rest of the season because I don't have enough bandwidth to waste on this kind of stuff.
I started season seven and it already felt boring. I may watch a few episodes here and there just to see how they organize the show, edit the footage, etc. I strongly, strongly recommend UnREAL because it teaches you how to watch reality TV, and that makes the genre a little more interesting. As bad as COUPLE TO THROUPLE was, I enjoyed picking apart how it was made and why it sucked so, so bad.
Is everyone trad hot on Love is Blind, though?
Mostly, but plenty of people are "normal" looking. Not everyone's a model, to be sure, but everyone's conventionally attractive.
Well, it's TV, so I get it. Just the premise suggests that contestants should be challenged by the possibility of falling for someone and then potentially not being physically attracted to them. If they're all “pretty”, it lowers the stakes a bit. I'll have to check it out before I pass further judgement… and hope I don't like it enough to keep watching. 😂
I haven't watched enough seasons to say for certain, but I've inferred a lack of physical attraction after "the reveal" has caused a few couples to not move forward.