3 ms·

I have to say I do enjoy Adam Curtis movies very much, even though I often find myself disagreeing with the opinion being presented. For all their watchability

by Udo 12y ago

I have to say I do enjoy Adam Curtis movies very much, even though I often find myself disagreeing with the opinion being presented. For all their watchability, it's important to remember that these are not straight-up documentaries. They're well-crafted opinion pieces with narratives that (depending on your perception) may or may not be shoehorned into the shape of facts with a blunt instrument. Also the copious library footage, while always tantalizing, tends to be only marginally connected with the subject at hand. They're still worth watching for the presentation alone, and they are great discussion starters. Personally, I found one of the most disagreeable Curtis projects to be "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace", as entertaining as it was. If you ever have a spare weekend and would like to spend it thinking about the trajectory of society, I recommend binge-watching Curtis movies.

benkant 12y ago
Yes. I disagree with most of his points of view. Some of his statements are outright incorrect and a majority are at least questionable or wanting for references. In _The Trap_ he constantly uses the phrase "based on numbers" in a negative fashion, as if it were an inferior method of analysis. I find that particularly strange considering that if you just listen to his narrative without the images, there is no analysis and often no cogent argument. One argument, if I remember correctly, was that game theory should no longer be used as a tool because it was largely developed during the cold war, which is over now. And yet I'm utterly I'm fascinated by his movies. I probably (re)watch one every 2 months. Go figure. edit: You can't miss this parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  As above, I'd really like to know where specifically you disagree with Curtis or find his view less than credible.
  - benkant 12y ago
    I've made about as much of an effort as I'm willing elsewhere in the thread, sorry.
- chazu 12y ago
  I agree that Curtis' arguments are often articulated in such a way as to make them easy to debunk or dismiss, however I think the germ of his arguments often highlight interesting or compelling ideas. I suspect that many others commenting here, however much they disagree with Curtis' ideas (or his articulations of ideas) feel the same. From my perspective the common thread of his arguments is that over-reliance on specific models (generally of how the human mind works, but also of how systems work, e.g. ecology) can lead to unintended consequences. For example, the ways in which British hospitals skirted performance targets under New Labor, or the spectacular failure of the approach taken by the Defense Department in Vietnam. To take another example, Curtis highlights in 'The Century of Self' the damage done by over-reliance on Freudian models of the mind, and then the subsequent follies of those who borrowed from Wilhelm Reich. Perhaps stated more generally, I think the core idea behind Curtis' work is perhaps simply that ideas can be extremely dangerous or powerful.
  - benkant 12y ago
    >the core idea behind Curtis' work is perhaps simply that ideas can be extremely dangerous or powerful That's as good a description as I'm likely to come up with. Aside from the delivery, which is at once engaging and completely lacking the nuisance necessary for a topic like this, my issue is that the core idea is a truism and I'm not sure he actually makes an interesting point, much less offers alternatives (he'd have to make that point first). He does however touch on interesting topics. He then attempts to find causal relationships between events, but I believe doing this to arrive at a conclusion is intellectually dishonest. He must know that, which makes me more frustrated. That's personal preference. If I was trying to convince someone of something, this is not how I'd go about it. Re NHS: ask anyone who designs incentive programs and they'll tell you that it's a cat and mouse game. I fail to see how hospital managers gaming the system implies "KPI + autonomy about how to achieve it" is a dud idea entirely, and that proponents of such systems are paranoid RAND Corp game theory psychopaths stuck in the Cold War. Incentives need to be tweaked just like anything else, and the rational agent model need not be a complete description of human behaviour for it be useful. It need only be sufficiently descriptive of portions of workplace behaviour that designing incentives raises KPIs. If those KPIs aren't working you tweak them, using those dreaded numbers Curtis despises so much. Models are useful until they aren't. But as someone said- they're all wrong. We modify them or replace them as necessary. Sometimes that takes longer than we'd like. We'd still be bashing each other with clubs without them. I'm not sure what Curtis proposes, which is perhaps why I watch these movies over and over again- trying to get the point. Or maybe it's just soothing to hear vague thoughts about economics and systems theory set to music and stock footage. As others have said, perhaps it's more useful as a conversation starter than a thesis. Don't get me wrong. I love the damn movies.
dredmorbius 12y ago
I'd really like to know where specifically you disagree with Curtis or find his view less than credible.
- Udo 12y ago
  You sound incredulous as to how anyone could not be in complete agreement with him at all times. ;) I don't think such a person even exists for me. Truth is I would rather not, because this would then have a certain potential to become an unrewarding political exchange of which I would like to see less on HN. Another reason is that, in order to give you any satisfying content to disagree with, I would have to take one or more of his movies and keep a log of my objections as the narrator goes on. There is very little I can object to systemically, it would be on a claim-by-claim basis. I think there is no value in doing this. Anyone can watch the films and come to their own conclusions, and inducing thought is a real strength of the material.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    No, my question reads at face value. What I'm asking for is specifics rather than vague hand-waves at a lack of credibility, e.g.: "They're well-crafted opinion pieces with narratives that (depending on your perception) may or may not be shoehorned into the shape of facts with a blunt instrument." That's a statement which tends to be rather non-falsifiable. That doesn't make it right or wrong. But it makes showing it to be one or the other to be difficult at best. If you've got specific cases of facts that are wrong, or can point to specific narratives you find less than credible, I'd appreciate it.
sorokod 12y ago
I would argue that, well done as it is, it is not a documentary.
- Udo 12y ago
  That's what I meant when I wrote: "these are not straight-up documentaries. They're well-crafted opinion pieces"

by Udo 12y ago

benkant 12y ago

Yes. I disagree with most of his points of view. Some of his statements are outright incorrect and a majority are at least questionable or wanting for references. In _The Trap_ he constantly uses the phrase "based on numbers" in a negative fashion, as if it were an inferior method of analysis. I find that particularly strange considering that if you just listen to his narrative without the images, there is no analysis and often no cogent argument. One argument, if I remember correctly, was that game theory should no longer be used as a tool because it was largely developed during the cold war, which is over now. And yet I'm utterly I'm fascinated by his movies. I probably (re)watch one every 2 months. Go figure. edit: You can't miss this parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg

dredmorbius 12y ago
As above, I'd really like to know where specifically you disagree with Curtis or find his view less than credible.
- benkant 12y ago
  I've made about as much of an effort as I'm willing elsewhere in the thread, sorry.
chazu 12y ago
I agree that Curtis' arguments are often articulated in such a way as to make them easy to debunk or dismiss, however I think the germ of his arguments often highlight interesting or compelling ideas. I suspect that many others commenting here, however much they disagree with Curtis' ideas (or his articulations of ideas) feel the same. From my perspective the common thread of his arguments is that over-reliance on specific models (generally of how the human mind works, but also of how systems work, e.g. ecology) can lead to unintended consequences. For example, the ways in which British hospitals skirted performance targets under New Labor, or the spectacular failure of the approach taken by the Defense Department in Vietnam. To take another example, Curtis highlights in 'The Century of Self' the damage done by over-reliance on Freudian models of the mind, and then the subsequent follies of those who borrowed from Wilhelm Reich. Perhaps stated more generally, I think the core idea behind Curtis' work is perhaps simply that ideas can be extremely dangerous or powerful.
- benkant 12y ago
  >the core idea behind Curtis' work is perhaps simply that ideas can be extremely dangerous or powerful That's as good a description as I'm likely to come up with. Aside from the delivery, which is at once engaging and completely lacking the nuisance necessary for a topic like this, my issue is that the core idea is a truism and I'm not sure he actually makes an interesting point, much less offers alternatives (he'd have to make that point first). He does however touch on interesting topics. He then attempts to find causal relationships between events, but I believe doing this to arrive at a conclusion is intellectually dishonest. He must know that, which makes me more frustrated. That's personal preference. If I was trying to convince someone of something, this is not how I'd go about it. Re NHS: ask anyone who designs incentive programs and they'll tell you that it's a cat and mouse game. I fail to see how hospital managers gaming the system implies "KPI + autonomy about how to achieve it" is a dud idea entirely, and that proponents of such systems are paranoid RAND Corp game theory psychopaths stuck in the Cold War. Incentives need to be tweaked just like anything else, and the rational agent model need not be a complete description of human behaviour for it be useful. It need only be sufficiently descriptive of portions of workplace behaviour that designing incentives raises KPIs. If those KPIs aren't working you tweak them, using those dreaded numbers Curtis despises so much. Models are useful until they aren't. But as someone said- they're all wrong. We modify them or replace them as necessary. Sometimes that takes longer than we'd like. We'd still be bashing each other with clubs without them. I'm not sure what Curtis proposes, which is perhaps why I watch these movies over and over again- trying to get the point. Or maybe it's just soothing to hear vague thoughts about economics and systems theory set to music and stock footage. As others have said, perhaps it's more useful as a conversation starter than a thesis. Don't get me wrong. I love the damn movies.

dredmorbius 12y ago

I'd really like to know where specifically you disagree with Curtis or find his view less than credible.

Udo 12y ago
You sound incredulous as to how anyone could not be in complete agreement with him at all times. ;) I don't think such a person even exists for me. Truth is I would rather not, because this would then have a certain potential to become an unrewarding political exchange of which I would like to see less on HN. Another reason is that, in order to give you any satisfying content to disagree with, I would have to take one or more of his movies and keep a log of my objections as the narrator goes on. There is very little I can object to systemically, it would be on a claim-by-claim basis. I think there is no value in doing this. Anyone can watch the films and come to their own conclusions, and inducing thought is a real strength of the material.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  No, my question reads at face value. What I'm asking for is specifics rather than vague hand-waves at a lack of credibility, e.g.: "They're well-crafted opinion pieces with narratives that (depending on your perception) may or may not be shoehorned into the shape of facts with a blunt instrument." That's a statement which tends to be rather non-falsifiable. That doesn't make it right or wrong. But it makes showing it to be one or the other to be difficult at best. If you've got specific cases of facts that are wrong, or can point to specific narratives you find less than credible, I'd appreciate it.

sorokod 12y ago

I would argue that, well done as it is, it is not a documentary.

Udo 12y ago
That's what I meant when I wrote: "these are not straight-up documentaries. They're well-crafted opinion pieces"