That's Interesting (1971)

This was (wait for it) interesting, but every item in "The Index of the Interesting" could be generalized as "Counterintuitive" or "Surprising." Regardless of the details, they all involve subverting expectations, assumptions or conventional wisdom. They're what Merlin Mann would call (checks username) "Turns Out."

As someone who is interested in what makes something interesting, I think the author has only part of the puzzle—what I would call Contrast.

I think Pattern is also inherently interesting. Imagine a researcher releases one paper every year applying their theory to different domains. Even if the papers themselves are not that interesting, the pattern is. Humans love to find patterns. But patterns can become tiring (think of an endless checkerboard pattern). If the researcher suddenly stops after 20 years, that's interesting—because breaking a pattern is Contrast.

Another inherently interesting thing is Relation. The transition between the bone and the spaceship in 2001 is interesting partially because of Contrast but also because of Relation—they're both images of "tools." One reason why it's exciting when a theory from one discipline is applied to a different discipline is that it suggests new relations, new links. "Canadian Tuxedo" is mostly funny/interesting because of the association it creates, versus the contrast between formalwear and denim.

Finally, there are certain subjects which are interesting to most people, but this is far more variable. In order, people tend to be most interested in: themselves, people they know, humans like them, humans very unlike them, humans in general, certain animals, and some cool plants. We prefer a photo of our own child over a photo of a stranger's kitten, (and that photo of a stranger's kitten over a photo of lichen) for reasons that are baked into our DNA. And a theory about kittens is also going to be more inherently interesting than a theory about lichen to a lay person.

This turned out to be an interesting read. The author succeeded in applying his criteria to his own article:

1. It denies some aspect of the audience assumption-ground: It denies that what is interesting is what is true, and proposes a different theory.

2. It falls into one of the outlined categories: “What seems to be a disorganized (unstructured) phenomenon is in reality an organized (structured) phenomenon”. In this case the phenomenon is interesting theories.

However, although he insists on understanding one's audience's assumptions about a topic in order to stimulate their interest, he provides little guidance on how to figure out those assumptions.

One of my ideas is to find a way to indicate to a computer what you find interesting and then monitor the internet for what you find interesting.

A Google search query is too small definition and not rich enough.

Could use large language models to identify similar semantic space of your description of what you think is interesting or valuable.

I call it attention camping. Rather than everyone on HN or Instagram or Twitter trying to create things that are interesting to a mass of people, you can index your interests or ideas you find interesting, wait some time until it matches other people's interests and then schedule collective attention for 10-100-1000 people at a time. There's value in shared experiences.

Related:

Synopsis of “That's Interesting ” by Murray Davis - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30005656 - Jan 2022 (1 comment)

That's Interesting (1971) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20646097 - Aug 2019 (7 comments)

That's Interesting (1971) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20173558 - June 2019 (3 comments)

It's interesting that this wasn't considered interesting enough to be considered significantly interesting.

It was officially tagged "little known" in an academic review of one of Davis's books in 1993.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/si.1996.19.1.81

they solved clickbait. it's why every other hacker news story like "here's why goto is actually good"