"The most entertaining outcome is the most likely"
There's a common principle in physics called the path of least resistance. Water flows downhill, electricity takes the path of least impedance, objects move in the direction of least opposing force. Physicists love this sort of thing; they call it an organizing principle. It's a powerful idea that helps explain and predict how the world works in a simple, generalizable way.
I'd like to propose a similar principle for how the world works, but in the domain of people rather than things. Call it the Entertainment Principle. It states, roughly, that people tend to do what is most entertaining.
Now, by "entertaining" I don't just mean "fun" or "enjoyable," though those often align with it. I mean entertaining in a broad sense - engaging, interesting, stimulating, having emotional resonance, drawing attention and evoking a reaction. Arguing on the Internet is often not fun, yet many people sink huge amounts of time into it - because it's engaging and stimulating, like poking a sore tooth. Watching a sad movie isn't enjoyable per se, but it's emotionally resonant and absorbing. I realize entertaining isn't quite the right word, but it's the closest I've got. The point is it's not about pleasure or happiness, it's about what compels attention and emotional energy.
If you look at many of the things people do, you can see this Entertainment Principle at work. Why do people rubberneck to gawk at car crashes? Morbid curiosity - it's grimly fascinating. Why do people gossip about coworkers or celebrities? It's more interesting than talking about work. Why do most Americans know more about the Marvel Cinematic Universe than about the Supreme Court or their local city council? The answer is obvious when you frame it that way. Why do people procrastinate? Because work is boring and the alternatives, while not necessarily fun per se, are a lot more entertaining - again in that broad sense of emotionally engaging.
A lot of political and business decisions make more sense when you view them through this lens. Companies and governments frequently do seemingly irrational things, or fail to do obvious things they should. But if you assume the real, unconscious goal is to maximize the entertainment value of the decision-making process - having dramatic arguments, evoking strong emotions, getting to indulge in juicy gossip and righteous condemnation, taking thrilling risks with other people's money - rather than to reach optimal decisions, it starts to make sense.
Even major historical events are shaped by the Entertainment Principle. Why did the Trojans drag that huge wooden horse into their city? Because the exciting story of it being a tribute was more compelling than the boring precaution of assuming it was a trick. Why did kings and queens so often lead their countries into ruinous wars? Because declaring war is exciting and dramatic, and trying to preserve peace is dull. The Entertainment Principle isn't literally true in the sense of physical laws - obviously people sometimes do boring and unpleasant things. But it's a simplifying assumption that makes a lot of things click into place.
Now, I can imagine the objections to this already. "People aren't that shallow - you're saying everyone just chases mindless entertainment like cats chasing laser pointers!" Well, no, there's entertaining and then there's entertaining. People do hard, painful things like running marathons because there's a different, deeper sort of emotional engagement in it. "But people do all sorts of things that aren't entertaining at all, like going to work and doing chores!" True, because there's an indirect motive: they need money to afford the things that are entertaining.
The Entertainment Principle isn't literally true 100% of the time. But it sure does seem to explain a lot, once you start looking for it. Teen pregnancy, check. Art museum exhibits that are more provocative than insightful, check. Electing charismatic blowhards over competent technocrats, check. Treating politics as a team sport, check. Dumb corporate reorgs and strategy shifts, check. The success of Las Vegas, reality TV, and far-fetched conspiracy theories, check check check.
Even the lines of development of entire technologies are warped by the Entertainment Principle. It's not a coincidence that the Internet has evolved into the world's most engaging timesink, or that smartphones are now precision-engineered dopamine delivery systems. Our compulsion to seek stimulation leads us to create systems that are optimized to stimulate us. It's an awfully convenient organizing principle.
Now, you may quite reasonably wonder, if this principle is true, what do we do about it? How do you get people to do useful but boring things? I'm honestly not sure - it's a hard problem. You can try to make boring things more engaging, but then you risk compromising on the boring but necessary parts. You can try to train people to overcome the Entertainment Principle, but that's swimming upstream. You can set up systems and incentives to channel it, like turning chores into games, but that only goes so far.
I suspect the answer is, first, to be aware of the Entertainment Principle so you can account for it. It's a natural human tendency, like loss aversion or status quo bias, and just being mindful of it is helpful. Second, we can at least try to harness it for useful purposes - if people are going to be engaged and stimulated, it's best if it's by things that are enriching or educational or meaningful. We can't overcome this tendency, but perhaps we can nudge it in positive directions. It's not much, but it's a start.
These aren't stunning new insights, I know. The Entertainment Principle is just a reframing of an old observation, that people are drawn to bread and circuses. But it's the kind of thing that's easy to forget, and that has profound implications. Which, if you think about it, is a rather entertaining idea.