I guess you’re already familiar with them – the classic behavioral reinforcement experiments with the lottery-playing pigeons. Seemingly, we would not know much about human behavior if it weren’t for those helpful pigeons. Someone should hand them a Nobel Peace Prize or something.

In a previous post I wrote about the pigeon’s help in learning us how to shape behavior. Pigeon’s were also the one’s showing us the importance of not being spoiled and the power of gambling. The classic partial reinforcement experiments highlighted the fact that not rewarding behavior every time, only sometimes, make subjects (pigeons and people alike) more inclined to continue and increase their target behavior. If food doesn’t come every time, the button gets pecked more frequently, the slot machine lever gets pulled more often, the email box refresh button gets pressed more frenetically – “maybe next time it’s the jackpot!”

There is, of course, an optimum frequency of rewards. You cannot reward to rarely, then people and pigeons give up and conclude that their behaviors do not pay off. And if rewarded too frequently, we get spoiled and tend to lose interest, exhibiting the behavior only if and when we really have to.

There is a fine line between not forcing pigeons and people to give up on the one hand, and spoiling them on the other hand. Can you guess the exact number (if you were ever a student of mine you should be able to…)?

Obviously, knowing exactly when a new post will appear should soon lead people to visit a blog at the minimum necessary rate. “A post a day keeps the visitor away (except for the visit only once a day)”, etc. By not posting something on Monday, maybe I could increase the frequency of your visits?

But let’s not treat each other like pigeons for once. Here’s the news:

No posts this week, as it is Labor week. I will be down in a global monetary brand valuation task force basement the first two days (unofficial labor week for me), and then it’s official Labor week for the rest of the days according to the Swedish calendar (serious things around here…)

So, ponder on that magic number and I’ll see you next Monday!  

Remember Mötley Crüe? Metallica? Or Guns n’ Roses? On the subject of killing one’s darlings, death has certainly followed in their paths.

In Mötley Crüe’s case, singer Vince Neil was involved in the accident killing drummer Razzle of the Finnish glam band Hanoi Rocks. And a fascinating rumour spread in the 90’s that Nikki Sixx at that time was not the real Nikki Sixx, but rather a stand-in for the real guy who had secretly OD:d.

In Metallica’s case, death came in the form of a bus accident outside a small town in Sweden, in the middle of nowhere, killing bass player Cliff Burton. And rumours have it that the band members almost killed each other at the peak of their success in the late 90’s.

Guns n’ Roses have steered clear of death, though singer Axl Rose has been subject to murder attempts.

Besides the vicinity to death, the three bands have in common that they were (are..?) iconic bands, defining the youths and the outlook on music for three age cohorts. You do not mess with this heritage, this responsibility, this more or less dormant relationship that fans would want to control.

So, when Tommy Lee of Mötley Crüe, Jason Newsted of Metallica and Gilby Clarke of Guns n’ Roses decided to form a new band together, they chose to play it safe: “You’ll be the boss of us and decide who should be our front-person!” Out of thousands of applicants, 15 male and female wannabe lead singers were picked  to take part in the Rockstar Supernova TV show, broadcast by CBS in 2006.

Each week, viewers voted for their favorite candidate, and the last man standing was Canadian-born Lukas Rossi. Before the end of the year, the band was formed, a world tour conceived, and a self-titled album released (of course, selling platinum in Canada).

Here’s their latest single Can’t bring myself to light this fuse:

Don’t like it? Well, don’t kill them – you had the control, they are the work of Generation In-Charge.

Remember my earlier post about how 27 years of age is no longer the expiration date for creativity as we are leaving the old millennium in the dust? Trent Reznor, front-man of the (in)famous band Nine Inch Nails (among other things, quoted by Marilyn Manson as a major inspiration…) is living proof of this. At the age of 32 (terribly old…) he was named one of the 25 most influential people of the year by Time magazine, and Spin magazine dubbed him the most vital artist in music. He continues to experiment and stretch the borders of popular music beyond his thirties (really, really old…)

In the beginning of 2008, Nine Inch Nails (NIN) released the album Ghosts. Or rather, four albums, titled Ghosts I-IV. Mainly instrumental pieces. Kind of a stretch, even for Trent Reznor. Maybe a bit too much to swallow, even for die-hard fans. But nobody has killed him yet. Maybe it’s because he posted this youtube clip last month:

The clip is an invite to the Nine Inch Nails Ghosts film festival. Everybody is invited to make their own videos to the Ghosts albums’ materials – to make sense and use of this musical stretch, to control how Trent & co. present themselves and their work.

Yesterday, the official NIN Ghosts film festival youtube channel comprised 919 videos and gathered 5,897 members. In addition, there are 1,820 NIN Ghosts clips.

In the world of any, anyone, anywhere can control NIN’s output at anytime.

Like this one, the most viewed clip so far, posted by a Japanese fan linking the Olympics to time travel…

British “alternative rock” band Radiohead recently released their latest single, Nude, off the album In Rainbows. Check out their performing it:

Don’t like it? Well, don’t kill them because of it. Make it better yourself!

“Alternative artists” have always had a rather difficult relationship with their fans, who tend to identify rather strongly with their darlings, be rather dogmatic about their mutual relationship and picky about the darlings’ actions.  ”Alternative artists” tend to be their fans’ darlings to an even higher degree than their fellow celebrities. Releasing a new album, changing musical direction, is always high-risk, as fans may feel insulted – and, as a result, decide to leave the relationship. Or try to regain control of the artist.

Radiohead now allows fans to regain control over them without killing them. On radioheadremix.com anyone can upload their remix of the band’s latest single. All the song’s stems – guitars, voice, beats, symphonics – are available to anyone who wants to remaster the composition. The morning I write this, 1,794 remixes have been uploaded on the website. Everyone is invited to listen to the remixes and cast their vote, which more than 100,000 people already have done. The last day to vote is May 1. After that, Radiohead will follow their masters’ voices.

In case you haven’t noticed (of course you have…), the primaries have taken over the US. Whereas the run is rather even at the moment, Hillary Clinton did have an early head-start. No wonder. From the very beginning, she focused on the things that really matter to people. Like choosing the right campaign song.

Well, actually, Hillary did not choose her campaign song. Generation In-Charge did. In the spring of 2007, Hillary launched a campaign site where people could vote for their favorite Hillary song. And hundreds of thousands of people actually did within the following month. The nominees included The Temptations’ Get Ready, US’ Beautiful Day, Smash Mouth’s I’m A Believer, Celine Dion’s You and I, and Dixie Chicks’ Ready to Run.

The contending songs are presented in the video clip below. It is a parody of the ending scene of the final episode of the Sopranos TV series – pointing to Hillary’s website where the winner is announced.

Politics have always been about reaching out, that’s nothing new for the new millennium. What is new is that no one needs to be upset about the means Hillary uses to come across – you can decide for her!

In case you haven’t noticed, the winner was:

My weird question last week was, will people continue to kill their darlings in the new millennium at the same pace as they did in the old? Will it be more or less common for celebrities to be subject to murder and assassination attempts like their old-millennium colleagues John Lennon, Dimebag Darrell and Ronald Reagan?

My answer would be – less common. Not because the celebrities of today hire better security (though they do this as well), or because people in the new millennium would be less killer-prone in general. But because today, people feel less of a need to kill their darlings.

Remember that a primary reason for killing one’s darling idols or spouses is that one feels that one cannot control them. Well, now you can (or at least, think that you can). Never before have so many people protested against injustices, joined forces for good causes, worn red, started facebook groups etc. In the world of any, anyone can rally millions of people for any reason, any time. And so we expect that we can influence anyone and anything. We have evolved into the Generation In-Charge.  

Just ask multinational bank HSBC. In 2007, they wanted to change their student loan policy. A British student did not want that. On facebook he rallied his friends, who invited their friends, and soon the names of thousands time thousands students across the globe were enough to convince the multinational bank to reverse their decision. They realized that they cannot charge the new-millennium people any way they want, as these people belong to the Generation In-Charge.

How does this keep celebrities alive? Time for a new theme week. See you tomorrow…

Do you know who Tricia Walsh Smith is? There’s a pretty good chance you do. Within two days after she posted her clip on Youtube, it had been viewed more than 2 million times. And generated 71 response videos (watched by another million people). Not to mention all the Google hits and media attention that have come off of it.

Tricia’s clip is her bitter reaction to her famous husband wanting to divorce her. And most responses are bitter reactions to her reaction. Rights and wrongs aside, it is fascinating to see how she has turned herself into a 15-microseconds-of-famer. Watch the clip, she is definitely all-in…

Tricia’s day job is actually as a TV soap opera actress and writer (for example, appearing in Bonkers, The best years of your life, and Grange Hill). But I guess you did not know that, most people seem not to have noticed her before her divorce clip… 

This just in. I just had to write about it. Disney and Pixar just announced that they will make a sequel to the 2006 movie Cars. If you’re not familiar with the movie, you probably do not know anyone below the age of 10. Everybody younger than that (and everybody in those kids’ vicinity) knows Cars. Acquaint or reacquaint yourself with it:

There’s nothing special about announcing a sequel. It has happened for decades. However, in the new millennium they are announced in new ways and according to new logic. I’ll get back to some of those lately. In the Cars case, the way is not new, but the time frame:

The new Cars movie will be released in – 2012!

Obviously, the 10- kids will be much older by then, maybe not even in the market for the movie. But announcing the faraway release date now is nevertheless a brilliant idea. Why? Because the movie is not the moneymaker. The merchandise is. In less than two years’ time, the Cars merchandise that has spawned off the first movie has evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry. But how much more merchandise can they sell based on an old movie? Everything ages so fast in the world of any, with new movies and entertainment formats popping up every second. 

By now, the 2006 Cars movie is oooold. But there is a fantastic new (nextopia) 2012 Cars movie coming up! How can people get hold of it? They can’t. But by getting the merchandise now and in the next few years to come, they can subscribe to that brilliant, mesmerizing, future movie.

We have all heard it before, probably even said it: it is so hard to kill your darlings. That may be true, as long as those darlings are words. Telling or writing one’s story with a limited number of words is difficult, simply because we are so fond of our own expressions, they become our darlings. Darlings that we, by controlling them (since they are our own), have no control over.

The same mechanisms make the saying less true when it comes to other kinds of darlings. John Lennon, Brad Pitt, Ronald Reagan, Julius Ceasar, Samson – dead or subject to murder attempts by the hands of people who claimed to love them. The people that celebrities – music artists, movie stars, politicians – fear the most are their fans. And whenever a non-famous person is murdered and the perpetrator is unknown, the default suspect is – their spouse. Simply because history suggests that s/he actually did it in most cases.

Please, if you have more examples of famous people killed by their fans or spouses  -drop a line!

So why is history filled with examples of people killing their darlings? Because one of our most fundamental human traits is the need to feel in control. The more important something becomes (the more dear it is to us), the more we want to control it. We (incorrectly) believe that we can control our own words, so we cannot kill them. But we do not feel that we can control other people. So when these people do something that manifests their admirers’ non-control, history suggests they should watch their backs…

Are famous people more or less likely to get killed in the new millennium and the world of any? 

OK, yesterday having reminded you and myself where I spend much of my time (did you enjoy the discounting? Or are you too normal..?), I feel that I have some slack today.

Slack enough to deal with another one of last week’s questions: Those having the most sex are married people who are heavy Internet users. At least according to an online study of more than 20,000 Internet users worldwide. Why?

The reason is the same as why TV is the new carrots, remember? Almost by definition, more use of the Internet leads to more exposure to sex (social psychology research has actually found that the number one driver of pornography consumption is accessibility. And nowhere is it more accessible than on the Internet). Of course, it does not have to be explicit sex material, sexual content in news flashes, seductive music videos, or attractive people, may have similar effects. And just like the previously investigated effect of TV and the Internet on material aspirations, the more aware we become of sex opportunities, the more we want.

Remember that the happiness-maximizing number of sexual partners is one? Once again, accessibility. Being married, there is a pretty high likelihood that you will be able to have sex when you wish to. So staying online long turns you on and marriage enables you to get busy. At least, if one is to believe the words of 20,000 Internet users.

Remember the guys in the clip below? Back in the old millennium, this video rendered them 15 minutes in the limelight. I am not sure if they would make even 15 microseconds today…