Is scientific entertainment™ an offshoot of behavioral science or behavioral medicine? With the FDA approving video games as therapy for the first time, the question is hardly idle. The answer may explain how Humaginarium achieves meaningful outcomes.
Behavioral science is the study of human behavior through observation, modeling, and experiment. Behavioral scientists investigate why people do what they do, and how they might do better. The scientists have a voracious appetite for meaning, so they stir separate disciplines into a unified mode of inquiry, wrangling diverse epistemology in order to discern and use truth in more holistic and robust ways.
Behavioral medicine is likewise the study of human behavior with a unified mode of inquiry. Practitioners study why people are unhealthy or at risk of illness, prone to injury, difficult to treat, heal, or cure; why they’re frail or short lived, and how they can manage health with more than biomedicine. Having a voracious appetite for meaning, practitioners look beyond clinic to identify environmental, psychological and social dimensions, causes, or palliations of disease – and try to make good use of them.
I now think that scientific entertainment is indeed an offshoot of these correlates; that it’s “behavioral entertainment.” It involves depictions of human behavior derived from observation, modeling, and experiment. It relates why people do what they do, and how they might do better. For example, why they often increase risks rather than avoid or control them; and how they might act differently to produce more desirable outcomes.
Could it be that standup comedy on The Daily Show is also behavioral entertainment; likewise animation by Pixar, theater by Lin Manuel Miranda, painting by Banksy, fiction by Margaret Atwood, movies by Guillermo Del Toro, music by Bob Dylan, and video games by Will Wright? All of these make audiences feel good while moving them to create and use new meaning.
If scientific entertainment in Humaginarium is behavioral, it’s important to remember that behavior is more than how people act; it’s also why. As Robert Sapolsky makes abundantly clear, without getting to the why there is no getting to behavioral outcomes.
In humans, “why” leads through a morass of conscious choices and decisions, through nervous reactions of the senses, all the way to the tremulous molecules that compose our bodies and microorganisms that live in and on us – some keeping us alive and others just the opposite.
I’m claiming to be behavioral, but not behaviorist. I don’t suppose that humans are machines that can be programmed with external conditioning. More in line with behavioral economics, I think people should not be trained, conditioned, or forced to do anything they prefer not to do.
The job of scientific entertainment in Humaginarium is to help them recognize choices and make decisions in what they believe is their own self-interest. That’s our nudge to wellness™.
The nudge is what allows us to generate behavioral outcomes. As I have often heard the butterfly say to the fish, “the best thing in the world you can be is yourself.” People who find themselves in Humaginarium may grow more confident that they’re incredibly beautiful and brave and may become ever more so.