Consensus is not quality
And inoffensive is not a compliment
When I was a child, a man in a suit stopped me at the mall.
He asked if I would be willing to offer my young opinions on an unreleased marshmallow cereal. No part of me could refuse. I was taken to a little room and handed a styrofoam bowl overflowing with anonymous shapes. Then I was asked to rate it along several dimensions, one to ten.
It’s not a clever process, but a focus group has its uses. Consumer packaged goods cost millions to produce. Marketers want to know whether a product, on average, will sell. A focus group is an algorithm for derisking a commodity bet.
What this process cannot measure is whether a thing is culturally worthwhile. Consensus is not quality.
The stochastic methods of product testing are a filter for strong objections, not a detector of virtue. Run anything through enough minds and the sharp parts are sanded away. What survives is whatever wasn’t objected to, and that is not a compliment.
The middle of the curve is acceptable sometimes. It’s useful in families, picnics, and politics, where more agreement means more is possible. All endeavor requires compromise.
The middle of the curve is unacceptable in art, alchemy, or craft, where removing sharpness means you will learn nothing. You need a little friction, instead.
Beware of anyone who tells you they have done the math on taste. Aggregating broad assent is not the same as producing quality work. The output is bland, beige consensus that cannot challenge you or inspire you.
This may be the seminal confusion of our brave new world.