Okay, I’m comfortable confessing this openly, but just barely: when I meet people, I try to summarize them with a series of adjectives to place them into boxes, even though I know they don’t quite fit perfectly (we are human, all too human, after all). It just makes it easier for me to “get them”—and this insight was the starting point for one of the key features in our technology here at SpotlessMind. But imagine you did this not just with the people you meet, but with your favorite TV shows.
Our team just did that among ourselves a few days ago, in what we call a “Fun Friday”. Let’s review some of the results.
Edward created this image based on a TV show so ubiquitous, I don’t even need to name it, but I will: “Friends”. Can you believe it’s been 30 years since it first aired? (That’s like referencing a TV show from 1955 when I was a kid in 1985!) Let’s take a look:
Okay, this is hysterical—you get a gold star, Edward. Phoebe is the “eccentric idealist,” and wouldn’t it be great to know that before even meeting her, so you could show up to meet her in your weirdest clothing? Or that Monica is the “compulsive perfectionist,” so you could pay attention to every little detail in every message to her before you meet her?
Yours truly, of course, tried to one-up Edward by—of course—siding with “Seinfeld” in the eternal “Friends” vs. “Seinfeld” debate. I’m from New York and a cynical New Yorker Jewish self-proclaimed wannabe intellectual, how can I not love “Seinfeld”?
Okay, this is hysterical, but I give myself only a bronze star because I could have done much, much better. Look at that cast of characters—just seeing these labels makes me want to hang out with them. Kramer is the definition of the “chaotic visionary!” And George, the “neurotic schemer!” Try this exercise: imagine you want to hire one of them, and you read George’s resume—it looks great (hey, he worked for the Yankees, after all!)—but wouldn’t you want to know he’s the “neurotic schemer” before hiring him?
Ali then followed up by analyzing “The Office” in this same trait-based way:
If you were interviewed for a job by Michael Scott, would you have realized he’s a “Delusional Leader”? But even if you didn’t, wouldn’t you really want to know that before accepting that job? This is actually an interesting use case for our system: not just for the company analyzing the prospect, but for the prospect analyzing the company. I’d love to send one of our questionnaires to a prospective boss—it would be interesting to see how he responds. Testing the bounds before you even get the job offer! Good job, Ali—you and everyone else who follows will be tied for getting gold stars. We try to be democratic in these parts.
Rebeca, of course, then showed up out of nowhere and hit a home run: she analyzed two TV shows. First, “The Big Bang Theory”:
I’ve never seen this show—not even one episode—because, as a self-proclaimed King of the Nerds, I have an instinctive revulsion (or is it repulsion? Or both?) to simplifying the deep, complex, sophisticated essence of nerdiness into a simple TV formula. So I can try to analyze these people only using these adjectives—not biased by the reality of the shows. One character is “socially awkward”—okay, yup, right out of a nerdy stereotype. Another is an “obsessive genius”—okay, right out of another stereotype. (Why isn’t there a “computer nerd” type, as long as we’re dealing in stereotypes?) Then there’s a “quirky romantic”—yup, every male nerd’s fantasy of the Magic Pixie Dream Girl. Okay, okay, now these traits have helped me see why I wouldn’t like this show: the traits are too simple, too obvious. Just compare them to, say, the “Seinfeld” ones above like “neurotic schemer” or “chaotic visionary”—see how those types are very real but a lot less common, which is a great formula for powerful insight into humanity. Of course, this is just what I look for in a TV show, and most people are different, which is why “The Big Bang Theory” is one of the best shows of the decade, and I’ve personally never been talented enough to write a great TV show. Yes, all the fans of this show are about to hate me, but I’m ready for it; wouldn’t life be so much more boring if we didn’t share what we thought openly?
Let’s look at Rebeca’s other meme, for “How I Met Your Mother”:
Okay, I’ve never seen this show either, so I have no comment on the “reality” of any of the characters, but I’d make a comparable analysis to “The Big Bang Theory”: just based on these traits, I just know it’s not a show for me—because the traits here are too obvious and simple (“Gentle Giant”? C’mon!)—so I know to avoid it. And this is more support for why I want to know the traits and adjectives of everyone I meet before I do, just so I can know who to avoid. And as always, it doesn’t mean they’re bad—just not for me. And still, as always, no human fits neatly into a box, and even the “Hopeless Romantic” or “Manipulative Sweetheart” has a lot of nuance and subtlety to their personalities, I’m sure—but it is directionally correct enough to help point me in the right direction.
In conclusion: I need to do this same exercise for “Game of Thrones”; there would be multiple “Sadist Masochists,” and even if that is still too simplified—it’s at least fun for me to watch fictional sadistic masochists in action.
Want to try your hand at your favorite TV show? Send them to us or tag us—and we’ll share them here!
