Keanu Reeves says it is difficult to link violence in films to violence in life? And we think his opinion is valid based on what?
We keep insisting that because you can't draw a straight and immediate line from any particular film (or video game) to any particular act of violence then there is no connection. People don't watch "The Matrix" and then go on a shooting rampage as the credits roll. That's not how it works. People also don't eat a chili dog and then drop dead. What does happen, is that over time, exposure to violence accumulates into an increasingly aggressive personality and a significant decrease in compassion. The chili dog analogy holds: eat a chili dog a day and over time your heart will pay for it.
The science is clear about the negative impact of violence, but because we like our violence and facing our culpability is uncomfortable, we allow ourselves to ignore the science and grab on to the opinions of people who let us keep our violence guilt-free. Need I mention that the people most vocal about the insignificance of violence in the media are a)people who profit from the media and b) people who are profiting the media by spending their money to get vicarious violent thrills.
Am I a violence free zone? No. In fact one of my favorite shows, "Supernatural," is a weekly violence fest. I will return to the food analogy. One chili dog a week is not going to kill me; especially if I supplement my diet with beneficial foods and activities. Here is my question: What is the media equivalent of a vegetable, or a workout? If you insist on consuming violence, then how can you do that conscientiously? What are you doing to undo the negative outcomes? (Here I am assuming that you don't want to be an aggressive, un-compassionate person who treats others badly.)
Karen Armstrong has a new book out Twelve Steps To A Compassionate Life. The Dalai Lama has some great ideas, too. Maybe check out the New Testament? I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that it is important to ask the questions.
(For a much, much better exploration into this topic, check out Karen Dill's work: http://www.amazon.com/How-Fantasy-Becomes-Reality-Influence/dp/0195372085/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1)
Monday, January 17, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Congress should sit together
Colorado's Sen. Mark Udall is on to something great with the simple suggestion that Congress people sit together.
In "Click: The Magic of Instant Connections" by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman, the authors make a strong argument for the sheer power of proximity.
"We usually don't give much thought to where we sit in class or in an office meeting. But in fact a couple of feet of space make a world of difference. The likelihood of clicking, of forming a meaningful connection, with someone increases exponentially the closer we are to that person."
And--
"Moreover, employees who worked in different departments but sat close to each other were six times more likely to form collaborative partnerships than they were with counterparts in different departments who worked on different floors."
Exponential increases? Six times more likely? One possible explanation relates to spontaneous communication, which is that chatting about little things that just happens when you see people. I think sitting down next to someone and shooting the breeze about the weather may make it harder for you to demonize them as anti-American, or whatever your favorite epithet may be. You might even be inspired to talk about more meaningful topics and strike up a collaboration.
Comedians have been making fun of this idea of sitting together, but the Brafmans and the research they cite make a compelling argument that something so simple could make a difference. I propose that once a month Congress move to new randomly assigned seats. Imagine, if being close to people is enough to make you like them more, and more likely to collaborate, then the partisan divide could start to mend.
It could happen.
Cheers.
In "Click: The Magic of Instant Connections" by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman, the authors make a strong argument for the sheer power of proximity.
"We usually don't give much thought to where we sit in class or in an office meeting. But in fact a couple of feet of space make a world of difference. The likelihood of clicking, of forming a meaningful connection, with someone increases exponentially the closer we are to that person."
And--
"Moreover, employees who worked in different departments but sat close to each other were six times more likely to form collaborative partnerships than they were with counterparts in different departments who worked on different floors."
Exponential increases? Six times more likely? One possible explanation relates to spontaneous communication, which is that chatting about little things that just happens when you see people. I think sitting down next to someone and shooting the breeze about the weather may make it harder for you to demonize them as anti-American, or whatever your favorite epithet may be. You might even be inspired to talk about more meaningful topics and strike up a collaboration.
Comedians have been making fun of this idea of sitting together, but the Brafmans and the research they cite make a compelling argument that something so simple could make a difference. I propose that once a month Congress move to new randomly assigned seats. Imagine, if being close to people is enough to make you like them more, and more likely to collaborate, then the partisan divide could start to mend.
It could happen.
Cheers.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Two great quotes on media influence
As I delve ever deeper into the study of media psychology, I become increasingly horrified by the degree to which we are influenced by media. The inconvenient truth is that we are influenced by media, significantly and permanently and despite all our protestations to the contrary.
These two quotes are food for thought:
"Sealed away from crowds,we let the media teach us what other segments of humanity are like and, as a consequence, cannot help but expect that all strangers will be murderers, swindlers, vain celebrities, crooked politicians, and pedophiles, a trend that reinforces impulses to trust only those very few individuals who have been vetted for us by preexisting networks of family and class." ~Alain de Botton
"All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered."~Marshall McLuhan
Yeah--what they said!
~Dawn E. Mc-A aka Dawn McMillan-Austin
These two quotes are food for thought:
"Sealed away from crowds,we let the media teach us what other segments of humanity are like and, as a consequence, cannot help but expect that all strangers will be murderers, swindlers, vain celebrities, crooked politicians, and pedophiles, a trend that reinforces impulses to trust only those very few individuals who have been vetted for us by preexisting networks of family and class." ~Alain de Botton
"All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered."~Marshall McLuhan
Yeah--what they said!
~Dawn E. Mc-A aka Dawn McMillan-Austin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)