FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Does what we watch
Does what we watch
Jump to: Newest in thread
I never let my son watch television until he was 5. I needed him to understand between fact and fiction which he did learn at a young age. When he was abit older I allowed him to watch adult programmes and explain them to him. He had a good understanding and by the time he was 15 I had no problem with him watching 18 movies (bad mother I know) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *aggonerMan
over a year ago
for a penny |
"No. I think most people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality"
I don’t think “ most people”.
On R4 this morning someone said that the producer of The Only Way is Essex, when asked if the disputes were choreographed, said the the people involved usually couldn’t discern between reality and fantasy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Affect the what we think? "
Yes.
The most uninformed and ridiculous argument that someone could use against this would be that 'people know the difference between fantasy and reality'
Of course we do know the difference ( most of the time ) but that doesn't change anything about the fact that once you see something you cannot un-see it and you cannot un-hear it and you cannot not react to it.
We take in everything possible from everything surrounding us from the moment we are born and what we absorb affects us psychologically whether we are aware of it's effect and subsequent change or not.
To say that we are not changed is to deny everything that a person has taken in visually throughout their life.
Vision = thought = reaction/behaviour ( not my opinion a simple scientific fact )
I'd never argue that watching a sexual assault or a murder means that you would go out and perform these acts but you will be changed in some way by watching/hearing about them. If you are repulsed by a story you see or hear on the news you will be changed.
Emotional experiences change us. To say we are not changed by viewing something is the same as saying you are unmoved there is no emotional reaction ..... and that means you are saying something else about yourself entirely.
People get up in arms about conservation when Attenborough is on t.v.
Why do people try to convince others that they don't think about these things....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Affect the what we think?
Yes.
The most uninformed and ridiculous argument that someone could use against this would be that 'people know the difference between fantasy and reality'
Of course we do know the difference ( most of the time ) but that doesn't change anything about the fact that once you see something you cannot un-see it and you cannot un-hear it and you cannot not react to it.
We take in everything possible from everything surrounding us from the moment we are born and what we absorb affects us psychologically whether we are aware of it's effect and subsequent change or not.
To say that we are not changed is to deny everything that a person has taken in visually throughout their life.
Vision = thought = reaction/behaviour ( not my opinion a simple scientific fact )
I'd never argue that watching a sexual assault or a murder means that you would go out and perform these acts but you will be changed in some way by watching/hearing about them. If you are repulsed by a story you see or hear on the news you will be changed.
Emotional experiences change us. To say we are not changed by viewing something is the same as saying you are unmoved there is no emotional reaction ..... and that means you are saying something else about yourself entirely.
People get up in arms about conservation when Attenborough is on t.v.
Why do people try to convince others that they don't think about these things....
"
Thanks for that stream of intelligence granny |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ynecplCouple
over a year ago
Newcastle upon Tyne |
It can affect what I think sometimes but I don't think it affects my actions. There have been times when it has affected my mood for a brief period during and whilst watching the programme. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I’d think Fox News and other right wing TV stations in the US do feed their viewers prejudices and fears.
I listen to James O’Brien on LBC he must have some effect on my views and politics. But I only gravitate towards that content originally if I heard something that solidified a view I already had.
My opinion is we will always search out for content we agree with, it’s just that content could radicalise us without us realising it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Confirmation bias is very real.
If you believe the earth is flat and only watch programs in support of your theory then you’ll never change your idiotic viewpoint.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Affect the what we think?
Yes.
The most uninformed and ridiculous argument that someone could use against this would be that 'people know the difference between fantasy and reality'
Of course we do know the difference ( most of the time ) but that doesn't change anything about the fact that once you see something you cannot un-see it and you cannot un-hear it and you cannot not react to it.
We take in everything possible from everything surrounding us from the moment we are born and what we absorb affects us psychologically whether we are aware of it's effect and subsequent change or not.
To say that we are not changed is to deny everything that a person has taken in visually throughout their life.
Vision = thought = reaction/behaviour ( not my opinion a simple scientific fact )
I'd never argue that watching a sexual assault or a murder means that you would go out and perform these acts but you will be changed in some way by watching/hearing about them. If you are repulsed by a story you see or hear on the news you will be changed.
Emotional experiences change us. To say we are not changed by viewing something is the same as saying you are unmoved there is no emotional reaction ..... and that means you are saying something else about yourself entirely.
People get up in arms about conservation when Attenborough is on t.v.
Why do people try to convince others that they don't think about these things....
"
Going to have a slight challenge at this one. You aren't wrong that - secondary experiences have an emotional response and we integrate all experiences - I agree.
However, a direct experience of a traumatic event can effect the brain differently and with much greater severity. Essentially, cognition is bypassed. A trigger creates a completely irrational response to imagined threats.
Someone with PTSD could sit through a horror movie completely fine and be traumatised by The Teletubbies.
So my point is there's such a significant difference in the level of 'change' in the vast majority of cases. It's relatively fair to say secondary experiences are harmless. Children's brains are hyper sensitive due neuron-density and under-developed brains. They could be more susceptible to both. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Affect the what we think?
Yes.
The most uninformed and ridiculous argument that someone could use against this would be that 'people know the difference between fantasy and reality'
Of course we do know the difference ( most of the time ) but that doesn't change anything about the fact that once you see something you cannot un-see it and you cannot un-hear it and you cannot not react to it.
We take in everything possible from everything surrounding us from the moment we are born and what we absorb affects us psychologically whether we are aware of it's effect and subsequent change or not.
To say that we are not changed is to deny everything that a person has taken in visually throughout their life.
Vision = thought = reaction/behaviour ( not my opinion a simple scientific fact )
I'd never argue that watching a sexual assault or a murder means that you would go out and perform these acts but you will be changed in some way by watching/hearing about them. If you are repulsed by a story you see or hear on the news you will be changed.
Emotional experiences change us. To say we are not changed by viewing something is the same as saying you are unmoved there is no emotional reaction ..... and that means you are saying something else about yourself entirely.
People get up in arms about conservation when Attenborough is on t.v.
Why do people try to convince others that they don't think about these things....
Going to have a slight challenge at this one. You aren't wrong that - secondary experiences have an emotional response and we integrate all experiences - I agree.
However, a direct experience of a traumatic event can effect the brain differently and with much greater severity. Essentially, cognition is bypassed. A trigger creates a completely irrational response to imagined threats.
Someone with PTSD could sit through a horror movie completely fine and be traumatised by The Teletubbies.
So my point is there's such a significant difference in the level of 'change' in the vast majority of cases. It's relatively fair to say secondary experiences are harmless. Children's brains are hyper sensitive due neuron-density and under-developed brains. They could be more susceptible to both."
"They could be more susceptible to both."
Im very interested in the debate... Hence the op. But shouldnt we (the clever bods) be able to assert with a little more authority about the impact of our media content on what and how behave?
As others have said. Surely the colossal amount of spending on tv, media and online advertising is evidence that they believe it has an impact on behaviour or they wouldnt be spending their advertising budgets.?
Why has cigarette advertising been banned for years if it has no effect on behaviour? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aggonerMan
over a year ago
for a penny |
"Does what we think, affect what we watch? "
Yes.
We watch our favourite programmes or personalities. They’re our favourites because they reflect what we believe or what we like.
We buy newspapers that reinforce our prejudices, right, centre or left. There aren’t many of us who have genuinely balanced points of view. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Affect the what we think?
Yes.
The most uninformed and ridiculous argument that someone could use against this would be that 'people know the difference between fantasy and reality'
Of course we do know the difference ( most of the time ) but that doesn't change anything about the fact that once you see something you cannot un-see it and you cannot un-hear it and you cannot not react to it.
We take in everything possible from everything surrounding us from the moment we are born and what we absorb affects us psychologically whether we are aware of it's effect and subsequent change or not.
To say that we are not changed is to deny everything that a person has taken in visually throughout their life.
Vision = thought = reaction/behaviour ( not my opinion a simple scientific fact )
I'd never argue that watching a sexual assault or a murder means that you would go out and perform these acts but you will be changed in some way by watching/hearing about them. If you are repulsed by a story you see or hear on the news you will be changed.
Emotional experiences change us. To say we are not changed by viewing something is the same as saying you are unmoved there is no emotional reaction ..... and that means you are saying something else about yourself entirely.
People get up in arms about conservation when Attenborough is on t.v.
Why do people try to convince others that they don't think about these things....
Going to have a slight challenge at this one. You aren't wrong that - secondary experiences have an emotional response and we integrate all experiences - I agree.
However, a direct experience of a traumatic event can effect the brain differently and with much greater severity. Essentially, cognition is bypassed. A trigger creates a completely irrational response to imagined threats.
Someone with PTSD could sit through a horror movie completely fine and be traumatised by The Teletubbies.
So my point is there's such a significant difference in the level of 'change' in the vast majority of cases. It's relatively fair to say secondary experiences are harmless. Children's brains are hyper sensitive due neuron-density and under-developed brains. They could be more susceptible to both.
"They could be more susceptible to both."
Im very interested in the debate... Hence the op. But shouldnt we (the clever bods) be able to assert with a little more authority about the impact of our media content on what and how behave?
As others have said. Surely the colossal amount of spending on tv, media and online advertising is evidence that they believe it has an impact on behaviour or they wouldnt be spending their advertising budgets.?
Why has cigarette advertising been banned for years if it has no effect on behaviour? "
Very good points. There's a level of persuasive narrative in advertising though and we live a consumerist society so we are conditioned continuously to respond to that.
I suppose you could argue that persistent exposure to secondary traumatic experiences may have a similar effect. It seems plausible. I still think it would be unlikely to cause actual trauma. Maybe desensitisation to violence?
Interesting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
