Apollo BBS Archive - August 1991

Apollo BBS Archive - August 5, 1991

Message: 77405
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Entertainment/Movies
Subject: MTV
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 02:22:23

 MD>>MTV was born a day after Apollo.  Pretty spooky

Newsweek had an article on the 10th anniversary of MTV.  Its assessment?
"...progress.  MTV has changed the way we talk, dress, dance, make and
consume music, and *how we process information*" [emphasis added]...  "Logic
takes a break..."  "...it makes all of life a cool sexual fetish"...  "The
most electrifying bore on television..." "It gives you impossible
juxtapositions every time you turn it on.  That's as exciting as rock and
roll has been in a long time."

Entertaining?  Exciting?  No doubt.  A corrupting influence?  To some,
perhaps.  Unfortunately a lot of the people who criticize MTV do so on
rather narrow grounds, especially that it concentrates on sexual imagery and
particularly that it shows far too much *violent* sexual imagery.

This is a valid complaint, but it doesn't tell the whole story.  The
Newsweek article notes that "MTV has also been accused of shrinking young
people's attention spans...  Todd Gitlin, a professor of sociology at the
University of California, Berkeley, thinks that MTV has 'accelerated the
process by which people are more likely to think in images than in logic...
That's bad news for those who believe in democratic discussion.'  And
clearly," adds the Newsweek article, "the network is to blame for Milli
Vanilli" -- a crashingly trivial anticlimax compared with Professor Gitlin's
remarks.  Milli Vanilli actually did us a favor by waking us up to reality.

What does it mean to "think in images"?  Mainly that we are using the right-
brain functions of association and pattern recognition.  These are valuable
faculties.  We use them all the time; for example, when meeting somebody new
we subconsciously size them up by comparing them with stored memories of
people we have known before.  What kind of person is this?  Can they be
trusted?  We base a lot of our assessments on right-brain functions.

Right-brain function, too, is responsible for most artistic and creative
thinking.  It is important to science in formulating hypotheses.  We observe
facts; but to construct a hypothesis that accounts for these facts we first
have to discern a pattern in the facts and specify what that pattern is.  We
can then go on to *test* the hypothesis using left-brain functions of logic.
"If the hypothesis is true, then so-and-so ought to follow.  Now, does it?"

Associative thinking has its limitations, though.  It can lead us into
serious errors.  A good con-man, for example, somehow learns to imitate the
behavior patterns we associate with trustworthy people so that he can put
one over on us.  As another, quite different example, doctors thought for
centuries that syphilis and gonorrhea were the same disease.  The reason was
simply that many of the people who contracted syphilis -- no doubt due to
promiscuous behavior and the particular people they associated with -- also
had gonorrhea.  So the symptoms of the two diseases were confused.  The
confusion was not straightened out until the gonococcus was isolated and
seen to be a separate organism from the spirochete that caused syphilis.

Associative thinking is invaluable, but it cannot do an accurate job unless
we also apply logic.  An example from recent discussions here stated that
pornography and violent crime are correlated.  Where we find a lot of one
thing, we usually find a lot of the other.  We are probably right to suspect
a connection between the two, and seeing the connection is useful.  But what
exactly *is* that connection?  To ferret that out, we have to apply logic.

Does pornography *cause* violent crime?  Most normal people can understand
the attraction of pornography, but have more trouble understanding why a
minority of others want to go around killing and raping people.  Since
pornography on the face of things is more attractive than killing and
raping, it's natural to assume that the pornography came first; that
excessive use of it *led* to violent tendencies.  But this assumption is
based on the thinking of "normal" people, not that of disturbed people.  If
A and B are associated, it doesn't necessarily follow that A *caused* B.  It
might be that B caused A.  Or it could be that both A and B were caused by a
third, unseen factor, C, that these abnormal people share.  The truth can
only be ascertained by further investigation solidly founded on logic.

The great weakness of associative thinking is that it can easily be fooled
by accidentally or artificially constructed associations.  A child is "cared
for" by his parents -- which means he is given certain basic things he needs
to survive -- and because survival is more important to him than anything,
he appreciates the acts of these people and calls the acts "love".

If those people also beat him or sexually assault him, he learns in a
twisted, unconscious way to associate those acts with "love", and to justify
such acts in his mind.  The results are of course devastating.

We all know that there is no connection in reality between food and the
ringing of bells, but Pavlov's dogs were persuaded otherwise.  We too can be
persuaded otherwise when we are constantly bombarded with a succession of
images in which Pepsi-Cola is associated with "aliveness", or Chevrolets are
associated with the vitality of "heartbeats", or some other make is
associated with "intelligence" or "excitement" or whatever turns us on.
Most of all, we are vulnerable to associations with sex, because whatever
turns us on sexually does so at a primitive level of the brain, protected
from the process of critical thought.  So sex is used to sell everything,
including perhaps violence.  That is the danger of "thinking in images" --
that it can be used to manipulate us through our emotions.

I hardly ever watch TV any more.  Mainly that's because I thought a lot of
programming was trivial or boring and a waste of time, but I also realize
that I've been practicing a form of mental pollution control.

The ideal way of thinking, as I've said here before, is one in which reason
and emotion act as a team.  So we should be worried when these two get out
of balance.  There are signs of this happening today when we hear that the
"image" of something is important, rather than the values it represents.

All the time we hear that a politician is concerned with presenting the
"right" or the "wrong" image; that a company succeeds or fails according to
the "image" of its products; or that it fell down because it lacked "name
recognition" -- another form of associative thinking.  It's sad to hear that
Sears Roebuck, which based a century of success on honest values, is falling
on hard times because it can't strike the right "image".

Conversely, it's like a breath of fresh air to read a publication like
"Consumer Reports" that does its best to make *objective* assessments of the
real value of a product -- while mercilessly poking fun at all the bullcrap
that surrounds "imagery" and the vapid, meaningless phrases used to sell
products.  (A good giggle from the August issue: the Lynn Medical Instrument
Co. offers an electronic heart monitor that "allows for early detection of
sudden cardiac death".  The editors wondered how much the deceased would
appreciate that feature.)

Is MTV entirely to blame for the modern overemphasis on "image"?  I doubt
that.  It's more a matter of technology inevitably producing better ways of
manipulating stupid people.  All the same, when Melissa pointed out that the
birth of Apollo came so close to that of MTV, she illustrated how nature has
a way of balancing things out.  Television is a passive, visual medium.
BBSs are mostly a medium for discussion and debate, in which people
participate actively.  Discourse encourages people to develop the faculty of
critical thought.  We can still beat the sellers of empty "images".

Message: 77410
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: PeeWee Innocent?
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 05:39:50

It really doesn't matter whether he's proven guilty as charged or innocent
and pure as the driven snow. Regardless of the law, he will forever be
guilty in the eyes of the parents of the kids who watched his show, as well
as in the eyes of the networks and sponsors who don't want even the shadow
of such stuff to fall in their direction. He's history, in any case.

Message: 77411
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike Carter
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 05:49:22

 The posts you wrote to Dean conerning pornography were some of your best
stuff in a long time. I have just two things to add:
1. AMEN!
2. I wish I had said that!

Message: 77412
Author: Mark Adkins
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/correlations
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 09:10:51

There's a close relationship between the salaries of Presbyterian ministers
in Massachussets and the price of rum in Havana.  Must be some kind of
conspiracy (or maybe prices are just going up everywhere).
 
I think what people take away from MTV depends on what they bring with them,
to a certain extent.  
 
I also wonder about the connection between MTV style camera work and short
attention spans.  Maybe it's there.  At the same time, it may develop
focusing skills by requiring the viewer to follow the action in choppy,
three second intervals.  People from older generations (here I'm making an
unforgivable generalization) seem to have more difficulty following the plot
(where the concept of plot applies) than do viewers weaned on fast-paced
view-it-or-lose-it video.  On the other hand, it gets to be just plain
obnoxious, particularly when emulated by commercials for automobiles and
local newscasters.

Message: 77413
Author: Mark Adkins
Category: News Today
Subject: Paul Rubens
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 09:13:01

Entertainment Tonight reports that Penthouse mogul whats-his-name has
offered him $500,000 to star in an X-rated version of Pee-Wee's Playhouse. 
No word yet from Rubens.

Message: 77415
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: right brain/left bra
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 18:31:48

Gordon's posts reminded me of something I've been thinking about recently.
 
Of the thousands of decisions we make in a day, our conscious mind is only
directly involved in a few.  It's like "controlling" the ball in a pinball
machine when the ball is being bounced around by all the automatic or random
mechanisms and only occasionally comes in contact with the flippers that we
push the buttons for.  You can sort of steer the direction of the game with
the decisions you get to be involved with, but it's pretty arrogant to think
you're in complete control of everything that happens to you.
 
Before all the individual-responsibility advocates leap out of their
chairs, I should emphasize that this doesn't make you any less RESPONSIBLE
for the results!
 
I think people who try to plan their whole lives in advance and force
themselves to stick to their original plans are missing out on a lot.  Maybe
people who live for today are missing out on a lot also, but there's
probably some happy medium between the extremes.  If not, I know which lot
*I'D* rather have.  For me, planning is overemphasized in our culture and it
seems that people assume they know more than they really do when they make a
lot of plans.

Message: 77416
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Question?
Subject: Hey!
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 18:34:43

If I were to have a GT at my house in Central Phoenix this weekend or next
weekend, who would show up?
 
I still have a kitten to give away, along with my unattached female
housemate.

Message: 77417
Author: $ Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Plans
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 19:43:13

  I seem to have special difficulty when it comes to making a plan and
sticking to it. I used to try very hard to push or force myself into or
or away from some particular course of action and found myself doing exactly
what I had intended not to or not doing what I had...
  Some people 'seem' to find it easy to make plans and follow them, but I am
not one of them.
  There seems to be more involved in decisions than the conscious will...
there is a great deal of subconscious or semiconscious 'stuff' that
influences how we actually behave. Some of that is experience, some is
ideas, some seems to be physical or mental capabilities or limitations...
Part of life seems to be learning to overcome or work around those
limitations.

Message: 77418
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Question?
Subject: MJ/Housemate
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 22:09:31

Trying to find a home for her?

Message: 77419
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Michael
Date: 08/06/91  Time: 00:09:11

Yes, I've always found, for example, that vacations work out better if I
just *go* somewhere, with a sort of vague general idea about what I might do
when I get there.  It always turns out that there's something fun to do that
I didn't know was there.  (And perhaps might not have had time to do if I'd
filled in all the available time with other planned things.)

Sorry I can't take your kitten.  We just took another one in a couple of
weeks ago, bringing the cat total to five.  So tell us more about your
"unattached female housemate"...  :-)

Message: 77420
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: plans
Date: 08/06/91  Time: 00:47:15

I think that making plans is boring.  My only problem is when I do my care
free thing with someone who has it planned, then they get mad at me for not
sticking to an agenda.  

MJ:  Can she cook, clean and care for a large number of children.  As for
the GT, you can count me IN.