Eat the love

Posted on September 23, 2011 by Priscilla

Love, lust or longing… A psychological and emotional manifestation that has a deeply physical effect. Is there even really such a thing? Or is it just chemical trickery?
Is this love or just gravy?

Bio-chemistry teams up with cultural indoctrination to create chaos in us all and our minds try to make this mess into sense somehow.
The biochemistry of being In Luv is totally inappropriate. It would seem logical that we would have evolved into well equiped breeders and falling in love should make us prepare for a copious amount of mating. It doesn’t.
At a time when our body is (hopefully) going to need every energy source available we stop eating and sleeping. Our infatuated selves are playing with our food, due to butterflies taking up the space in our stomach and meanwhile longing is keeping us up at night. Our romantic disposition leads us away from sustenance and recuperation.
Ridiculous!

Perhaps our intricate organism does this because it confuses the endorphins and dopamine that are the makers of cloud nine, with the same chemical released after a good meal and a long sleep. Could it be that chemically we have slept and eaten?
Is love than nothing more than a bowl of spaghetti and a blissful eight hour stretch?
Like a crack addiction our bodies want to continue the endorphin and dopamine high that we are floating on. Perhaps here lies the solution to the original riddle. ‘The love’ we feel could also be maintained with a juicy piece of meat, of non-human variety, and no procreating would be necessary. Hence our DNA-embedding intentionally deprives us  of the easier sources of happiness and forces us to chase our intended romantic other half like the crack-whores we have become.
Adding measure to madness we usually go and have a meal with the source of butterflies.

If the loving endorphin/dopamine mix could be tapped and bottled, first dates in restaurants would be the ultimate source.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Eat the love

Loose Yourself

Posted on September 23, 2011 by Priscilla

Television will create a numb society, the (smart)phone will stop people from having face-to-face contact and internet will keep us forever glued to our screens. Concern has been widespread about every type of mass medium known to man. Why are we so afraid to loose ourselves in mass media?

The likely answer is because of a lack of control. Exposure to any medium will have some sort of effect on the person exposed to it. And although the overall topics mass media addresses are things we as a human race share, such as a love to laugh or a wish to be moved, the result of such exposure is highly individual. Some people will use a movie to enjoy themselves for ninety minutes, others will dive into the main character and live out their lives in less than two hours. Most of us will be able to distinguish between real and make-belief, some of us will not. And none can tell you what a persons responses will be without extensive psychological testing beforehand. We do not so much have to trust the media, we have to trust the masses.

Most of us will be able to use the escaping in media entertainment in much the same way as we use fantasies, dreams and even conversations. We try new things, put on different roles and get to practice with skills we do not really have. Viewed like this we are practising rather than escaping “Functional feedback to a basic social role surely is not escape” (Katz & Foulkes, 1962). The same flaws that make someone completely identify with the leading lady in ‘Becoming Jane’ will make that person do the same thing with the main character in Brönte’s ‘Jane Eyre’ or the heroin of ones own daytime fantasies. To escape all one really needs is a creative mind. Mass media offers instant fantasies and ready-made story lines for those who seek them and who might be less creative.

The media provide the masses with stories containing ample opportunity to identify and flee, but they do not have some sort of sole right to escapism.

Katz, E. & Foulkes, D. (1962). On the use of the mass media as “escape”: Clarification of a concept. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 26(3), 377-388.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Loose Yourself

The good in being sad

Posted on September 23, 2011 by Priscilla

According to Zillmann’s Mood Management theory (1988) we are all hedonists continuously striving for a positive mood. So what about negative media content?

Thrilling or sad movies will fulfil the hedonistic principle as long as the good guys win in the end. The prevailing of the leading character will be such a rush it will diminish previous peril and thereby saving our hedonistic selves. Unfortunately, this cannot explain all as Love Story ends very bad yet is loved across generations. And what about a football match in which the Germans again snag the championship title away from our proud nation. These media ‘entertainment’ contents break the hedonistic principle. So if it does not make us happy, why do we watch it?

The surprising answer is because it does make us happy.

Oliver (1993) informs us that the missing link in the hedonistic chain is ‘meta-emotions’. It is not so much the sadness itself we enjoy but the fact that we are ‘touched’ by a certain movie, as if flexing a muscle to see if it can move. Basically it is the way we feel about how we feel. We might be happy that we are feeling a certain way, or perhaps we are ashamed of our feelings. We might think our feelings are appropriate, or not. We might feel asserted in our gender-governed roles by experiencing and displaying certain emotions, or quite the opposite. To cry with a sad movie shows empathy en reinforces a self-image of a kind heart and a caring soul. To scream at the German football players shows where your loyalties lie and just how much you love sports, to yourself and to others. And we can feel good about that. We can like feeling the way we do even if the emotion itself is a negative one.

Meta-emotions are the plug in the sad-paradox hole of Mood Management theory. Our feelings regarding our feelings create a nice loop in which we confirm our hedonistic nature, but meta-emotions do more than just that. They explain to us why negative media content is not just entertaining but also functional in role corresponding behaviour , self-image and social cohesion.

Sources:
Oliver, M.B. (1993). Exploring the paradox of the enjoyment of sad films. Human Communication Research, 19, 315-342.
Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management: Using entertainment to full advantage. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher & E. T. Higgins (Hrsg.), Communication, social cognition, and affect (S. 147-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The good in being sad

Was it good for you?

Posted on September 23, 2011 by Priscilla

Mood-management theory (Zillmann 1988) proposes to explain the choices we make in all conceivable stimulus arrangements on the premise that we are hedonists. As a hedonistic user of media entertainment we will use media to get rid of a bad mood and into a good mood. We might also use media to perpetuate or maintain a good mood if we find ourselves already in one.
The problem here, I think, is defining what is a good mood and this is not as obvious as it may seem and certainly not the same for all media-users or in all situations. What constitutes a ‘good mood’ depends on circumstance and personal preference, and is not always the more pleasant option.

For example in a research where Bryant and Zillmann (1984) tried to predict what choice in TV show stressed and bored persons would make they failed to correctly do so for the stressed persons. They interpreted the results by assuming ‘stressed persons can calm down only when watching television’ regardless of content. Maybe these stressed persons did not want to be calmed down but enjoyed their heightened state. Perhaps this was their good mood.

Another research is one (Zillmann et al. 1980) in which the scientists antagonized the respondents and then gave them a choice between hostile and non-hostile comedy. The women were obliging enough to choose non-hostile comedy when angry. Sadly the male respondents sought out hostile comedy when frustrated thereby opposing the hedonistic valence and the discussion of results focuses on the female respondents. Maybe the male ‘good mood’ was to express, or have someone express for them, the frustration they felt. Not ‘pleasant’ but pleasurable.

Perhaps if you are grieving, which is a long-term mood-state, crying over a sad movie will help you mourn your own loss. Although this is not putting you in a ‘good mood’, it is definitely serving a function that is desirable and good for you.
The above goes against the hedonistic valence in which pleasant is always best, indicating that sometimes unpleasant is better.

Reference:
Zillmann, D. (1988) Mood Management Through Communication Choices American Behavioral Scientist ; 31; 327, Sage Publications. Downloaded from © 1988 SAGE Publications.at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on July 6, 2007 http://abs.sagepub.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Was it good for you?

At our leisure

Posted on September 23, 2011 by Priscilla

The more things change… Today, many people worry that people increasingly waste their free leisure time by turning to shallow media entertainment. They say that everything was better back then. But has so much really changed?

Aristoteles raised the question “What ought we to do when at leisure?” and throughout the ages many answers to this question have been formed. The Greek culture in which Aristoteles fared viewed leisure and entertainment as having to serve a purpose. Leisure was to be used to enhance oneself, either by filosophy and education or by catharsis.

Roman culture seemed to perceive leisure as a reason for living and not merely a side-effect. Romans entertained, or controlled, the masses with fairs and circus. Christianity took control by taking away the leisure or at least the pleasure of entertainment usually taken at leisure. All entertainment of that time not having to do with God was condemned or simply prohibited. In a life dedicated to the Afterlife there was no room for leisure. But the flesh would not be denied and the pleasure of entertainment found its way back into society.

Since the comeback of entertainment not much has changed except for the medium. Then a theatre along a London street, now a prime-time series but still both are drama. “Radio and television, finally, converted every home into a concert hall, a movie theater, and a sports arena” (Zillmann, 2000). Continuing along this line, Internet has also made every home a library. So we have a world of entertainment at our fingertips. Some of which is viewed as educational and some is equal to the freakshow at the old fairground. Often we use leisure time to enhance ourselves and we often use entertainment to enhance our social selves. The celebration of the Divine has also created its own media entertainment, especially on Sundays.

We can use our leisure time to fulfil any of the purposes that history has dreamed up for it. In the end we are left with the old question that has now become a highly individual choice “What ought I to do when at leisure?”

Reference:
Zillmann, D. (2000). The coming of media entertainment. In D. Zillmann & P. Vorderen (Eds.), Media Entertainment. The psychology of its appeal (pp. 1-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawarence Erlbaum,

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on At our leisure

Wetenschap als religie

Posted on September 20, 2011 by Priscilla

Moderne wetenschap lijkt het antwoord op alles in huis te hebben. Maar ‘wetenschappelijk bewezen’ is niet meer dan dogma. Weten we iets of is het nog steeds geloof?

De moderne samenleving stoelt zich voor een groot deel op de moderne wetenschap. Het eeuwenoude zoeken naar antwoorden op ‘Waarom zijn wij hier?’ maar ook ‘Waarom regent het?’ en ‘Waarom is er oorlog?’ wordt nu steeds vaker overgelaten aan wetenschappers. Het rijke postindustriële Westen hecht steeds minder waarde aan religie als gever van deze antwoorden en steeds meer aan groepen ondezoekers. In tegenstelling tot religie, waarin het ontbreken van tastbaar bewijs centraal staat, geeft wetenschap ons een prettige zekerheid. Wetenschap bewijst ons waarom dingen zijn zoals ze zijn. Maar als we dichterbij kijken hebben religie en wetenschap meer gemeen dan je zou verwachten.

Wetenschappelijke aanname
De aarde was plat, ooit. En ooit werd dit bewezen door de wetenschap van die tijd. Nu weten we meer en we weten het beter. Maar weten we alles? Dit is een vraag die we niet kunnen beantwoorden omdat je deze onwetendheid pas bij nieuwe kennis tegenkomt. Dus hoe kunnen we nu stellen dat we het juiste antwoord bezitten op basis van eventueel gebrekkige kennis? We nemen het aan. We nemen aan dat wat we nu weten juist is.
En dit is niet de enige aanname van de wetenschap. Veel natuurkundige verhandelingen beginnen met ‘aangenomen dat…’ en theoretiseert hierop verder. Wiskunde beweegt zich vaak in abstracte, en dus niet fysiek bewijsbare, ruimten. Sociale wetenschap is gewend om te gaan met onzekerheden, en heeft een complete methodologische en statistische discipline onder zich geschaard om de onderbouwing van een theorie ‘aannemelijk te maken’. Als we een –volledig arbitraire- numerieke grens overschrijden achten we een theorie ‘statistisch bewezen’ en nemen we het aan als waarheid. Aan de basis van de wetenschap staat een aanname.

* dogma (het ~; dogma’s) regel in een leer of geloof waarover niet te discussiëren valt

Aangenomen God
Als je aanneemt dat (een) God bestaat en de prima causa (de eerste oorzaak) van het universum is, dan is de wereld om ons heen een constant bewijs van zijn creativiteit en kunde. De barmhartigheid van deze God wordt bewezen door onze capaciteit om lief te hebben. Het idee van beproeving wordt onderbouwd door de misère in dit leven en de interne dilemma’s waar het hebben van een geweten vaak tot leidt. Het veranderen van de eerste aanname verandert de reis van theorie naar conclusie en alle onderbouwing die je onderweg vindt. Dat alles wat we ervaren volgt uit het bestaan van God en dat dit je hele dag kleurt is een dagelijkse religieuze beleving voor een toegewijde gelovige. De aangenomen God ziet zichzelf bewezen in de dagelijkse empirie.

Aannemelijk geloof
Wetenschap en religie delen de aanname aan de basis. Bij religie is deze aanname het bestaan van God en wordt deze aanname centraal gesteld. Wetenschap stapt snel over zijn eigen aannames heen en probeert deze met onderzoeksstructuren en cijfers af te dekken. Dit lukt slechts ten dele, het blijft de onderste steen waar de rest van het bouwwerk op steunt. Hier is juist ook ruimte voor nieuwe ontwikkelingen door de aannames in de fundering te betwijfelen en zo een nieuw bouwwerk te creëren, wetenschap zou er immers om moeten gaan de onderste steen boven te krijgen. De onderste steen van wetenschap is geloof in een aanname.

Gepubliceerd in Essay Faculteitsblad Sociale Wetenschappen Vrije Universiteit

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Wetenschap als religie