2
Cryptozoology, on 12 May 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:
sorry friend Noesis do you think that you could use another example to explain your point ? i don't know if i understand what your point is, maybe you could expand a little on affective psychology as it's something I don't think I've heard about before
I have a better idea; let’s look at symbolic interaction in the context of play.
Children when role playing as youngsters tend to experiment with social ideas as a form of experimentation based upon the mimicry of others or previously patterns of behaviour such as their parents that they have identified with. This is further re-enforced by repetition of these social constructs in different scenarios based on the emotional responses found from the peer group or by negative, positive or indifferent reinforcement given by any appropriate parenting figure. This is how we initially learn as children patterns of acceptable behaviour.
The same thing happens in adulthood in that the way in which we see emotional responses or reactions to certain situations. However as adults we have gone through a phase of individuation in which we have formulated likes and dislikes that we most identify with and the idea of having specific preferences. How we do this and why isn't really that relevant for this example, but the idea that we label ourselves with certain distinct qualities or identify with certain ideas even if self-limiting as an exercise means that we have begun to see the world with an extra dimension in the way that meanings we express in social interaction are derived from our associations with those ideas. Look it as "all art or forms of expression are in some way auto-biographical" either as a result of wanting to express something directly about yourself or as a result of your interpretation of the idea as presented even if objectively the material is trying to be presented as a collective or universal view.
So within this we can postulate a greater awareness by extrapolating perceived interactivity through various emotional processes such as sympathy, empathy, repetition etc. to formulate what we consider to be a projected opinion of how we all collectively see things as a society. But it is a construct.
This same kind of technique is applied in advertising in the way that the narrative will present emotional cues in the imagery to reinforce positive or negative associations with products or patterns of behaviour so they can sell that idea as beneficial to you. E.g. seeing someone eating a chocolate bar and smiling will sell that product much more effectively than if they were frowning.
So as much as you may want to try and avoid it "we are a product of society" through all the various interactions we have. Some neurological aspects are hard wired of course and are considered more static aspects of human nature but cognitive behaviour can be more dynamic and transient to the situations as presented and is much more a chameleon to the environment it is in than having just fixed ideas.
So as per your example that people desensitize themselves inappropriately to various ethical communities if they are seen as an object of ridicule is then very relevant based on the above premise. But I will emphasize that it is only relevant “if” they have formulated this as "their" coping strategy or defence mechanism to that particular social issue that may cause them distress or fear, even if this is derived from a point of ignorance or as a result of misplaced conformity. In this sense they may be creating a "fantasy as reality" that allows them to function as they best see it. This irrespective of the fact of whether knowledge or other better strategies could be applied but they may not have formulated through lack of awareness which I would expect to be more a problem in the minority of cases.
The opposite also applies in the exploration of fantasy in that you can desensitise yourself to social morality if you explore unethical ideas and have positive social reinforcement applied by your peers as it being acceptable behaviour. This is playing in the sand box again. However here the opposite is also true in that helpful coping strategies or defence mechanisms allows for rationalising and separating what is fantasy and what is reality. But the important point is that the emotional experiences within this context can afford an unexpected response to how you may see it from a perspective of morality due to the subliminal associations you have made with it in that role play.
My main personal objection to your argument Crypto about this discussion is not whether in principal the ideation as presented is wrong about the subject material, but whether in a healthy ego people are not capable of applying rational objections or confirmations based on their existing understanding of morality and ethics which I believe is more a foundational set of beliefs given as early constructs in your own personal development.
I also want to postulate that ignoring these ideas might only propel ignorance about them. And hence the more extremist reaction to Jeff Dunhams’ work that you seem to be applying might be a form of denial that you don’t want to have to face these issues from how you personally have formulated your associations to it. In this sense it is a problem from your perspective because you are defining it as such and promoting it in that way to others. But if you were to reframe it simply more of a thought perspective then you may be more indifferent to the emotional impact of the content which yes is a different form of denial.
Funnily enough, it is important to note that humour is a defence mechanism in itself as it makes light something of import. But sometimes this is important to do else the stresses associated with life may overwhelm you if you don’t apply it, especially if you cannot change those impacting aspects or questionably whether it is your place to try. Ultimately it is a personal choice anyhow.
Education can help people to make choices of course and is much more effective with adults than parrot fashion learning with young children or the Chinese water torture approach which may cause more objectionable interest to your point of view than convert opinion due to the technique being identified or because you are ignoring someone’s disinterest to the subject material as presented or because you have an expectation that they have to listen to your opinion in the first place.
This more so if they believe they have a working cognitive system to that particular issue and don’t want to have to do all of the reformulation associated with radical changes to their belief system as they don’t see a need for adaptation, this irrespective of whether they can add more tools to their cognitive box in the process, assuming they already haven’t of course. To some, simply not having the time to do this but feeling in some way demoralised or guilt ridden that they cannot exercise such effort is dissatisfaction enough anyhow that they have to avoid the issues due to inability to give appropriate attention to it they actually think it would deserve. This simply because of other more important every day tasks that need to be done as a priority.
Anyhow I digress, so this isn’t to say that from an interpretive point that your motivations for disliking the work are not unfounded, I merely want you to ask the question from a point of perspective of how you are allowing it to impact on you. However, I will stress that there is definitely nothing wrong with your opinion or having a certain viewpoint or propelling your beliefs about it which have to be respected.
What I do find a bit concerning is that you don’t want to consider or have trouble easily forming an association that emotional responses to all forms of stimuli has an impact on how you associate ideas and still applies to fantasy. Especially when from history story telling has been recognised as a very influential way of expressing social constructs. The “moral of the story” then being …. and so on.
Anyhow I’m rambling and realise I’m generating another wall of text Mike Forst simply won’t read so.
---
tl;dr: Huge wall of text that won’t make you enjoy bacon any better.
Edited by Noesis, 13 May 2013 - 12:20 AM.
.
