well would it be easier for you to digest if i don’t say that not every single one will act as brazen as others. Of course things that i described do not happen ALL the time, but certainly someone dying on survivor would not be good when trying to get other contestants…so yes they would prevent that behavior. I think i hit a personal chord with you cause you watch those stupid tv shows and took my skinner box reference personally.
Read a little about Wilhelm Wudnt and Skinner. They moved psychology from philosophically driven research to physiologocial based research. Reactions rather than thoughts. This moved the point of it out from under perception of things around them to perception of the way things interact with them. It personallizes everything that is perceived to be important. And when money precedes food and sleep, or…understanding,…people will be prevented from making the choice that is in their best interest. They will be usurped based on their perception.
I never said “people are like rats” … i made an allusion to skinner because people seem to enjoy others pain (HOSTEL is allegedly satire on this) and there ARE undeniable examples of this being acted on. You are attacking my point by saying that it is not universal…DUH, the principle of competition would prevent that (although cartels of businesses are prevelant) But, since you said it, i will too, people are the equivelant of animals. The establishment can create a maze (the world’s systems) for them to scurry through, all the while never understanding the bigger scheme of things. Time is distorted, reality, being, etc. Linguistics is the equivelant of building perception and when people succumb to that mindset (the one that reality TV keeps people in) they start to lose touch with humanity. THAT is why people watch Jersey shore and 16 and pregnant. They try to make their squaller behavior seem better by watching people who essentially make whores of themselves on TV. Cuase…haha, somehow that is better?
you also claimed that Michael Bay and reality TV grew out of people’s want to be unenganged intellectually.. i agree to an extent, but think the forces behind the corporate world want people that way. They inculcate that mindset of Idiocracy because it allows them to get away with their crimes. Reality Tv has existed for a while…it used to be called “news”.
It means ‘relief’ today. Relief from the hassle of complex world society. Reality is being made to mean the opposite of reality. I don’t think this is an accident of human wants or desires… Human wants come from ‘light’; what ever caused the big bang is what causes people to want to create. When their ambitions are lowered far enough people will cease to want that and will literally be mind slaves of the people who know how to manipulate the lower minded folk out there in la la land. Which from the evidence is pretty simple.
Ah yes, clearly. I suppose that was made obvious by the way I described the kind of people those shows appeal to.
I’m beginning to wonder if you even know what a Skinner box is. You said “reality tv shows are literally televised skinner boxes.” A Skinner box is a lab apperatus used to study behavior and conditional responses. When someone says a reality show “is literally a televised skinner box”, what that implies is that the box itself is the set of the reality show, and the cast of the show are the subjects in the box (usually lab rats). The televised part implies the rest of the world gets a view inside the conditioning chamber.
If this doesn’t imply that people (i.e. cast members of a reality show) are like rats in a box from which there is no escape, I don’t know what does.
(This would also make one wonder how someone who watches such a show would be offended by such a comparison, as a viewer would simply be akin to the scientist (or at least an apprentice observer) to the experiment being conducted. I’m curious as to why you would think a “personal chord” would be struck by this analogy…especially considering the way I spoke of the type of people who find such a show entertaining. My assessment was much more damning to the viewer.)
And finally I in no way see how the fact that people find entertainment in watching (what you claim) is simply an experiment in conditioning and behavioral responses, points to a confirmation of schadenfreude.
When i think of the skinner experiments i do not think of rats i think of pigeons. Do not try and argue by calling into my understanding of things such as this. You are comparing the people who watch those shows to scientists…puh leeze
The reason why we are taught skinner in psychology (rather than phiolosophy) is to show people that their physiology is more powerful than their thoughts. The pedagoogy is faulty; or i should say it is purposely misleading people from thoughts to actions. Your surroundings are what shape your behavior. It is used in terms, of perception. Which is what reality shows do; they shift perceptions. Words and the thoughts that people have from hearing them in specific orders change their perceeptions of things related past, present, and future.
Example: “We are occupying Iraq.” or “We are liberating Iraq.” The perception of the words used literally holds millions of lives. justification before and after the start are completely altered.
what i meant by “skinner box being on TV” is twofold,
The people inside have their perceptions controlled and conditioned. Hence, their physiological reactions to their surroundings altering their concsious behavior.
And the people who watch it generally do not know it. ie. calling it “reality” tv. The effect of this, is that people have advertisements to reinforce their “better” behavior and the “purchase” is that confirmation.
Now we’re resorting to the Chomsky “idiot consumer” worldview? Why didn’t I see this coming.
:EDIT:
I see you’ve gone back and added a bunch of other junk in front of the parts I quoted here, but it really does nothing to refute anything I’ve said, so I see no need to add more here.
“Most people will sacrifice well being for money. It’s called prostitution.”
Who are you to judge if another is sacrificing their own well being?
What if a woman becomes a prostitute because she absolutely loves sex more than anything else in the world and she feels happpy that she can satisfy her clients? What about a stripper that really enjoys having men watch and look at her?
Oh you didn’t hear? That’s not possible. People are “tricked” into prostitution. They don’t willingly choose to be paid for services. They also don’t know what’s good for them. They don’t know what they want. They are consumed with desire for “created wants”…as in, not things they actually want, but things they were “tricked” into wanting by people who wanted to sell it to them.
People who do not read fine print in contracts ARE “tricked” into things. Look at banks and politicians how can you even deny it? Prostitution is not an example i used. You are attacking my post with somone else’s posit, man. Get a life. Aaaand you avoid the points I make, why should i not ignore your posts?
Chomsky is not dumb, and the difference is you have a closed mind to new ideas. Rothbard is not a god.
EDIT: Negligence can be called into question because if you are never exposed to what is necessary to inform your signature then you have no perception of the issue. In this case, you can be “tricked” into signing a contract. Now under the legal system, ignorance is no excuse…
He says in that video “starvation and violence” push people into standard wage labor. Rothbard disagrees and thinks that, as a given, people should have all information required for acting. Information asymmetry will prevent people from having the correct perceptions to make rational decisions. It is tough to deny.
“Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.”
Please show me where I stated anything about you. In fact, not only did I say nothing about you, all I did was restate what you have said. I mean, if what you have to say “poisons the well”, uh, I’d say that’s on you pal. (People really should learn what the logical fallacies really are before they start accusing people of committing them. Another user was just commenting the very same thing (about the very same fallacy) in fact.)
Chomsky’s presenting new ideas? All I’ve ever heard him spout are the same ones that have been debunked for centuries. Like when he said if the Venezualan socialists are successful “they would be seeds of a better world.” Or when he said “The consistent anarchist should be a socialist” and that he [the consistant anarchist] will “oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers”. Or when he said that when Thomas Jefferson argued that dependence will lead to “subservience and venality”, and will “suffocate[s] the germs of virtue”, Jefferson was talking about was talking about “wage labor”…which (according to Chomsky) was considered an abomination under classical liberal principles.
Or how about when he said “we’d be a lot better off if we were higher taxed, and it was used for proper purposes.” What is a “proper purpose?” Apparently we know what that is. Chomsky says we do: “We know what those [purposes] are. I mean, for example, for women taking care of children. You know, it makes sense to pay them for that work, they’re doing important work for the society.”
Take a lot of money (even more than you already do) from everyone by force, and hand it over to women to have children and “take care of them.” We’d “be a lot better off” if that happened. Yes. Smart man indeed. Amazingly novel, insightful ideas. I’ve never heard anything like this before. Must be just “close-minded”.
I especially like when he defended the Khmer Rouge and refused to believe reports that Cambodian communists would genocide 30 percent of their nation’s population…when in fact that’s exactly what they were doing at that very moment. The very intelligent man “didn’t know” this was going on. (Hey maybe he was “tricked”. I mean, not into physical prostitution, but intellectual. Ever heard the term “useful idiot”? …oh, but that would mean…uh..)
I never used any of those arguments. That is the poison in the well. You are setting up false testimony on my part and saying that because i endorse one thing Chomsky says i must endorse all of it. All i meant with Rothbard is that they both have decent ideas, but they both follow their own subjective ideology. You even avoided responding to the most direct point i made in my previous post.
You restated what i said with invective. That is why i accused yo u of it. You’re a tool anyway, dude. i’m, done with you.
Where did I do this again? You said “Chomsky is not dumb, and the difference is you have a closed mind to new ideas.” No, I mean you literally said that. Right here.
So I replied asking about Chomsky’s ideas actually being something new. I provided many quotes from Chomsky himself, illustrating his ideas pertaining to political economy, showing how they are indeed quite the opposite of “new”. The quotes I gave also served another purpose, as you also made the assertion that Chomsky is not dumb…and I think Chomsky’s words alone do a pretty good job of pointing to quite the opposite of that too.
Next you said “Rothbard is not a god”…implying that I or anyone else said that, believes that, or even implied that…when in fact the only person who has even mentioned that name in this discussion is you. Of course I can only guess as to the reasoning behind this projection.
And finally you claim I avoided responding to “the most direct point you made”. You’ll have to inform me of what that is because I thought I pretty much covered everything. But by all means, state your “most direct point” and I’ll address it for you.
You didn’t accuse me of using an insulting or abusive word or expression…you accused me of pre-emptively presenting adverse information about you, in hopes that no one would listen to you. (1) I didn’t pre-emptively present anything. I think you’ve pretty well said what you had to say. (2) I said absolutely nothing about you. (3) All I did was articulate your position.
Again, find another fallacy to accuse. And learn the definition of that one.
This is what i meant dipshit. You put words in my mouth with all of those.
What do you think it is when you “preempt” (which is not actually what you did you did it ex post) with the intention of others not paying attention. That is invective. I stand by my statement that you are a loser troll who dispareges other points of view to make yourself feel better. You avoid the main points to try and de foundate them with other statements.
Ah more name-calling. I see we’ve upgraded to curse words too. Excellent form.
But I think you’ve overlooked an important point of chronology. See, you accused me of poisoning the well before I even quoted Chomsky. So, when I ask you how I poisoned the well, it doesn’t exactly work to quote the post I made after you made the accusation for your proof that your accusation is justified. In other words, you claim I poisoned the well by putting words in your mouth…and then quote something I said after you claimed I poisoned the well as proof I poisoned the well. Do you see the issue here, Dr. Brown?
But what’s more, again, I presented Chomsky’s quotes not to imply you agreed with them, but as evidence to refute your claims that (a) “Chomsky is not dumb” and (b) that his ideas are new. And as I said, I think it’s pretty clear they did a pretty good job of that. (Which is supported by your adamancy in announcing your lack of support for them.)
You were not refuting my claims…you picked chomsky’s and refuted them then attributed them to me. Again when are you getting the campaign together machiavelli? Op, is that name calling? Sorry, ill tell my mom and put the nickel in the jar.
That is where you poisoned the well, dude. I never used that as a defense for my position. You brought it up and pretened like that was my point, when in reality it is yours.
