Television and its adverse effects on consciousnes

[Esaias]

https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2...odoo-ritual-2/

"Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television – Jerry Mander 1978

Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television argues that the technology of television is not a neutral or benign instrument or tool. The author argues that in varied technologies and institutions such as militaries, automobiles, nuclear power plants, mass production, and advertising, the basic form of the institution and the technology determines its interaction with the world, the way it will be used, the kind of people who use it, and to what ends.

The author argues that far from being “neutral,” television predetermines who shall use it, how they will use it, what effects it will have on individual lives, and, if it continues to be widely used, what sorts of political forms will inevitably emerge.

The four arguments are:

1.While television may seem useful, interesting, and worthwhile, at the same time it further boxes people into a physical and mental condition appropriate for the emergence of autocratic control.
2.It is inevitable that the present powers-that-be (or controllers) use and expand using television so that no other controllers are permitted.
3.Television affects individual human bodies and minds in a manner which fit the purposes of the people who control the medium.
4.Television has no democratic potential. The technology itself places absolute limits on what may pass through it. The medium, in effect, chooses its own content from a very narrow field of possibilities. The effect is to drastically confine all human understanding within a rigid channel.
[]What binds the four arguments together is that they deal with aspects of television that are not reformable.
“It {television} affects the psychology of people who watch. It increases the passivity of people who watch. It changes family relationships. It changes understandings of nature. It flattens perception so that information, which you need a fair amount of complexity to understand it as you would get from reading, this information is flattened down to a very reduced form on television. And the medium has inherent qualities which cause it to be that way.”~ Mander"

[Esaias]

MUCH more in the article, but this is interesting:


"How TV Effects Brainwaves
“Formal Features” are the camera cuts, pans, zooms, etc. used very frequently in TV and movies. Because these “formal features” are so novel, and different from normal everyday reality, they trigger the brain’s “orienting response”. The “orienting response” is an important brain reflex that alerts us when there is a change in the environment. This “orienting response” is an essential survival mechanism because it forces us to pay attention to any (potentially dangerous) changes in the environment. Because of the involuntary nature of the “orienting response”, another name for it is “involuntary attention”.

It turns out that the “orienting response” has a particular brainwave effect. Namely, when the “orienting response” is triggered, the alpha brainwaves decrease. This decrease in alpha waves has the effect of making the brain more alert. Once the brain ascertains that whatever triggered the “orienting response” is not a threat, the Alpha brainwaves quickly return to their previous level.

Also, during the “orienting response” (“involuntary attention”) the Gamma brainwaves disappear. This decrease in Gamma waves has the effect of breaking the person’s focus. Unlike the Alpha brainwaves, the Gamma brainwaves have a harder time returning to their previous levels. If the “orienting response” is triggered too often (as with TV watching) the brain stays unfocused.
The greater the frequency of these formal features, the fewer the number of fast brainwaves, the less focused the mind. An important feature of the Orienting Response is Habituation."

(ibid)

[Evang.Benincasa]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Plug-In-Dr.../dp/0142001082

http://www.mariewinn.com/plugin.htm

Quotes from reviews of The Plug-In Drug:

From Library Journal:
"After 25 years, Winn (Children Without Childhood) has completely revised and updated her landmark study of the influence of television on children and family life by incorporating findings based on recent research and investigating the impact of the home computer, the VCR, and the video game terminal. She has also shifted the focus from the TV programs children watch to the negative effects of television on children's play, imagination, and school achievement. Although Winn pinpoints many key shortcomings of television, this study is not argumentative; Winn instead aims to stress the quality of family life without television, to show educators and parents how to control the medium, and to offer practical suggestions on how to improve family life not dependent on television. This refreshingly candid and inviting study is highly recommended for both public and academic libraries."

From Jim Trelease, author of The Read-Aloud Handbook:
"No one has captured the devastating effects of television the way Marie Winn has. The latest research coupled with candid and inspiring correspondence from actual families make this the best edition yet."

From The Christian Science Monitor:
"If you have children who watch television, you owe it to yourself -- and them -- to read this book."
* * *

[FlamingZword]

Similar arguments can be made against any medium, Books, Radio, Internet.

so let us ban all books, all radio and all Internet.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Similar arguments can be made against any medium, Books, Radio, Internet.

so let us ban all books, all radio and all Internet.

Similar arguments cannot be made against books or radio, because the RESEARCH I linked to deals specifically with the UNIQUE qualities of mass media VIDEO technology.

But you go ahead and enjoy your Dish Network, or whatever.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Similar arguments can be made against any medium, Books, Radio, Internet.

so let us ban all books, all radio and all Internet.

Banning?

The human mind cannot be banned, thoughts cannot be banned, people need to get a revelation on what they allow themselves to download. Television, and Internet (which makes television look like Dick and Jane in the first reader) pale to man's imagination. How do you ban thought? You cannot. Who a person is in the dark is who they really are.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Similar arguments cannot be made against books or radio, because the RESEARCH I linked to deals specifically with the UNIQUE qualities of mass media VIDEO technology.

But you go ahead and enjoy your Dish Network, or whatever.

While the articles posted have valid info, the only problem is that you are about 40 years too late. TV is hardly the problem in our day and age. The key to issues like these is not total abstinence, but teaching control.

There are and will always be side issues in life that are not sin when taken in moderation, but become sin when allowed to control ones life. This can be said of tv, videos, books video games, playing cards, reading books, drinking soda, eating food, and the list goes on and on.

What are you going to do stop living because some one comes out with a study that says food makes you fat and if you eat you will get fat and die? Oh wait that is true, but we don't hear anyone say we need to ban eating now do we?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

While the articles posted have valid info, the only problem is that you are about 40 years too late. TV is hardly the problem in our day and age. The key to issues like these is not total abstinence, but teaching control.

There are and will always be side issues in life that are not sin when taken in moderation, but become sin when allowed to control ones life. This can be said of tv, videos, books video games, playing cards, reading books, drinking soda, eating food, and the list goes on and on.

What are you going to do stop living because some one comes out with a study that says food makes you fat and if you eat you will get fat and die? Oh wait that is true, but we don't hear anyone say we need to ban eating now do we?

The article focuses on the technology itself, and its measurable biological and cognitive effects on the BRAIN, and its usability by authoritarian control structures.

Apparently, I AM too late as so far 2 out of three respondents seem not to have even read the synopsis I provided, or if they have they seem unwilling or unable to respond to the actual point being made.

Oh well.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The article focuses on the technology itself, and its measurable biological and cognitive effects on the BRAIN, and its usability by authoritarian control structures.

Apparently, I AM too late as so far 2 out of three respondents seem not to have even read the synopsis I provided, or if they have they seem unwilling or unable to respond to the actual point being made.

Oh well.

No it seems you missed my point, I did not disagree with the info, what I said was that the info is 40 years old and we already have the masses hypnotized by the use of TV and like media. The solution is not banning TV as we have tried that already. We must teach control, and moderation, we must teach people to use their brains instead of believing everything that they see, read and hear.

We must learn "it is not true just because it is on the internet".

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

No it seems you missed my point, I did not disagree with the info, what I said was that the info is 40 years old and we already have the masses hypnotized by the use of TV and like media. The solution is not banning TV as we have tried that already. We must teach control, and moderation, we must teach people to use their brains instead of believing everything that they see, read and hear.

We must learn "it is not true just because it is on the internet".

What a revolutionary idea! One that should have been done decades ago of course. I believe that for many the convergence of technologies where a cell phone can be used as a "tv" is forcing people to do what you suggest more.