I was born in the WRONG decade.

Then where did I get it from? There was no one else...

 

That's a good question, but I don't have the answer.

You suggested that genetics might have something to do with it. I tend to agree with this, although I only have anectodal reasons to think so.
What makes two brothers so different from each other? Where do they get their unique values?

You identified with the more intelligent seeming people on TV, rather than the people in your own community. That would seem to indicate that you had already found the people in your community lacking by the time you saw the people on TV. Perhaps you always did, but didn't have the reinforcement of the TV people to validate it. (TV people.... sounds like something out of the Poltergeist movies.)

I really do believe that each of us is either born with, or forms a set of values, long before we're aware of what they are. That doesn't mean that the proverbial leopard can't change its spots. People can change, it's just that it usually takes an overwhelming revelation for them to do it - more than the subliminal urgings of television.

 

I was born in 1950- - believe me, as fun as some of those documentories make those times seem- a lot of the time is was a hassle. Hasseled for your hair,hasseled for your believes, hasseled at rallies, - and even hasseled a world away by gung-ho enlistees- and hasseled when we got home. Hasseled for smoking weed, hasseled for living with your G/F orB/F- hassled for our music,hasseled for the way we dressed, hasseled by our parants,the police,and our teachers, hasseled for wanting to try a different way - - - -
and probably so much more that I cant even remember anymore.
The shows you see with peaceful "hippies" dancing around with flowers in thier hair makes the times look all good- - but we paid a price for those good times -paid a price to have and live those ideals** Dont get me wrong , Im glad I wasnt born in 1990- but it took a special breed to live and fight and love -thru those times. I look at my son(who was born in 1986)- & his friends -and I cant imagine them living without the creature comforts of today. Hell I was about 16 before we had a color TV.

I agree with whoever said "embrace the time your in"- its fine to look back at history- but this country could use a new movement these days- -Time for you younger folks to take the baton- - lots of our causes that stalled can use help- -Legal Marijuania, gays rights, heath care, envirormental issues, -many of us had to move on, we worked without a net back then- now you guys should have the advantages to change things that we couldnt -for whatever reason-
-btw>there are a couple of wars going on that border on illegal- -genocide in the Sudan,
and the conservatives out there are making people are afraid to love- -and love to be afraid
Sure it would be nice to have a time machine, would love to take you all back to the "old days"- but time goes on. Yaknow -sometimes I wish I was 21 yrs old instead of a 59 yr old - but then I remember those times and smile.

 

I think every time period, every life, every experience that ever has existed, is existing, and will exist --- you will experience.

It just doesn't make sense to many any other way.
why would the universe be so vast if we couldn't experience it?
So the way I see it, you'll be back in the 60's in no time....again, and forever.

 

:cheers2:

 

As I've already said several times now, this issue has nothing to do with forming political opinions. Go back and read what I said, if you like.

Well, no ... it's not "maybe". You produce a sample of one and from that you generalize about everyone? What you "see with your own eyes" is necessarily limited. If you will only believe "what your own experience" tells you, then you are missing out on the accumulated knowledge of the world. That keeps you in the Stone Age.

We do see it happening on wholesale basis. Read the headlines. The United States is one of the most violent societies on earth. Our murder and violent crime is many times that of most other 1st world countries. Or do you think those statistics are "financially motivated"?

The fact that you don't "know anyone" is hardly relevant. You don't need to personally know mass murderers to believe they exist.

Regarding the studies of children and violence you so cavalierly dismiss, their methodology was simple. Record the behavior of young children before and after watching violent acts on television. In every case, the children immediately became more aggressive and prone to violence. This is not to say that every single child was Jekyll and Hyde. That's a gross misinterpretation of the results. It's saying that as a whole, children unequivocally become more violent when exposed to violence. That's demonstrated quite clearly.

To disregard the results is simply abject ignorance. And to make vague comparisons to chocolate ... I don't know what your point there was, but it has nothing to do with this.

 

You and me both, Sister!

 

Okay, let me go back and re-read everything you said and see if I can make any different sense out of it. First this:

Homogenize means to blend. So, it would seem that you're saying that Television blends us all together, (philosophically, I'm assuming, since you don't make that exactly clear) making modern civilization.... what? All the same? Maybe you're using a different definition of "homogenize?"

Then:

In what way does television serve as a filter for how we experience the world? Do you mean to say that we don't accept anything that we don't first see on TV? How, exactly does this common set of images allow us to "gauge the course of our days"? I'm not even sure what that means.

Then you say this:

So far as I know, McLuhan didn't comment on the content of media, other than to say it didn't matter what the content was. He spoke more on how technology will change the way we process information than what we choose to believe or how we interpreted the information that we process.
There is no homogenization involved, any more than there was with the advent of newspapers or radio, There is merely an expansion in our methods of gathering information.

Some parents and teachers took this to mean that TV was going to make kids passive observers, although I don't really see how being a passive observer is necessarily a bad thing, or how that would be any worse than, say, reading a book.

So, while your statement contains some elements of truth, it doesn't really add much to the conversation about whether or not TV changes our philosophical views. It merely suggests a change in how we receive and process information.
It's somewhat akin to saying, "everyone who reads this book will see the same words." Not much of a revelation, there.

Then you said:

So, explain this core set of common images and the mythology that modern civilization makes of them. Give me some examples. A mythology insinuates that there is some kind of common belief that we're all being exposed to and accepting.
What cultural icons do you think we're all sharing, based on simply seeing the same images, and how do you extrapolate that into a homogenization (which, again, implies that we are all of the same opinion about them)?

Politics aside, everyone has simple opinions that differer from those around them. Give me some examples of this "common knowledge" that we're absorbing by seeing the same images.

If the "common knowledge" isn't about influencing behavior, are you saying then that TV does not influence behavior? Because that was my point all along.
On the other hand, if you're saying that TV does influence behavior, then why are we introducing this concept of "common knowledge" that isn't about influencing behavior? It would seem to be clouding the issue rather than clarifying.

And finally (whew...)

What I see with my own eyes may be somewhat limited, but at least I can trust it. Sometimes the "accumulated knowledge of the world" is really just some guy's opinion that gained popular support. Sometimes it's the result of biased studies. Sometimes it's outright lies and chicanery designed to mislead, for whatever reason. If you believe a report that contradicts your own experiences, especially when it comes to matters of what you should believe and how you should act, then you are just another sheep in the nation of sheep, ripe for being led around by the nose.

First of all, what you read in the headlines is what the editors believe will sell the most newspapers. When was the last time you saw good news in the headlines? Judging the effects of TV by reading newspaper headlines seems a little non-sequitor, doesn't it? What basis do you have for drawing a connection between the two?

Second, are you saying that the crime rate is lower in other 1st world countries, because they don't watch TV? Do you suppose that there might be some other cause for the discrepant crime statistics? Maybe something that has nothing to do with TV? What is your justification for laying higher US crime statistics at the doorstep of television?

No, but if you're going to believe that everyone who watches violent TV is a mass murderer, you might expect to meet one at least once in your life, given how many people watch TV.

Again, your point is non-sequitor. I never said that bad people didn't exist, I said that I didn't believe that violent TV caused good kids to adopt a violent nature. I also said that I did believe that it could cause bad kids to become worse. I also suggested that there were probably some "bad" kid in the study and their increased violence probably tainted the whole study. Does the study say that EVERY kid exhibited more violence? And, if they did, how many of them were actually causing the violence and how many were merely reacting to those who were causing the violence. There's a whole lot of difference between the two. Was motivation even considered?

You may say that my "not knowing anyone" is irrelevant, but I say that it is very relevant. I'm being told to believe something that my experience discredits. The bigger question is, why are you so willing to believe it? Have you personally witnessed it to be true, or are you just that willing to believe everything you hear?

Oh, I'm anything but cavalier about this. I think you're the one who's being cavalier in your willingness to believe whatever you're told, without question.
So, tell me all about the controls on these studies and how they differentiated the TV initiated violence from the peer reactive violence. How did they segragate the data from the violence that was directly attributable to TV viewing and the violence that was merely reaction to the ones who instigatd the violence? What control groups did they use to insure that kids with peaceful programming didn't exhibit a similar level of violent behavior? What groups sponsored the studies and what results did they expect to find before they started?

The point about chocolate, eggs, meat, etc, was to illustrate how studies are constantly contradicting each other. Perhaps you haven't noticed that, but new studies regularly contradict the ones that went before. You might want to think about that before you blindly accept a result that flies in the face of what your own experience tells you to be true.

Ignorance is believing everything you're told, without questioning the motives and methods.

I remain unconvinced that TV changes people's convictions. It merely augments what's already there.

Anyone who actually made it all the way to the end of this wall of text has my heartfelt admiration.

 

I have been following this off-topic tangent without getting involved as yet and altho I agree with everything Trig says (prolly our common experience that covers about 6 decades) I see a truism in Caliente's quote.

I may be an expert on TV in America. I've been watching it since the beginning. I remember not having TV and listening to "shows" on the radio (Gunsmoke, The Lone Ranger, The Shadow). I also remember early TV, like Father Knows Best and Leave it to Beaver, which sorta paralleled my family's post-war move from inner city to the 'burbs.

I do see TV as the mythos of our mainstream culture - you know the culture that I rebelled against in the late '60s. It is an interactive mirror, both reflecting and reinforcing the values of that mainstream culture.

I can remember when there were no black ppl on TV (except for shows like Amos & Andy that was really funny.) Bill Cosby made headlines for being a lead character in a mainstream series. I remember when the merchants did not portray black ppl in commercials. Like black ppl didn't need detergent, soap or deodorant (There are other threads to explain why I wish they wouldn't use deodorant ).

So, TV was the homogenizer of White, Mainstream, American culture - where we all looked at the Brady's archetecturally modern home, the Anderson's older, upper middle class 'burb home or the Cleavers more hectic household with bike riding kids our age in their 'burb.

It would be after our generation rebelled against that idyllic image of America that Norman Lear would interject a peek at honesty with his Archie Bunker, entrenched in the old prejudices that were a neglected reality of early TV.

So, yes TV reflects whatever the producers think the most Americans want to see. Which is why we bemoan so many good, quality shows that last one season or less.

Also, commercials are designed to sell to the masses - that is their whole purpose. I cringe at some of them because, well, I haven't been a part of the masses for almost half a century.

You know the commercial where the dumb-as-fuck guy has a cold and would die if his pharmacy savvy wife did not take care of him. Even when I was married to a nurse she knew to just leave me alone when I was sick - I know how to care for myself. But according to commercials I need a housewife to do my laundry, make my house smell nice and keep me from eating too much fattening food. (Oops, we're the most obese nation in the world because everyone bought the myth that eating burgers, pizza and fried chicken should be our mainstay diet)

I have noticed that over the decades. When I was a teen I read about vitamin C helping to prevent colds and making them milder. I got some ascorbic acid and started taking daily RDA amount of 30 mg. I actually had fewer colds in my St. Louis winters. (Never considered a placebo effect but it worked for me) Then later studies said Vit. C did nothing to prevent colds. Then later studies said it did. I think the latest belief is that Vit. C is a good thing to take regularly - and I do. But, I've seen the whole contradictory studies involving coffee, chocolate, as well as medications that were later discovered to do more harm than good. It shows the scientific method works by testing previous theories, but it also shows that you should not take a study to be the final word on anything.

Don't we get a medal for Above and Beyond?

 

You should, Shale. You should.
If I had one to give, you would win it.

 

I'm sure that's true, but at the same time, think about how it is today: I was born in 1992, and I get hassled by the cops, my parents, my teachers, other peoples' parents, and my peers for the way I dress, the way I wear my hair, the fact that I smoke weed, the way I just look out the window and smile because it's beautiful, the music I listen to, hassled for my beliefs... we still get hassled just as much as you did back then, for slightly different things (I mean, a lot of what we get hassled for now are basically the same things as you got hassled for then, it's just that what they want us to be now and what they wanted then are different), and we don't get the sweet benefits, like the peaceful hippies dancing around with flowers in their hair.

Not meaning to be argumentative or anything, just saying. Young people like me who wish we could live then often do overlook the hassle and all the downsides to being a young adult in the 60s, but we have similar troubles today. Just instead of peaceful hippies dancing around with flowers in their hair and all that love and peace and the great music, we have cell phones and the internet. Personally, I'd give up my cell phone and the internet any day in favour of the hassle and experiences of being a hippie in the 60s.

Still, I do my best to appreciate the time I do live in. Cos let's face it, that's not changing any time soon.

 

everything and everybody is where we are supposed to be...Nobodys wrong, everyones right

 

I always wanted to go back to the 60's. everyone calls me a hippie now and says maybe i was a hippie who died early in a past life lol!

 

I totally agree with this 100%

 

vENITRIX- - i GUESS THE MORE THINGS CHANGE- THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME

MUCHRESPECT
jjack

 

There really is no "best" time period to grow up in. Every era has its problems, and as time goes by, people tend to remember the good things more vividly than the bad things.

 

thats right, and we have to make use of everyminute we have here ! we are living today for a reason

 

I would agree with that. I do, however, think there are times that I would enjoy growing up in more than others. For instance, I think growing up today is okay, I would have hated growing up in the 80s, and I would have loved growing up in the 60s.

 

When I was around 12 years old and read Tom Sawyer for the first time, I wanted very badly to live on the Mississippi River, in Missouri, back before the Civil War. I used to pretend that I did, and I would walk around with marbles, fishing line and hooks, and all kinds of odd-ball stuff in my pockets, the way the kids in the book did. When my friends would greet me, I would say, "Hullo yerself, and see how you like it," and stuff like that.

Those of us who are hopeless romantics will often dream of being in what we may think of as a more interesting time.

 

There may be more truth in this than you realise baby!