I've been feeling this for a while. There's a performative sort of aspect to people's personalities now as though they are mimicking a character playing out scenes. There's always been jokers or people who quote lines from movies but what I'm seeing is way more pathological than that. I don't know if they are doing it on purpose or oblivious to it. If it were children doing this I wouldn't be too concerned but it's 30 year adults mimicking stuff like anime / video game style expressions and movements. I worry that something has gone collectively very wrong in all of our brains from over stimulation.
I'm not sure if "classic" entertainment (films, games, etc.) is really the issue here. These kind of things have been around for ages, ranging from Star Trek conventions to "Dalekmania".
For many decades feminists have been telling us that entertainment and media have been setting unrealistic beauty standards for women (young women/girls in particular) and that this is unhealthy. By and large, I think the basic premise of this is generally accepted (albeit with disagreement on some specifics).
Social media seems to have done the same, setting unrealistic standards on how your life should be, how you should behave and react, what your personality should be.
Social media is not reality, just as pornography isn't reality. That doesn't mean that either pornography or social media is bad in and of itself – HN is a social media of sorts – but I do think people's relationship with it can be unhealthy, or that some implementations of it can be.
> Social media is not reality, just as pornography isn't reality
I think my personal bugbear was "reality TV", in that it deliberately lies about which side of the "fiction"/"nonfiction" barrier it's on and thereby erodes it. But we're a long way past that now into the user-created video hole.
> unrealistic beauty standards for women
AI is going to be setting even more unrealistic beauty standards for women. Only 5 fingers? Boring.
Another thing that should be emphasised is how bad news-as-entertainment is. I remember when Alex Jones was sued for libel his defence was effectively that no sensible person should believe what he said and his show was "for entertainment purposes only" - which stands in contrast to the impact it actually had.
While i will call a spade a spade and admit alex jones is a shit-sitrrer. As well as a heavy IANAL
That defense isnt that bad, the noid promotion from dominoes ended up with a hostage crisis and that was purely intended for entertainment/advertising.
Cuts closer to a defamation too as the dude who took the hostages did so because he was unhinged and his last name was noid.
Lmao. I'd argue that adults are growing in the other direction, escaping scarcity and becoming mature enough to feel comfortable in their own skin at a much earlier age.
I'm relieved to see more of my peers, as well as those slightly older than us, expressing themselves with the silliness and levity of well-off retirees. Sure, it can be cringe-inducing at times, but cringe typically says more about the one doing the cringing than the object thereof.
Maybe it's time we all grew up a little more still.
Have you ever seen "The Cable Guy?" The movie with Jim Carrey and Matthew Broderick from the 90s?
Jim Carrey's character is one of these dudes who is constantly quoting tv shows and seems to have absorbed his whole worldview from mass media and advertising. The character is taken to an extreme, but this "dude who can only talk in TV references" was a sort of personality type back then out in the real world. They were annoying enough to most "normies" that it was relatable to make a comedy-horror movie about it. There was also a decent bit of "television is rotting people's brains" worry at the time as well driven largely by people's interactions with guys like this.
I think all times and places have this sort of personality type that just doesn't have much of a personality of their own (or the courage to really express one) and consequently just take on the style or posture of whatever popular mass media they're consuming instead. Since it's mass media and popular, surely they too will be popular if they mimic its affect right? TV isn't how taste and culture is made anymore, TikTok and general social media influenceriness is. So this same baseline personality type just ends up expressing itself differently based on the conditions of the present day.
In the 1814 novel Waverly, the character Baron Bradwardine quotes Virgil incessantly. After a while I realised that Walter Scott was mocking gently exactly this type of person, who talks in references. It's just that, many decades before a Scotsman was to invent the television, he's quoting classical Greek instead.
I've had to deal with this kind of weird obsession with folks performing in online spaces like Second Life for a long time. I mean, sure, you can do your roleplay in an explicitly roleplay oriented place, but whenever I'm in what amounts to as a town square I've still found people who would rather play the part of Mean Girls or some other nonsense than being an authentic human being. It seems sincerity and honesty are poison to such folks who would rather live in irony or satire 24/7. I have to wonder that after a while do these people become the thing they're portraying? Is it more like what Oscar Wilde said, "give a man a mask and he'll tell you the truth?" Or is it that folks can't actually distinguish their performance from reality? Heck, I've seen the same stuff on Twitter. It just makes my head hurt these days.
For the social media/performative side of the issue: I think that we are seeing the effects of instant online judgement at any moment (who wouldn't want to play it safe), the ability to monetise yourself and sell yourself out in less than a minute from anywhere in the world, and the ability to follow the norm to a ridiculous level with the invention of day in the life and lifestyle videos.
As for movies: I think that since movies introduction into the mainstream they have always played an important role in guiding how people see the world, usually for the better. They normalise scientific concepts, abstract ways of looking at the world, introduce potentially new emotions to the average person, ways of conversing, and used to promote the idea of human ideals and beauty. Generally, when movies have been more genuinely creative and kind to the idea of human greatness society has tended to be happier and more creative. I've seen lots of directors use this for good, and I'm yet to see explicitly malicious use of western cinema (excl propaganda). I don't think it's bad that we're all in different worlds, people have been at different levels of awareness and connection to reality for as long as we've been around, but well executed movies change us more than many of us admit.
As for anime, it's really interesting how animated pictures do something different to me, they almost feel more cerebral, like it's how I really see the world in my imagination.
Quite a bit of normal social interaction is performative. In the same sense that a sneeze is both voluntary and involuntary, ( you can nearly hold in a sneeze, and can certainly choose the audible volume.) so too is much of the emotion and articulation of a social interaction. You may be conveying your genuine emotions, but you’re choosing how pointedly to convey them, and how to convey them in a way such that they land with your audience. You’re looking for the reaction to your conveyance from the “audience’s” face, and adjusting your response accordingly.
I thought it wasn't possible to control it. I tried to control my sneezes before, but just gave up. Couldn't help yelping from my throat while sneezing.
Humans naturally mimic the mannerisms and behaviors of those around them. Is it surprising that humans who have had plausibly the majority of their observed interactions from screens mimic what they see on the screen. If the funny character quotes movies all the time, why wouldn't quoting movies be funny to your friends?
There is a reason why psychologists recommend reducing screen time for everyone.
It's socialization/acculturation. Humans learn how to be human from other humans. That's normal. That's what culture is. But when their role models are fake, the humans learn to be broken.
There's a lot of cool scifi mentioned at the start of this but it's missing Karl Schroeder's "Lady of Mazes" (2005) which takes on this concept directly. In it the perceptual layers people computationally put in front of their senses have lead to complete severing of filter bubbles from each other into discrete political entities that perceive and live in entirely different "worlds". I don't want to spoil it with more since it's well worth a read.
Increasingly we've seen that technology controls and uses us, not the way we imagined it would go, and that especially the ad/media industries have grown way beyond what can be considered healthy.
It is infinitely grating to be forced to stand at the side lines and watch all of this happen. After a ~decade of getting angry or desparate I have nothing left but apathy for this shit show.
Reminds me of Debord’s idea of the spectacle and Baudrillard’s simulation. The vicious cycle of art imitating life and life imitating art is ever accelerating with technology that gets better at beaming content into our brains to the point that we might not even have meaningful content with reality behind mass media.
I think about Simulation & Simulacra a lot. Esp. when religious relatives talk about Jesus, and how GOP-Jesus is built on a lot of other interpretations -- themselves dubioubly built on other interpretations -- and wonder how much is actually even vaguely related to what the man might have said or done.
But conceptually I see capitalism embracing it, as each simulation is a way to sell something new, e.g. "social media bubbles", which in turn allow for clickbating, selling of specific merch to specific demos, complete detachment and assimilation into basically different realities, etc. They have every reason to, cuz everything is based on adds and clicks and building consensus via social media likes; those things now drive sales, and that drives stock prices.
Alex Jones comes to mind, with his brand of hyperreality and absurd statements -- lots of clicks, aka lots of money -- as well as his ability to target and shill his MAN-PILLS, FOR REAL MEN. Little wonder why there is a lot of overlap with Q-Anon there...
Honestly, I think this is true. I've noticed ever since I've stopped watching TV since 2007 and avoided most TV dramas (I've been mostly watching youtube videos on various topics like radio electronics, cooking, and the like since with maybe the occasion let's play of Dwarf Fortress or a group of people playing a tabletop campaign) that I've kind of fell out of the loop of the mainstream culture. So many things from pop music to references to TV shows have kind of left me just puzzled. Mind you, I'm in my 40s so I'm kind of "boomer" at this point.
> Watching that video, I did what I often do when taking in the news these days: I stared in disbelief, briefly wondered about the difference between the dystopian and the merely weird, and went about my business. But I kept thinking about those clips
like yes sometimes The Atlantic comes off as pretentious but that paragraph really speaks to me :O
I’d recommend skipping the read. A woman describing her tv habits and making non-sequitur Trump digs isn’t interesting writing in 2023, I don’t think there’s much of value being said here and I’m surprised the OP felt it was worth submitting.
> here my tv-loving self interrupts, indignantly and a little defensively: It’s just TV. It’s all in good fun. And that’s true. I enjoyed Gaslit.
This is how I remember my older sister writing when we were in high school. Maybe I’m getting old, I just find the tone so infantilizing and tacky.
I agree that the parent is being overly pessimistic, but on balance I’m not sure that your list represents a net positive. The iPhone especially has been negative, as it nearly single-handedly ushered in the era of ubiquitous smartphones, vendor lock-in, and app stores.
"No value" is of course not the same as "net positive benefit".
Takes drones for example. I've been woken by them at 7am on campsites. I've been quietly reading a book at the beach only to be disrupted by some instagram addict with a drone. Peaceful walks in the mountains have been disrupted. As far as I'm concerned, they're a net-negative. They're excessively loud, annoying, and as far as I'm concerned they're net-negative.
You're other examples are more complex, but my point is mainly: "provides value" is not identical to "net positive benefit".
Online tax prep isn't a net positive at all. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist. In normal countries, the government already knows your income and other such info, and fills out your taxes for you; you just have to verify and sign, unless there's a problem.
Messaging apps are a bit similar: SMS is so horrible that proprietary apps were made as a better alternative, but it's all Balkanized and incompatible. Still, they fill a need, since communication is important and something people should do (tax prep is not: most people shouldn't be doing it at all).
The smartphone is the worst invention in the history of the world. Worse than nuclear weapons, worse than corona virus, worse than leaded gasoline. It is an enslavement device, a tracking device, a spying device.
[EDIT] Messaging "apps" used to be neutral but now are trending negative due to being controlled by spy companies.
Taxation is theft so making it easier doesn't sound like a good thing.
Spotify is a service designed to remove your property rights under guise of giving you access to a large catalogue.
Dropbox is a government surveillance service. Upload your files so the government can scan them.
Nope. Roads? Government won't let me drive without more taxes. Healthcare? Haven't seen a doctor in a decade, not that it is "free" here anyway. Electricity, gas, water: paid for by me with duties and levies and tax on top. Firefighters? Have never once called for their services but I would pay them when needed. Police? They're the ones who enforce the stealing. Plus they get special privileges the rest of us don't.
Another way to phrase this point: if I had to choose between all of it, so far, or none of it — I’d choose the latter. And as I type here now, I say I would. Pull the plug
In order for a negative review to contribute to a conversation you should really make it more than a poorly written 10 word sentence. If you don’t, well, there is nothing at all convincing about why the article is bad.
Not everyone will share your opinion that it is bad so if you don’t make a supporting argument then what’s the point of saying anything at all?
Also, I really wish people would leave an explanation about why they are downvoting more often.
