In The Media Equation, by Reeves, Byron, and Nass, they propose the idea that humans’ interaction with media occurs in ways that mimic their responses to other people. For instance, people are likely to respond positively toward a computer which asks for opinions about itself from a user. Similarly, when a person asks another person for opinions about himself, more often than not he will receive a positive response (Reeves, Byron, and Nass, p.5).
The interesting thing to note about this theory, and the point with which I most disagree with the writers of this piece, is the idea that the cause of the attribution of human qualities to non-human things is that the brain is not advanced enough to view twentieth-century technology and the “relationships” it offers as not being a recipient of feelings (Reeves, Byron, and Nass, p. 12). The writers propose that our “primitive, automatic responses” (Reeves, Byron, and Nass, p. 13) are an impediment to our understanding that that with which we interact is not “real” and does not have real “feelings” in the truest sense of those words.
Reeves, Byron, and Nass use the idea of people who are able to overcome their “fright” during a scary movie by talking themselves out of it (p.13). What they seem to miss out on, however, is humans’ desire to have social interactions over which they have control. Most people do not seek to put themselves in actual danger, to subject themselves to situations that elicit actual fear. When we go to the movies, we are making a conscious decision to allow ourselves to be frightened because we fundamentally understand that that which we are witnessing poses no real threat to us. Though Reeves, Byron, and Nass would seem to conclude that our brains are not able to differentiate between various modes of interaction, people’s desire to put themselves in situations such as viewing a scary movie or riding “harrowing” adventure rides at theme parks like Islands of Adventure seems evidence to the contrary. We enjoy the rush of adrenaline we get from “fear” so long as we can control the environment, the situation, the setting. We can always choose to leave the theater, not get on the ride.
And what of the other scenarios? Why has research shown that people are apt to give more positive responses to a medium asking questions about itself than another medium asking questions about it? I don’t necessarily disagree with the assertions outlined in The Media Equation. There is, however, no detailed description of the manner in which the research was conducted. I don’t believe it is infeasible to propose that people generally, subconsciously, deeply desire to maintain interactions with non-human things in the same manner as with humans. This implies a far different cognitive process than that described by Reeves, Byron, and Nass.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Richard-
Thanks for your comments to my Media Equation post.
Your post was thought-provoking and I appreciate your questioning.
You said: "When we go to the movies, we are making a conscious decision to allow ourselves to be frightened because we fundamentally understand that that which we are witnessing poses no real threat to us." True. Besides, we want to feel that fear because it heightens the entire experience. Humans want to feel and connect, which is why I believe we allow ourselves to do it. Maybe we get lost in the sensations, but the reality is still there. Like you said, we still have the choice to leave or not enter in the first place.
A guy watching a scary video...
Contains not-safe-for-work language (the guy swears a few times)
This is a video of a guy playing the 'maze' game that went around the web a couple years ago.
If you search 'maze prank' you'll get MANY pages of results that show people playing the maze game and reacting.
This is a good example for the Media Equation because it demonstrates how easy it is to produce a very real fight or flight response from someone if they aren't conciously thinking about the media involved.
Hmm, well, it seems Reeves, Byron, and Nass have a particular audience of "humans" rather than the generic term. That could be the case. They could be discussing the human being who suffers psychologically, which isn't to say that they have a psychiatric disorder, but have incredibly strong insecurities.
For example, with accordance to your point (as well as Reeves, Byron, and Nass) about how humans respond positively when asked about another's nature, there is more likely more of fear of themselves than the want of social interaction. Deep down in their psyche, there is the mother who's drilled inside their heads "manners," "be nice," "don't say what you would not want to hear."
Bingo.
They respond positively more often than not because that is what they would like to hear in return. The thought of saying something insulting, which would then cause some sort of retaliation by the person being judged, is frightening in terms of one's pride, dignity, or person itself.
Or maybe I'm just thinking too much into things. Oh well. Interesting blog, Mr. Wells.
Post a Comment