A couple weeks ago, I asked a friend how close he thought we were to a time when Americans would get so frustrated with their corrupt and dysfunctional government that they take to the streets with torches. He replied: that won’t happen as long as they’ve got TV. I think my friend has a good point. TV appears to be electronic Soma.
As long as ordinary Americans are glued to the tube, there is little hope that they will be able to focus the requisite attention and energy necessary to fix their government. It’s not that all heavy TV viewers would become active participants in their government if we took away their TVs. As long as they are glued to their hypnotic televisions, though, they won’t be active participants in their own government. As long as American citizens suckle off their television sets, government will be run unabashedly by big corporations.
American citizens don’t seem to be inclined to give up their TV viewing, despite the fact that giving up most of their viewing would free them up to monitor their government and to advocate for needed changes. According to the Nielsen Media Research Study released in September 2006, the average American household watched television more than 8 hours per day during the 2005-2006 television year. Individuals watched an average amount 4 hours and 35 minutes per day To watch TV for 4 ½ hours per day, every day, is virtually the same amount of time many people dedicate to working full time jobs (37.5 hours/week x 50 weeks).
This is an astonishing amount of passive viewing. It’s astonishing because the average television show is so incredibly lacking in quality—if you doubt my broad-brush slander of TV shows, do this experiment: simply turn on your television to a randomly chosen station (other than PBS) and watch for a few minutes. If you happen upon a innocuous looking news program, watch it only after consulting the high quality media criticism provided by the media site links displayed on the home page to Dangerous Intersection. Additional criticism of local newscasts is provided here.
What would we have to gain from giving up most of that television watching? Families will start talking with each other again, according to many anecdotes. Here’s some additional benefits: “better mental clarity, (desired) weight loss, exploring new hobbies, better relationships, more energy, higher productivity, greater emotional stability, and even better sex.” People will knit themselves back into communities. For those viewers who fail to be highly selective, sitting and watching television is one of those modern activities (another is being a sports spectator) that gives the illusion that one is doing something when one is actually doing nothing. As long as one is under the illusion that one is doing something, one will be oblivious to any suggestion that one needs to start doing something.
The statistics are incredibly distressing. TV Turnoff Network presents a sampling of these statistics here. For example:
- 40% of Americans always or often watch television while eating dinner.
- Parents spend an average of 38.5 minutes in meaningful conversation with their children per week.
- Ten or more hours of television viewing per week negatively affects academic achievement.
- Children under 7 spend 95% of their television-time without their parents.
- American children spend 900 hours per year in school, but 1,023 hours watching television.
- The average American child sees 200,000 violent acts on TV by age 18. This includes 16,000 murders.
- Only 16% of programs show the long-term consequences of violence.
- Only 4% of shows emphasize anti-violence themes.
Here’s a recent statistic: America now has more TV’s than people.
Even more distressing, check out this article in Scientific American, “Television Addiction Is No Mere Metaphor,” by Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. The article concludes that many television viewers qualify as “addicts” in every meaningful sense of that term:
The term “TV addiction” is imprecise and laden with value judgments, but it captures the essence of a very real phenomenon. Psychologists and psychiatrists formally define substance dependence as a disorder characterized by criteria that include spending a great deal of time using the substance; using it more often than one intends; thinking about reducing use or making repeated unsuccessful efforts to reduce use; giving up important social, family or occupational activities to use it; and reporting withdrawal symptoms when one stops using it. All these criteria can apply to people who watch a lot of television.
Yes, TV helps many people feel relaxed. “Within moments of sitting or lying down and pushing the “power” button, viewers report feeling more relaxed.” But there is a price to pay for this sense of relaxation:
What is more surprising is that the sense of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue. Survey participants commonly reflect that television has somehow absorbed or sucked out their energy, leaving them depleted. They say they have more difficulty concentrating after viewing than before. In contrast, they rarely indicate such difficulty after reading. After playing sports or engaging in hobbies, people report improvements in mood. After watching TV, people’s moods are about the same or worse than before . . . [V]iewers’ vague learned sense that they will feel less relaxed if they stop viewing may be a significant factor in not turning the set off. Viewing begets more viewing.
The authors report that the longer people sit in front of the TV set, the less satisfaction they said they derived. Heavy viewers generally reports that they enjoyed TV less than light viewers.
This same article got especially interesting when it considered the triggers for these responses. It’s not the content of the programs. Rather, it’s the “stylistic tricks” utilized by producers: the cuts, edits and zooms.
In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the simple formal features of television–cuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noises–activate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger involuntary responses and “derive their attentional value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement…. It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique.”
The orienting response may partly explain common viewer remarks such as: “If a television is on, I just can’t keep my eyes off it,” “I don’t want to watch as much as I do, but I can’t help it,” and “I feel hypnotized when I watch television.” In the years since Reeves and Thorson published their pioneering work, researchers have delved deeper. Annie Lang’s research team at Indiana University has shown that heart rate decreases for four to six seconds after an orienting stimulus. In ads, action sequences and music videos, formal features frequently come at a rate of one per second, thus activating the orienting response continuously.
The orienting response is overworked. Viewers still attend to the screen, but they feel tired and worn out, with little compensating psychological reward.
The power of these triggers can’t be getting any less in this day and age of wide screen televisions with brilliant colors and full-spectrum sound. Maybe the low quality shows don’t improve in quality when viewed in the state-of-the-art home theater, but watching them does become more compelling.
Human animals are rigged early in life to attend to bright and shiny things such as changes in sounds and images of television shows. Many of us become helpless to turn the set off. Many people can’t even muster the strength to turn the set off in order to get to sleep. Who often wins when it’s a struggle between television use in a couple’s bedroom versus a healthy sex life? The TV.
Heavy viewers have “poorer attentional control” and they use TV “to distract themselves from unpleasant thoughts and to fill time.” Other studies have shown that when cable TV moved into communities, “both adults and children in the town became less creative in problem solving, less able to persevere at tasks, and less tolerant of unstructured time.”
When heavy viewers cut back on viewing, they become edgy and dysfunctional. Their nerves become frayed. Television-watching can be viewed as an addiction because “millions of people sense that they cannot readily control the amount of television they watch.” In my experience, most heavy viewers know that they are spending inordinate amounts of time watching TV and they already know they should be attending to other things.What’s the best evidence that television is an addiction?
“Just say no” doesn’t work as advice to heavy viewers. This leaves me with little to say, of course, other than to platitudinous suggestion that we need to keep in mind the addictive power of non-selective television viewing. This suggestion should be made available on TV, but don’t expect it any time soon.
What synchonicity! I've just been considering taking another sabbatical from the mind-sucking incubus of video addiction. I've gone cold turkey several times in my life. Those have been my most productive and satifying years.
Reducing my reception from cable to the few fuzzy channels available to my multipath-plagued rabbit ears some years ago hasn't reduced my dependency. There is no content on the idiot box that I cannot do without. Perhaps I should consider my mental attention as a fungible asset, and kill the <a target="_blank" title="Monkees reference" href="http://monkeestv3.tripod.com/season2/mijacogeo.html">Dread Frodis.
The fact that I had that allusion at the tip of my brain is probably a symptom of my addiction.
I'm with you, Erich. I'v been using my tv exclusively as a dvd-viewing device for two years and haven't regretted it for a moment. Well, I did stick the rabbit ears on to watch a bit of the winter olympics and the finals at Wimbledon, which saved me from having to find a sports bar, but that's about it.
However, tv is a common topic of conversation among co-workers and "sorry, I don't watch tv" is often taken as snobbery. My usual tactic is to question other people about the shows they watch and hope they don't notice that I have nothing to contribute. Anyone else have suggestions?
I stopped watching TV almost entirely about two years ago, as a time-saving neccessity. I haven't missed a thing about it; in fact, I didn't even consciously notice that I had stopped watching television until other people brought it to my attention.
I wouldn't demonize it any more than any other mindless diversion. I think the cultural importance placed on regular television watching makes it more dangerous. Parents use TV as a babysitter, children and teens as a hobby, adults as a time-waster or companion. If you poured four hours a day into, say, building little wooden sailboats in glass bottles, people would call you insane and a loser. At least that activity has a tangible result and keeps the mind engaged, I guess.
Sarah: I don't have a solution to your issue, but I do have some optimism. TV viewing keeps declining as programs get more formulaic and idiotic, and as more people spend time on the internet (which could prove both a bad and good thing). I actually don't get that many offended looks when I say I don't watch TV, perhaps because I make it sound like I don't watch it because I find nothing I like (the truth), not because I have some kind of intellectual high ground against it (also true).
When I was in college, a roommate of mine planned to bring a TV into our room. I knew he was a TV addict, so I gave him a choice: either he could leave his TV set at home, or I would purchase it from him and throw it out our (3rd floor) window. He left it at home.
Nevertheless, TV is not necessarily a total waste of time. For example, I sometimes surf the religious (Christian) stations to see what they are peddling, because it can be a real eye-opener. I also sometimes watch the Sunday morning news shows, because it's a quick way to get right-wing (Fox News Sunday) and left-wing (Meet The Press) perspectives on current events. [To my surprise (or, perhaps not), the posts here on Dangerous Intersections routinely provide better analysis of current events than I see on television.]
Most of the rest of what's on TV, except for PBS, is just manure. Most "news" programs have become little more than gossip rags — finding someone who has just had a close relative tragically killed, sticking a microphone in their face and asking, "How does it FEEL to have had your (insert relation) killed in that horrible accident?" As if all of America is eager to know. It has become the broadcast equivalent of the National Enquirer (an American weekly that has articles about miracle diets, alien abductions, two-headed humans, etc.).
I quit TV a few years ago and havn't looked back. What surprised me was how rapidly my standards realigned. After a few months without viewing, I found myself watching TV in a friends house one evening and was astonished at how much garbage was being broadcast. I couldn't believe I'd never noticed it before, but TV is uniformly terrible. It amazed me that I could ever have watched such a pointless thing for any length of time. The advertising was particularly troubling. What a waste.
Untrue. There was TV in the 60s and 70s too – remember, Vietnam was the first war that was very much televised, and people took to the streets. Frankly, we aren't responding because we aren't truly at risk – we have a volunteer professional army, i.e. no draft, i.e. we'll never see battle. Which is why no one really polarized to any real extent beyond the verbal. The reason there was such rioting and protesting was because those kids realized that one day, they, too, might be called up to go south of the border to fight those Charlie bastards.
As for why no one stands up to all the other stuff – MCA, Patriot Act, etc – you have to realized that those things are far more intangible to most people. The majority of the people in this country probably are unaware of what, exactly, the MCA or Patriot Act even is.
Further, you have to understand that there is a segment of the population that agrees with these acts – keep in mind that the #1 voting issue this past election was moral values and corruption. NOT wiretapping or civil rights. Then you get a large part of the population who disagree with what's been done to civil rights, but are believers in the "pendulum swing" theory – that it'll just right itself again. It's not TV that placates them. Then you get the people who think things need to change – NOW. I'm not saying that I'm not one of them, but overall we are pretty much the minority. Television truly doesn't rank much in all this. The most notable riots / protests in the past century took place during the period after which the television was invented. If anything, it made people more aware of what was / is going on than they would have been otherwise (if they weren't watching FOX, and sometimes even then the brighter ones would get a clue).
In any case, demonizing the Internet would probably be a better option, since it is through that that we log in, bitch to our heart's content about the state of the nation, then feel satisfied when a couple of people agree. We get our inner feelings out simply by typing. No physical action necessary.
Great article, only missing the 1984 reference. and Sarah – convert your colleagues into talking about the net, always leads way to a much broader conversation. In fact we have abolished tv talk for the most part, in favor of linksharing.
Erich, so what do we do? There was a great analogy that Alan Lomax (ethnomusicologist) used to make about communication. in fact he used to say (speaking of Radio broadcast) that it was "the greatest problem of our generation". Because communication was supposed to be two ways. but with radio and television, the transmitters cost millions and millions of dollars whilst the recievers only cost a few bucks. Leaving the voice to be heard by only those that can afford the transmitter. I thank the gods that the internet is trying to level this playing field. but it's not enough. If t.v. is the sea, the internet is the universe. How do we stay focused and collected whilst not losing our place?
Personally I think that some tv is good, but not necessary. It's the youngin's I worry bout. With their parents losing time against everyday life, the t.v. becomes a cheap baby sitter. I recall seeing some electronic gadget on the net somewheres that you can plug your t/v/ into and it was on a timer and locked, but I don't see parents going thru the hassle.
Nature settled this exact argument for my wife and I when we were having it out about the need for 5 t.v.'s in the house when lightning struck our home, and fried all but one t.v.
May mother nature be on our side.
We gave it up when we had kids 4 years ago. Agree with everything here. Except — I have to say that the sex did not get better.
Just like to reiterate – support anyone who cuts out the tee-vee because it makes you more likely to read a book or, hell, write a book, but if you aren't in the mood for either there's nothing wrong with it. It's like weed, or cocaine – look, if you can take a line or two every month or so and shrug it off, enjoy it, and not let it get to you, then there's nothing wrong with it. I don't do either 'cause I'm not interested, but it's a good analogy. If it doesn't effect your daily life – if it doesn't make you lazy, stupid, or addicted – then there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with watching the daily show or south park or whatever you want. But when you sit in front of the tube twelve hours a day – god – it's worse than a handful of drugs out there. But then you've got to consider – is the TV to blame, or is it you? Is the smoker to blame for starting / continuing? Or is the cigarette? Is the asshole who dumped coffee all over his lap to blame? Or is the overly hot coffee? We're all responsible for our own foibles, when it comes down to it. Stay away from tee-vee if it's addictive. Join rehab if you're into coke. Don't get a coffee in the drive-thru if you're a butterhands. Any of those things – even coke (I've known people to handle it, even if I've not touched it 'cause I don't play games with that shit) – are fine if you can handle it. It's when it's out of control that it's a problem – and when it's a problem, it's your fault. Taking away abortions isn't going to stop the nymphos, making coke illegal isn't going to stop the cokeheads, no amount of tee-vee bans will stop the Tube addicts. Just recognize who you are, what your limits are, and deal with it, don't condemn others who can handle what causes you an issue.
I like TV both as entertainment and as a window on the sensibilities of the nation, and really disagree with your not-suggested- by- research analysis which seems to suggest that TV's main role is to stifle dissent. Ridiculous. Like much of offline and online media TV is almost exclusively about money and is commercially driven. I'd suggest TV is more a reflection of our (mostly mundane and superficial) interests than a mechanism that shapes them, though both forces are powerfully at work.
A recent study concerned the best way to distract children whose blood was being drawn. "Children who were distracted by television rather than by their mothers during venipuncture reported less pain, according to the results of a study reported in the November 28 issue of the Archives of Disease in Childhood." See http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/548718?src=mp (requires free registration).
Hey Erich,
I found your article somewhat interesting (not particularly original) and don't completely disagree with it. Although, it seems that it's mainly aimed at the small sliver of individuals that already felt the same as you before they ever saw it. You're "preaching to the choir" as it were.
If you believe that the programs on TV are crap, well that's just a matter of your personal taste, which might have developed in that fashion because you might not have grown up suckling at tv's sweet teet. I get the feeling that you (and many others who posted) probably grew up doing a lot of reading or playing outdoors or whatnot, and that's all well and good. But, you see, most TV really isn't for you, so it's pretty obvious why it wouldn't appeal to you.
Just as someone stated earlier, TV is a commercially motivated industry, looking for the most ratings/sponsors what have you… so, they're trying to market to the broadest demographic that are attuned to TV watching. So, those people that grew up with TV are more likely to be drawn in by new shows or movies that follow the formulas that worked in the past. Sure, it's nice to see a show that's a little different sometimes, but really I'm just looking for programming that's good enough to meet a certain threshold.
Speaking of me… I enjoy watching tv and probably watch much more than the average American. Actually, while I'm typing this, I have the TV on in the background (it's a rerun of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode). I don't really have it on for any particular reason, I've seen the episode before… but really, what else should I have on while typing. Maybe some music? Don't really feel like listening to anything in particular right now. Maybe silence? Nope, I seem to think more clearly with at least some ambient sound.
Maybe this signifies me as an addict? Not really, because usually addiction is indicated when the act (be it drup use, alcohol abuse, sexual, etc…) interferes with usual daily activities or takes precedence over most if not all other events. I gotta admit, if my wife needed to go to the hospital, but I was watching the season finale of "24" (a show I like quite a bit), I would definitely take her to the hospital… and maybe ask a friend to tape it 😉
The fact of the matter is, TV is filler. It's a nice way to spend the time when you don't have other things to do. Or, more importantly, when you don't have the MONEY to do other things.
YES… I went there! That's right. Let's ask the question. Erich, what would you have me do with my time besides watch tv? Read a book? I've read many and still read some from time to time. But, after a while I get to a point where I just don't feel like reading. Or I just don't want to go out and buy more because I've got no place to put the new ones and getting them from the library is a difficult task since the popular books get checked out months in advance while others (that I don't care to read) rot on the shelf.
How about I take up a sport? Maybe I can pay $250.00 to join a bowling league or maybe I can go to a sophisticated wine tasting night for about $60 dollars (hey, that's more than I pay for cable in a month). Or maybe, I can take up photography?… I'm sure I can get a nice camera for about $100 or so and memory card (if it's digital) and software for my computer and display my works on some random website so people can look at my photos and say, "good job!". I can even sit out by the lighthouse for a couple of hours a day just waiting for when the sun hits just right to give me that perfect shot, etc.
But, honestly, I know I'm being a bit dramatic with the cost of things. But, we all know, just about anything worthwhile I could do with my time (sorry, worthwhile and ENJOYABLE… worthwhile can be serving food at a soup kitchen, but it doesn't mean I'd like it), is going to probably cost money that I really don't have.
Then again, you started off this whole discussion with a focus on politics and local government. You made statements about TV cutting into time that I could be using to "make a difference" or something civic-minded like that. So, instead of watching "My Name is Earl" on Thursday night, I should probably be out on a street corner with a sign that says, "Screw Bush! Bring our boys home!" or something such as that. Well, I think I'd feel a little dumb doing so.
You may say that it's TV, but you don't explain how to do what you propose us to do once we stop watching. Should I go to the local Democratic/Republican office and volunteer for something? Should I start a blog and become one of the talking heads who like to put their own little spin on what the strengths and weaknesses of elected officials are? You seem to want me to hurry up and start running in some hampster wheel. All revved up to go but not really getting anything done. At least when I'm watching tv I don't have to work for doing nothing, I just am doing nothing.
You wrote a nice long article that didn't change anybody's mind. The people that agreed with you, already had agreed with you and the ones that didn't, still disagree. I don't know how long it took you to write it, but I'm sure I could've watched quite a few episodes of some of my favorite shows and would've ended up much more satisfied than your article made me lol. The only reason I'm even bothering to respond right now is because there's really nothing on and I have nothing better to do. So, the internet starts "filling time" for me just like TV does when it has something on that I'm interested in watching.
After all this writing, you can see that I don't really have much of a point, but then again, you don't either. How about a just tell you a little more about myself. I enjoy reading books as well as comics (Currently reading The Art of War, Metamorphosis, The Essence of Taoism, The Lovely Bones and An Underground Education). I don't work out as often as I should (usually about 1 hour to 1.5 hours per week). My wife and I have a pretty good sex life (about once or twice a week… sometimes more, sometimes less), I work as a Mental Health Technician dealing with people who are developmentally disabled, physically disabled, psychologically and emotionally impaired, etc. I'm usually thought of as a reasonably intelligent person by those I meet. I enjoy chess, video games, writing… and i watch an average of roughly 20-25 hours of tv a week(probably more, but I'm going by what I'm currently watching and some shows have started back up yet… should be more by sweeps)
Shows I have watched or plan to watch this week:
The Dresden FIles 1 hour
Battlestar Galactica 1 hour
*Surreal Life Games 1 hour
*Extreme Makeover Home Edition 1 hour
*Heroes 1 hour
*Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip 1 hour
24 1 hour
Star Trek Enterprise (on Scifi) 4 hours
Veronica Mars 1 hour
*CSI:NY 1 hour
Medium 1 hour
*Smallville 1 hour
Supernatural 1 hour
CSI 1 hour
Shark 1 hour
Afro Samurai 1/2 hour
*Las Vegas 1 hour
Jake 2.0 (on scifi) 2 hours
Monk 1 hour
Psyche 1 hour
Saturday Night Toonami + Adult Swim on Toon Network (at least 4 hours of it)
(*= shows I watch with my wife)
Admittedly, I don't whatch them all at the scheduled times. I usually record over lapping programs in order to watch later (I don't have tivo)… but I eventually watch all my programs.
So, I guess I'm an addict, but quite frankly, does that matter? I'm certainly not the smartest or most eloquent individual around, but I think that my cognitive and intellectual skills aren't dulled to the level of a 6 year old. I get along with others with relative ease and can muster one or two original thoughts to write a poem or short story from time to time. I work with my clients well and have gotten excellent reviews from my managers. I guess I'm trying to say… what exactly do you think is so very wrong with me?
Oh, I gotta go… I typed through the whole episode of Buffy and now there's an episode of Law and Order on that I haven't seen before.
Cleptomanx: You've got me pegged wrong. I inhaled TV for much of my life. Several hours per day as a child. I've been there and done that.
In a world where we had no worries, I have no problem with people passisvely amusing themselves with TV, movies, video games or trashy books. Or even burning hour after hour playing card games. But our world is not that sort of world. There are numerous pressing problems that threaten my generation, but especially the next generation.
Are you ready to stand up, at your version of judgment day (this is an exercise–I'm not a Believer) and state: "I watched lots and lots of TV"? See http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=862
Cleptomanx: you seem to think the choice is to be on a hamster wheel or on the couch. There is a middle ground, and it doesn't cost the money you seem to think it does. Photography? How about checking out books in the library about it, or going to exhibits? You don't have to buy an expensive camera to get involved with photography. You can even get a $10 disposable, and if you have a good eye, you'll get a good picture.
Workout? Why is a gym necessary? What happened to taking a few steps outside? Most of us have feet and legs that work. It doesn't cost me a dime.
How about cooking something new? It doesn't cost much unless you're expecting truffles or something. Most of us have a stove, and a pot to cook it in, that doesn't cost much.
You can sew, whittle, sing, compose, write, dance, talk, listen, puzzle, think, etc., without spending much of anything.
I could go on, but you get the point. You seem to have bought in hook line and sinker that you must CONSUME if you aren't simply watching tv. That simply isn't true.
And by the way, have you seen the info about brain waves (or lack thereof) while we're watching tv? Check that out. It's not quite brain dead, but pretty close.
Erich: Sorry I got you pegged wrong. Just seemed like your article was so biased against TV that I thought you had a natural distaste for it that might've been born from a youth away from the idiot box.
As for the worries of the world… I posit the concept that the world is not much better off or worse off as it was many generations ago. Take your pick, the world clenched in the black plague (at that time, europe being most of the world), the world being scared of witches and demonic possessions, the world in the throws of war…civil, WWI, WWII, what have you, The ever impending doom of The Cold War with nuclear annihilation waiting just around the corner, the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc, etc… There's always global issues and there will always be global issues, and luckily there are always people that are at least somewhat well-suited to rise to the occassions. But, I am not that person… so, no matter what catastrophies are going to happen during this generation, it may concern me in a general sense, but unless my neighborhood gets bombed tomorrow, I'm not going to be involved.
Let's look at an example. In the last 2 elections I voted against Bush and that didn't seem to work out too well. The whole world told Bush not to go into Iraq. He went anyway. 65% of Americans are displeased with him, but he's still in office. And, unless he pulls out Dick Chaney's spine with his bare hands, he's just going to serve out his second term. Many people who tried to "Do Something" Picketed in front of the white house and called Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Boyscout Troop Leaders… but nothing changes lol. So, I could spend all that time trying to fight the good fight or I can just enjoy my evening with some TV. I think I'll take the latter.
Devi: Of course I've bought the concept of CONSUME. Just like any red-blooded American in this fine capitalistic country… I'm a Citizen which automatically makes me a Consumer.
Sure I can get a $10.00 disposable camera and go to the library to read up on photography, but then I have to develop that film which costs another $7.00. And, since it's a cheap disposable camera the film quality and shutter speed are that of a toddler's toy. Then I get my prints back and have to buy another camera. So, in the first month, I've already spent $30-$40 for 100 crappy snapshots. If I were serious about photography it would be pointless to go half-assed.
As for the gym… I never mentioned getting a gym membership. And, I do quite a bit of walking everyday for my job. The beauty part about a consumer based society is the fact that very little money is poured into the things that aren't fun. Boring usually equals no money. I have sewed to mend clothing, but wouldn't wish to pursue the activity for pleasure. I don't plan on whittling until I have a long gray beard and have a strange boy sitting on the porch with me playing a banjo. I tire of having to talk considering that I spend my 10 hour shifts doing cognitive therapy (basically talking). Listen?… I am listening to whatever show happens to be on, or maybe even a music video (during the few times that VH1 or MTV actually have music anymore). I write quite often and seem to do it the best when the TV is on(for example, Attack of the Show is on right now). I often do puzzles (Crossword, Sudoku, Logic Riddles, etc…)
Basically, the things you can do for little money (or free in some cases) don't offer the stimulus required to keep my attention. They get old REAL fast. But, luckily TV doesn't because when a show gets tired it gets cancelled and then 5 new ones jump up to take its place. All with their own little characters and storylines to amuse.
And, that cooking thing, I like to cook different things quite often… that's where the Food Network comes in handy 🙂 Tonight I'm cooking Jumbalaya and Smoked Sausage.
When you go for a walk, you eventually have to come back. So why not sit down afterwards and watch some TV?
Lastly, no I haven't seen what TV does to my brainwaves, but I'm guessing it can't be that bad since I'm still watching TV and am able to voice my opinion in a somewhat capable manner. I'm sure I'm not debate team material, but I seem to be able to say what I mean. If I didn't then you guys wouldn't have understood anything I wrote earlier. So, unless watching TV is like smoking and the cumulative effects will cause me to have cancer in the distant future(I've never heard study results to confirm such an idea), I really don't see much of a downside.
By the way, a thought occurred to me. If you guys ever wanted to truly mobilize the masses and get them off the couches and out doing something more productive, how would you plan on accomplishing this feat without utilizing the Evil Boob Tube? I mean it's the fastest way to get to the masses, so isn't that a bit of a catch 22?
Sorta like that "If God is all powerful can he create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?" kinda question.
There's an easy way to see if you're an addict: Turn it off and leave it off for 48 hours, while otherwise doing your normal routine. If you feel the driving need to turn it on, to sit and watch just "for a few minutes", then you are addicted.
Been there. I've gone cold turkey a few times, for a few years each time.
I'm now 4 months into my latest hiatus.
Oh sure, I've done that a couple of times. The first time, I went for 3 months in 1996. It wasn't because I wanted to though, it was out of necessity because I had taken this Security Job and was working crazy hours (First, second, third… sometimes double shifts). After about 3 months of that, I found a job with a better work schedule and was back to TV. Although, not really much at first. At that time I was way more into watching movies. Probably why my next job was at Blockbuster Video (The 5 free rentals a week were pretty nice + we were required to watch the new releases that came out on tuesdays so we could be well informed for customer questions. Those didn't count against our 5 free, but I'm getting off subject now).
Aftre that there were a few other times when I chose to just turn off the tube for a month or two because I was involved in writing or was on a book reading jag or just didn't feel like it, etc. I'm sure some time in the future I will do so again… but, that's why God invented the DVD 🙂 If I really want to go back and watch a season I missed, I just rent the whole damn thing and digest it in concentration (JOY!). I actually did that with the first two seasons of "The West Wing" because I didn't really bother watching it when it first came out. Then I saw it at family video and shot through the first and second season in one week. It was sweet, but I didn't really keep up with the show much after the 5th season (I think?).
So, I guess I'm not an addict.
Although, I was thinking about this discussion a bit last night and I couldn't get one phrase out off my head… "Passive Viewing". It really stuck with me because I was trying to figure out why this phrase would have such a bad connotation within this topic. Passive is basically "inactive", but we are passive in many activities that you guys seem to think are good. I'm extremely inactive when I'm reading or playing chess. I'm inactive when I'm seated having a conversation (yeah, there might be a little hand gesturing, but all in all pretty inactive).
So, I have to assume that the passivity alluded to has more to do with the mind (considering the talk of brainwaves and such). But, that's seems a bit unusual to me considering that when I'm watching my programs my mind is anything but passive. WHen you view a show, your mind is always trying to pick up on plot, sub plots, new characters, old characters, character interaction, show history, possible outcomes to certain actions, upcoming plot twists and even the production value itself. Editing, Cinematography (yeah, tv's actually got that now lol), Quality of FX, etc, etc. You can go on and on about the puzzles that the mind is struggling with when watching an episode of CSI or Numbers or even what strategy is going to be used by the players on Survivor.
So, if anyone's passively watching TV programs, that's really their own fault. If you sit and just watch, waiting for the writer to just give you all the answers without at least formulating a couple of conclusions of your own, then you're really missing out on the experience of watching TV.
Then again, if that's the way you watch TV then it's also probably the way you read a book… You never wonder about the fate of Reardon Metal or Emmanuel Goldstein. You never hypothesize about what Asimov is going for halfway through the "Foundation" series. Is Holden Caulfield just a faker? If you're a passive viewer then in essence you would also have to be a passive reader which means you might as well just keep watching TV because you wouldn't get any more out of reading a book anyway.
I want to highlight one comment Cleptomanx made that I find hilarious. Clepto said: luckily TV doesn’t [bore me]because when a show gets tired it gets cancelled and then 5 new ones jump up to take its place. All with their own little characters and storylines to amuse.
I don't find much difference in most shows at all, and seldom do the replacements have much more value than the ones they replace. You've got the cop shows, the forensic shows, the doctor shows, the reality shows, the game shows. One medical examiner in NY, one in LV, one in Miami, wow, that is really different. One reality show on stage in one city, another in another city, everyone singing or dancing or surviving; one gameshow asking questions, another asking (different?) questions, one doctor (or group of) in Seattle, one in another city, all working with patients with novel diseases; you have the comedies, one friend gets another into trouble with girls, the other friend gets the other into trouble with inlaws, the other with their job… (not much change there- Lucy did it a long time ago).
I have tv on a lot- cable with hundreds of channels, etc. I live alone, and I use it for company while I do hand work and crafts. I even learn a few things when I watch documentaries and some news. But I don't fool myself into thinking that tv is useful as more than entertainment, nor that it doesn't sap time away I could spend better elsewhere. I guess that is the crux: it is entertainment, entertainment which has way too many messages enticing us to overconsume food and products, isolates us from others (watching tv with others is a largely passive endeavor that limits conversations), and generally causes us to be unproductive and miss some of life's best opportunities. How many of us (myself included) have sat down in front of tv to watch a few minutes of something and found myself still sitting there until bedtime?
It is a boob tube, and we are boobs when we let it restrict our lives.
Devi: I totally agree with you about sitting around for hours and not really doing anything. Activity-wise, it's very passive…but, why is that a Bad thing? I guess I just don't understand what these BETTER things are that we can be doing instead? I haven't heard anyone say one thing I'd prefer to do (besides sex) than watch an episode of Stargate Atlantis or Ghost Hunters, etc. I don't have any urge to woodwork or whittle or sew or picket or stand on a soap box (besides when I'm typing on the internet that is) or anything else.
I'm sorry if I have sounded rude or condescending in any of my posts, discrediting the activities that you guys have been suggesting. I'm sure that they're fun for some of you guys, but they're rather boring and pointless to me. There's no joy in such prospects when it comes to my passions. I enjoy discussing philosophy, but there's no place for me to go to do that within my community, so I just do it on message boards. I enjoy playing chess… sides a couple of kiddie chess clubs that the elementary schools, there isn't anything like that around here either… so, I go to the comp once again (pogo.com most times).
Suffice it to say, TV is one of the most enjoyable things I can do with my free time, so why stop?
When it comes to nothing good being on… that's really just presonal taste as I've said before. Just your point of view. You get out of it what you put into it just like any other activity in your life.
Quite often, I like looking at snowflakes. I've enjoyed this small pastime for most of my life. I like to see a flake float down and land on my glove, leaving an interesting crystal shape before either melting or being blotted by others. I've probably seen many thousands of different little crystal formations over the years and they all look pretty similar to my naked eye, but I still enjoy looking at them.
Sure, many shows have practically the same characters, same storylines, even same writers, production crews, directors, etc… but, they all have slight differences because of the slight distinctions in the characters or in the situation itself. Lucy Ricardo is going to react a little differently in a situation than say Ralph Cramden, Monica Gellar or Elliot Reed. I enjoy the slight differences even if I've seen the same premise multiple times. If I didn't, I wouldn't like Chess or Video Games or whatnot. You go through the same thing over and over again, sometimes the outcomes are different many times the same, but it's still an enjoyable experience.
For example, handworking… I assume this means some type of woodworking, assembling or just some fixits around the house. I'm sure you've probably crafted the same thing many times in order to try to perfect your technique; make it a little better than you did in the past… maybe even learn a new technique to come out with the same result more efficiently. How is this any different from just enjoying the same show with a few new variables?
I guess TV watching can be somewhat akin to Buddhist Sand Art. You enjoy the experience of making the sand form, but then wipe it away after your done. Or, to a lesser extent, making sand castles at the beach. You make it, but know it's going to be destroyed shortly. You still enjoyed making it even though you end up not accomplishing anything.
So, why not spend hours a day making sand castles… everything else is just as unproductive anyway. I can make a bird house instead or go out and snap some pictures or study up on string theory (which I enjoy doing at times), but it's not going to amount to much of anything in my life. Just like when I took AP Calc and AP Physics in Highschool. Do you think I remember any of the theorems or equations that I learned back then. Nope. Does it matter? Nope. I don't use it in my daily life, so who cares. Others do use it in their daily life, so good for them, but that doesn't impact me in the least unless they come up with a new product for me to consume.
My point is, you can use your time to do many productive and personally edifying(sp?) things, but once your dead, none of them are going to really matter, so why not relax and sit back and watch some TV? Because 100 years from now, your personal accomplishments aren't going to be remembered unless you got some modicum of fame for your endeavors. I don't see anyone around here getting famous for this discussion… just another time killer like everything else.
Clepto/Devi/everyone else: This looks like a "What makes life meaningful" discussion focused on whether watching TV does the trick. I think everyone is admitting that watching lots of TV is the equivalent of withdrawing from the world outside the front door. The question is a deeper one, though. What must one do with one's life to make one's life meaningful? The TV question is the same question as many other questions we could have posed. For instance, what if I spend 98% of my life energies being the worlds best Free Cell player? Have I thus wasted my life?
Unless we can come up with what life is "for," I don't think there's any way to answer these questions. There are days when I'm convinced that the meaning of life is based on aesthetics. There are other days when I think it's all conditional to the hand you've been dealt. If you had young children (I have two of them) and I spend most of my non-working time ignoring them and watching sitcoms on TV, I'd have no defense to someone who accused me of wasting my life energies. There are other days when I'm convinced that it's a matter of pretending that something is important so that your life might seem important–bootstrapping.
Then again, there is nothing like encountering a person in need and committing one's self to helping out, to wash away the thought that life has so little meaning that one might as well spend it primarily on a solitary hobby, whether that be watching TV, collecting stamps, or memorizing the names in the phone book.
Well said, Erich. I like people that want to live a life that makes a positive difference to others. And I don't count buying things, even though it might give someone a job (some 8 year old in China), as being a positive.
I don't think we have to make a difference every minute of every day, and I like a lot of down time. But I believe when my last breath is over, I'm gone. I don't think I'll get a second (or more) chance to do it right, I don't think there are rewards in some great hereafter, it is simply over. It seems such a waste to not have made good use of this remarkable event- a life. And I guess I'm selfish enough to want to leave something of a legacy. I like people who do the same, in whatever form they choose. Teach someone to read, donate time at a soup kitchen, paint a beautiful picture, write a lovely poem. It doesn't have to be earth-shattering.
I see your point, Erich. If I had two children, I'm sure I would definitely not be spending as much time with TV. Right now it's just me and my wife. I'm sure that spending time with my children would be much more fulfilling and enriching than watching TV all day (although, I'm sure a lot of time would probably be spent watching TV with them), but I'm not at that point yet. I will be some day, but right now, I have time for TV.
I get that this discussion could be about any solitary activity, but I always hate the bad connotations that seem to come with TV. Critics blame TV violence for real life violence while others simply make broad statements like "It rots your brains"… I'm pretty sure my brain isn't rotten. It's all those old wives tales like "Masterbation will make you blind" or "Wait thirty minutes after eating before jumping in the pool". Crap that is nonchalantly tossed around without any basis.
I'm sure that there are a lot of stupid people that watch tons of TV, but don't make TV the culprit… they were idiots before they sat in front of the tube and they'll remain dumbasses long after they've tossed their big screen out the window.
You guys want to make a mark in some small way. A personal legacy of some kind (or at least Devi does). I wonder why though? I love the way we always feel ourselves to be so very unique and special that we have to prove this in some way(hell, I'm just as bad with all these posts right now) to the world around us, whether it's broadcasting our thoughts to millions of people or helping out a bum on the street one day. I wouldn't mind helping out a bum, but I'm not going to do that to make myself feel better about the person I am, I'm going to do it for the benefit of that guy! If he never even remembers that I gave him a good turn one day, that's fine with me… I didn't do it for any type of personal gain, noteriety, emotional or otherwise.
The odd thing I've noticed about this discussion is that my apathy seems a bit more civil than your attempts at betterment. You guys are looking to create something that is your own. An ownership of some kind of achievement even if it is small and personal. So, you do these things for gain of some type in your own lives. I don't know about you, but those sound very close to the characteristics epitomised by the word "selfishness" or, in the least an abundance of "pride" which is probably why people think you condescending when dismissing such things as TV.
At best, I'm a neutral without any agenda. You guys, on the other hand, are just as bad as the evangelicals trying to get new followers to let Christ into their hearts. You might as well be thumping a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" telling people to break the sinful hold of TV and come to the light! You are looking to convert the great unwashed heathens with a title like "Just say no to TV. Do it for your country" It's akin to calling this popular pastime unpatriotic. I know another bastard who likes to use that tactic on the masses… here's a hint, initials GWB. But, that's okay, feel free to be bigots and cast aspersions upon us lesser folk who are just weak minded and can't pull ourselves away from the alluring and colorful pictures. Because, that's pretty much what you all are stating when talking about TV addiction. "That evil Box must have you under its control because no one could actually willingly want to watch that drivel day in and day out!"
If you guys really don't see this, then maybe you're other non-TV activities have been just as detrimental to the workings of your minds.
Sounds like addiction to me, but that would be the "pot" calling the kettle black. In fact, I have quite an addictive personality, obsessive almost. I am indeed addicted to, or have been addicted to: television, sugar, countless video games, gambling(texas hold em, blackjack), chess, backgammon, basketball (a rare heathly habit), scrabble(internet version called literati at yahoo, try it, if you dare!), marijuana, alcohol, nitrous oxide, cigarettes, blogging, nail biting, picking up litter(another rare "good" habit), procrastination, porn, petty theft, and probably some other things which I care not to mention cuz it might make be look bad.
I guess the key is to try and keep things varied and explore new interests, or professional help is probably good too, if you are courageous. Just about any hobby is destructive if you become obsessed with it (ie. spending significant portion of life energy pursuing it). If you get sucked into one hobby too much, I think one runs the risk of missing out on other experiences. I have "had to quit" certain of these activities, sometimes against my will. But, also have tried and failed to quit some the activities which I know are self destructive.
I recently got a flat screen tv and high definition. Television/computer monitors have become a large part of my existence, I sit in front of a computer at work, and the TV is pretty much "on" all the time at home. Kind of scary, but if you have seen the *matrix* you know where society is headed, soon we will be be born plugged into our *television*, receiving all necessary sustenance from it. Maybe we can learn a thing or two from Klarmann on this one. Cleptoman, you and I need to accept the fact there is just not enough time to watch all the good shows, (even with TIVO), and still have a varied, fulfilled, life.
Cleptomanx: You've raised many worthy points. I'll respond to one of them here. The fact that I have flesh & blood children does make a difference to me, but their existence as my children is really a matter of intensifying a feeling of duty that was always there. Yes, I strive hard to try to make the world a better place for them. Before I met my children, though, I felt duty bound to make the world a better place for ALL children, whether or not they are biologically related to me (btw, my children are both adopted, so my point is not about a narrow version of serving my biological progeny). My wife and I also sponsor several children in other parts of the world.
Ever since I became an adult, I've felt a duty to turn this world over to the next generation in at least as good a condition as I inherited it. That is the motivation for my pestering of others, my "evangelizing." I don't think it ends the discussion by noting that many of us are pestering others to do our bidding. I think we need to inquire further about the bottom line: what is it for which we strive? Is it personal immediate gratification or is it something more? Is it, for instance, to preserve or improve society for future generations?
Your points suggest that there is no meaningful moral difference between A) improving one's community (in any of a zillion ways) and B) staying at home and never considering such "do-gooder" behavior. I think there is a huge difference. That is the place where I draw a line in my own life. When I stay home excessively, trying to be merely "clever" or well-entertained, I try to kick myself back out into the world to do something for someone else in need. E.g., there are hundreds of public school kids in my neighborhood needing mentoring and tutoring help. There are many admirable organizations that need a hand. In your case, there are MANY other people who could use your assistance and your (obviously superb) communications skills to deal with a serious problem. Is it really the moral equivalent to help or not-help worthy organizations?
If everyone else in the world was perfectly well off, I could justify (in my own mind) sitting around all day and letting other people amuse me through television and live entertainment. That is not the world in which I find myself, however.
I regularly remind myself that I am where I am today (I am very fortunate, indeeed) because many other people stepped up during thousands of moments when I was in need. These moments have occurred throughout my life, like magic clockwork. People have stepped out of nowhere and demonstrated that they gave a damn. Thousands of George Baileys. Most of my moments of need were minor, but those little things can, and often do, aggregate into mountains. If I hadn't been so incredibly fortunate to be on the receiving end, I might have morphed into into a chronically desperate or a chronically cynical person.
Again, many people stepped up and gave me their time advice, money, encouragement and skills, when I couldn't possibly have expected it of them. Sometimes it was just a kind word or a smile. Who was I to have expected them to take time away from their own lives to attend to me, a stranger?
I still don't get it. But I do know this. None of them rationalized that there is no moral difference between watching TV entertainment all day and actually stepping up to make a difference in the lives like real people. If that sounds like preaching, so be it.
People are not a self-sufficient islands. It often seems that we are independent powerful beings that are in total control of our own long-term destiny, but that is an illusion. A serious liberal arts education is good medicine for dispelling such an illusion. When one deeply appreciates the intense and unrelenting inter-dependency that allows this society to flourish, this will (in my experience) lead inescapably to an obligation to be a player and not a mere spectator or consumer.
If you ever find yourself in desperate need someday (I hope you don't), you might consider these thoughts. You might someday find yourself hoping that someone, somewhere, will take the time to pull himself or herself away from his or her television to lend you a real hand, for no obvious or logical reason or expectation, without any obvious short-term or long-term chance of personal payback.
It is moments like this, those random acts of real-life kindness, that give life meaning to me. Without those moments, life would not be worth living.
You are quite right, Erich. I truly am a rather cynical and pragmatic being. I usually deal with an issue that is directly in front of me or something that could affect my circle of people that I love. If a family memebr of friend needs help, then I lend a hand or spend some time or whatever is called for, but I rarely think about helping strangers or looking to future generations. I only do small bits to help the world around me (recycling, no smoking, conserve water, etc), but I have also never had the experiences you seemed to have had in your life.
I have never known a stranger that has helped me with anything. Although, I have had much help from friends and family (emotional, financial, etc). I have spent time volunteering to help others in the past, for example, I have done such things as tutor ESL, volunteered at a local program who helps homeless women with children and have spent time with the elderly for a couple of months after my wife's grandmother died at the same place. While ESL training, the kids basically spoke spanish and did their nails or hit on each other instead of focusing on actually learning. A few of the homeless women who I was helping have since either gone back to their old habits (back to an abusive relationship, old addiction or got their children taken away for the umpteenth time) and got emotionally spent through watching people sit around and die in a nursing home.
I guess I've never seen much good come from me trying to help and it's only amounted to me wasting time (the only commodity in life that I can never get more of). So, I'm sorry if I sound like a callous monster, but I guess I've developed this point of view because of the experiences I've had through my own life. I can't stand trying to help people that have no wish to help themselves and if I acted like the people that I tried to help, I think the world would definitely be a better place without me. On top of this, I take care of countless people everyday with the 24% chunk that gets ripped out of my meager paycheck… because that money has never helped me. I've never qualified for any kind of assistance from the government because I work my ass off! I'll never make much because I work in the health and human support industry (and industry that cares less about helping strangers than I do), so I find it amusing that a lawyer is trying to preach to me from the high financial perch that I will never come close to reaching… You see! I'm doing it again! Attacking you without really knowing anything about you. I don't know if you're rich or financially well off, so I don't understand why my acid tongue strikes so freely!?
I guess I'm just tired of the well off folks telling the people that scrape by, "you should care more about the world!… give money to less fortunate folks. Give your time or at least a little something." Well, when I can pay off all the medical debt we have because our crappy insurance didn't cover my wife's medical visits or the loans we had to take out to get the transmission on our 2002 vehicle fixed (yup, just out of warranty at the time, go figure)…
I really shouldn't try to make this about money or class or what have you, but many times money is what the issue boils down to for me. If I was a wealthy person, I would definitely be able to give more to the world around me, but at this moment, all the society around me does is take from me and then kicks me when I'm down. Hell, I was never even able to finish college because my financial aid actually fell through before the start of my sophomore year! And, I actually just finished paying off the loans I had to take out for the one year I actually went about a year ago (even though I attended college from 95-96). I don't know how many times I had to defer my bills because I just couldn't pay them because my crappy jobs weren't good enough to cover everything and my wife was out of work because her Bachelors of Science in Human Development was worth as much as toilet paper (which she's still paying off by the way and will be for years to come).
So, I'm sorry for being a dick, but if I want to come home after getting hit in the face by a schizophrenic who thought I was from another dimension or getting puked on by an AODA client who puked on me because they got a hold of a case of beer and just sit down and enjoy my TV for hours… I really think I should be able to without also being concerned with issues I can't possibly help with.
Man, I'm sorry for how angry that all sounded, but the fact of the matter is, some people have the resources and desire to help others while some of us are tired of being beaten up and just want to get away. So, I'm the selfish one and I totally admit that, but it's not going to change unless I hit the lotto tomorrow. So, I'm going to keep on watching tv because at least that's cheap entertainment and it isn't going to hurt me (even with all the brainwave research and such).
I applaud you all for trying to be better people and helping your fellow man and maybe someday one of you will actually help me. Until that time, I'll do my thing and you can do yours. I'm glad there are people out there like you, because I do not wish to be you. (I swear that's really a compliment).
Peace