Feelings as evidence of reality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gehanna

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
Recently, I went with my husband to see an impersonator. This was not an activity I wanted to do, but I attended because my husband asked me to go. It was my turn for giving in the give and take of marriage.

Realizing I would not be able to feign enthusiasm during the performance, I invited one of my coworkers to attend with us. My husband is familiar with this coworker. We have attended other activities together in the past and they relate well to one another. They shared interest in this activity.

Prior to the start of the performance, the impersonator spent some time moving from table to table to mingle - or what I would refer to as attempting to establish rapport - with those in attendance. He approached the table where we were sitting and asked me if I liked the individual, he was impersonating. In honesty, I replied with a response of no.

Later, my husband and coworker were talking about the show. They brought up my reply to the impersonator. My coworker told me that I should have said yes.

Interesting, but not surprising.

Gehanna
 
whacko

whacko

Keeping up with the class
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
177
Location
Glasgow
Gehanna said:
It was my turn for giving in the give and take of marriage.
Click to expand...

You got off lightly. Which isn't an innuendo, so stop sniggering at the back.

I had to go to a Billy Bragg concert once.

The marriage didn't last, and the break-up caused a lot of heartache and soul-searching.

Mainly, what the hell possessed me to buy Billy Bragg tickets?
 
Ruv Draba

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Gehanna said:
He approached the table where we were sitting and asked me if I liked the individual, he was impersonating. In honesty, I replied with a response of no.
Click to expand...
...an answer he presumably wasn't expecting and couldn't work with. I imagine that most people who went to see a mimic would be happy for the mimic to copy anyone they know, just to recognise someone familiar.

I can respect imitation as part of an actor's craft, but think there's something futile about seeking fame by copying it. I think that the best mimics are also first-rate satirists. They imitate to expose, rather than emulate. It strikes me that a good satirist could have worked with dislike as easily as like.

My coworker told me that I should have said yes.
Click to expand...
Presumably because impersonators mimic celebrities, whom everyone is expected to adore. :tongue And perhaps you're a person who is more interested in what is said than how people say it. Certainly it didn't bother you to buck crowd expectation for the sake of truth.

A broader question then: crowds can amplify peoples' feelings. A joke that might get a chuckle in private can sometimes get a belly-laugh if the crowd is laughing too. We don't normally jump up on seats and stomp and cheer when listening to an ipod, but people do that at a rock concert. Many political and religious messages are delivered to crowds. How many of our passions, our entertainments, our convictions, are crowd-effects?
 
Ruv Draba

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Gehanna said:
I am.
Click to expand...
Me too, in qualified sense. As a writer I love finding interesting ways to express things, but when I'm interpreting meaning, I'll often take a literal view. This is especially true in areas outside my experience, or in matters under conflict.

So, some other questions:
  1. Is there such a thing as a common social reality (as distinct from physical reality)? Or is common social reality a chimaera composed of individual perceptions?
  2. When is a common social reality important to decision-making? When isn't it?
  3. To what extent do people see common social reality as a proxy for physical reality? To what extent do people view them as separate?
  4. To what extent are someone's feelings indicators of their perception of social reality, as compared to their reasoning?
  5. To what extent may someone's manner of communication indicate their perception of social reality, as compared to the matter they're communicating?
  6. To what extent can shared social reality be used to manipulate peoples' view of physical reality?
 
Gehanna

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
...but when I'm interpreting meaning, I'll often take a literal view. This is especially true in areas outside my experience, or in matters under conflict.
Click to expand...

Same here.

I appreciate the questions you posted. No doubt, I have some opinions already. I think it best if I move into an objective point of view, make some observations, and take some mental notes before I reply.

Gehanna
 
Gehanna

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
Ruv Draba,

An overview of my thoughts regarding the questions you posted.

1. Is there such a thing as a common social reality (as distinct from physical reality)? Or is common social reality a chimaera composed of individual perceptions?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a common social reality distinct from physical reality. Instead, there are social realities influenced by physical circumstances. These segmented social realities are manticores of individual perception.

2. When is a common social reality important to decision-making? When isn't it?
Click to expand...

I call syntax error on the question and prefer to respond by means of rewording.

When is decision making not important to a common social reality? or When is decision making not important to the maintenance of a common social reality?

I am hung up on your use of the word "extent" in the remainder of the questions. Regardless, I am going to give a one for all reply by making a guess. I may need to shower after this.

3. To what extent do people see common social reality as a proxy for physical reality? To what extent do people view them as separate.
4. To what extent are someone's feelings indicators of their perception of social reality, as compared to their reasoning?
5. To what extent may someone's manner of communication indicate their perception of social reality, as compared to the matter they're communicating?
6. To what extent can shared social reality be used to manipulate peoples' view of physical reality?
Click to expand...

To a great extent.

Gehanna
 
Ruv Draba

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Gehanna said:
There is no such thing as a common social reality distinct from physical reality.
Click to expand...
Would not a common belief in an afterlife be an example? The only physical reality touching belief in afterlife is death. Beyond that, different groups of people have told all manner of stories about what might happen to a person after they die. While individual interpretations of those stories might vary in some detail, many people seem to want a collective story about an afterlife. Is that perhaps because it "feels truer" if everyone tells the same story?

When is decision making not important to a common social reality? or When is decision making not important to the maintenance of a common social reality?
Click to expand...
In reframing this question you've focused on how a social narrative is constructed; you're saying that it's constructed around decision-making and I think that's at least true in part -- stories with a moral are a good example of this. But I was more interested in how we use our social narratives.

For example, suppose we've already decided what we want to do, but we're concerned about how others may treat us. Does it benefit us to construct a "social reality" around our decision -- a coherent narrative rich with emotion that encourages people to approve of us? Or if such a narrative already exists, might we not use it to justify what we already want to do?

Politicians, I think, often do this. They often decide policy based on whatever will keep them in power. Then they try to wrap stories around the policy that make it seem principled and benign: they're not Appeasing a Power-Bloc to Ensure a Return to Office; they're Defending the Vulnerable, or Preserving Freedom.

But people can do this with religion too. They're not Satisfying an Ambition, Indulging in Whimsy or Choosing a Pleasurable Vocation; they're Answering a Calling.

And parents can do with their children. It's not that they're Feeling Stifled and Chasing More Money and Respect; it's that their Children Need a Better School. They're not Buying a More Prestigious Car; their Children Need Better Protection.

Those appeals to emotion help argue that our decisions are good ones. But they also help conceal costs, risks and conflicts of interest. On the other hand, if we make a sound decision without some appealing social narrative to explain it, will anyone care what decision we made or why? And if our decision flouts convention, does it need a new narrative to protect it?
 
Gehanna

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
Ruv Draba said:
Would not a common belief in an afterlife be an example?
Click to expand...

It appears to make sense to me, but I exclude myself from inclusion in the possibility. My exclusion is based on the claim that I came to my beliefs independently influenced by the physical reality of the Holy Bible. In this regard, my connection to the commonality is not distinct from physical circumstance.

Ruv Draba said:
The only physical reality touching belief in afterlife is death. Beyond that, different groups of people have told all manner of stories about what might happen to a person after they die. While individual interpretations of those stories might vary in some detail, many people seem to want a collective story about an afterlife. Is that perhaps because it "feels truer" if everyone tells the same story?
Click to expand...

I do not know because I am still hung up on my atoms. Seriously.

Ruv Draba said:
In reframing this question you've focused on how a social narrative is constructed; you're saying that it's constructed around decision-making and I think that's at least true in part -- stories with a moral are a good example of this. But I was more interested in how we use our social narratives.
Click to expand...

I meant to suggest that decision making serves to maintain the manticore or chimaera of individual perceptions.

Ruv Draba said:
For example, suppose we've already decided what we want to do, but we're concerned about how others may treat us. Does it benefit us to construct a "social reality" around our decision -- a coherent narrative rich with emotion that encourages people to approve of us? Or if such a narrative already exists, might we not use it to justify what we already want to do?
Click to expand...

Approve begins with the letter "A" and I rate a "Q" as in Quirk.

Ruv Draba said:
Politicians, I think, often do this. They often decide policy based on whatever will keep them in power. Then they try to wrap stories around the policy that make it seem principled and benign: they're not Appeasing a Power-Bloc to Ensure a Return to Office; they're Defending the Vulnerable, or Preserving Freedom.

But people can do this with religion too. They're not Satisfying an Ambition, Indulging in Whimsy or Choosing a Pleasurable Vocation; they're Answering a Calling.

And parents can do with their children. It's not that they're Feeling Stifled and Chasing More Money and Respect; it's that their Children Need a Better School. They're not Buying a More Prestigious Car; their Children Need Better Protection.

Those appeals to emotion help argue that our decisions are good ones. But they also help conceal costs, risks and conflicts of interest. On the other hand, if we make a sound decision without some appealing social narrative to explain it, will anyone care what decision we made or why? And if our decision flouts convention, does it need a new narrative to protect it?
Click to expand...

Someone else is going to have to join in on this discussion because I am at a loss. This kind of emotional stuff takes a toll on me.

Gehanna
 
Gehanna

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
Here is an example of a thing that makes little sense to me when, in my opinion, it does not address the underlying issues.

Facebook has this movement or fad going on where people are to put up a picture of a cartoon character as their profile picture. This they are doing as a means to raise awareness of child abuse.

In my opinion, a lack of awareness is not the problem. The problems, as I see them, come from a failure of legal and protective services to provide preventative intervention and from futility of the interventions provided by protective services after harm occurs.

I recognize many of the difficulties faced by the legal system and child protective services in their endeavor to serve and protect, but the fundamental issues remain. A vague statement to promote awareness of child abuse also clouds this issue. Well, awareness of what exactly? Awareness that child abuse exists or awareness that the systems of legal and child protective services fail miserably?

Until the vagary of the social narrative becomes specific in directing the focus where it needs to go, how can the numbers of infants and children who will suffer and/or die shift positively?

Gehanna
 
Ruv Draba

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Gehanna said:
The problems, as I see them, come from a failure of legal and protective services to provide preventative intervention and from futility of the interventions provided by protective services after harm occurs.
Click to expand...
Having researched an Australian report on child abuse recently, I largely agree. I don't believe that symbolic gestures will have any direct effect on policy, procedure or funding. I don't think they're likely to change the habits or behaviours that need to be changed either.

Until the vagary of the social narrative becomes specific in directing the focus where it needs to go, how can the numbers of infants and children who will suffer and/or die shift positively?
Click to expand...
People sometimes make an argument that social narrative changes things indirectly. An argument goes that symbols draw sentiment, sentiment demands action, and action produces results. Politicians, for instance, are very interested in tapping sentiment to swing votes.

On the other hand, "sentiment=votes" produces some very cynical policy promises -- promises that harness the sentiment and go through the motions but don't deliver the outcome. A great deal of policy promises seem to me to be like that.

In a related matter, I often wonder why campaigners cheer when someone new gets in -- the same people who vote them in, vote them out a few years later.

But on the left foot, advertising is largely sentimental narrative, and it works. Propaganda works too.

From a personal perspective, I distrust a single narrative, and I outright twitch when a single narrative is sentimental. "Lies!" screams a voice in the back of my head, and the rest of me goes looking for omissions, deceits and contradictions. That may make me more resistant than some people to certain kinds of arguments. It also means that I don't much like making such arguments myself. I tend to make logical arguments and let people agree or not -- that would make me a poor salesman, I think.
 
Ruv Draba

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Gehanna said:
An interesting read:
Click to expand...
Yes -- very. Thanks for posting! I must say though that I notice a lot when someone's trying to manipulate my amygdalae. It feels invasive and makes me exceedingly irritable.

As an example, Mrs Draba and I went travelling recently and strolling around town we saw some jewellry she liked. We went into the store to find out the price, and it turned out to be expensive and as she was deciding whether to buy it, she asked my opinion about how it looked.

The saleswoman was the pushy sort whom someone had once trained about 'suggestive selling'. Every time I opened my mouth she pre-empted my words by saying 'Isn't it nice?' 'Doesn't it look fabulous?' Every time she pre-empted my words I stopped talking and waited for her to shut up.

I must have done this six times and eventually I wanted to tell her to piss off and stop giving me her opinion. But instead, I told Mrs D that I would walk outside and if she'd like to hear my opinion she could hear it there.

As it turned out, though I was dubious when I saw it in the window, it did look good on Mrs D, but I seem to have rebellious amygdalas. I wanted to say I liked it because that's what I thought -- not to agree with some pushy salesgal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.