Dear Editor:
Thank you for writing this piece, I believe you make a good case for visual
stimuli...
As we move quicker into the digital age, the visual pictures we are
presented with will become more vibrant, active, three dimentional and
indeed more stimulating to our brains...sorry for the
oversimplification...but, I strongly disagree with the argument that visual
stimuli makes you brain dead and reading makes you more intelligent...
Granted, an argument can be made depending upon the type of material you
read and or watch but, to state that people are more or less intelligent
based upon a preferance for visual or word linguistics is in my mind
becoming a misnomer...
Just my opinion...June
><< I can't help but wonder if there isn't a brain or chemical reason why some
>people are attracted to t.v...I know that I prefer visual pictures to written
>work... >>
>
>Meaning no offense to anyone on this list, as you are all exceptionally smart
>by definition, but there are a bunch of reasons why the above expression is so
>generally true. Some of them are technical, some of them are sociological, and
>some of them are biological.
>
>The act of watching TV or movies is almost entirely a passive activity. No
>special education is required. Watching is simply easier than reading. Reading
>above a comic book level is unfortunately beyond the capabilities of the
>masses. If this sounds elitist, so be it, but it should not be news to any
>regular reader of this list. As a result we live in a dumbed-down, visually
>oriented society.
>
>One can argue, too, that this is at least partially by design. As commercial
>enterprises, all television networks must put their corporate economics before
>any other consideration, otherwise they would not be able to continue. Their
>goal is not to get people to watch their programming; instead, their goal is
>to sell advertising, so they create the programming that attracts the
>advertisers, who are looking for the largest audience, not the smartest. In
>fact, since really smart people are not likely to respond to most advertising,
>programming for smart people is generally contra-indicated. Popular work
>drives out good work, creating an ever declining level of quality. This is not
>just true with entertainment programming. Ed Murrow must be rolling constantly
>in his grave.
>
>Another reason is that TV is so popular that there is tremendous peer pressure
>to watch. If all your friends watch The X-Files, for instance, unless you do,
>too, you will be left out of their conversations. (My own circle all have
>small children, so we are all afficionado's of Rug Rats and Ahh! Real
>Monsters!)
>
>Finally, there are biological reasons why TV draws you to it. The cathode ray
>picture tube is often the brightest thing in the room, and the images are
>constantly changing, unlike your couch. We are hard-wired to pay attention to
>bright things and movement. It is left over from our thousands or millions of
>years getting through the hunter-gatherer stage of evolution.
>
>Also, the American standard television system redraws its screen completely
>thirty times per second. There are actually two scans writing alternating
>lines, so there are a total of sixty scans per second. This was done because
>American alternating current cycles sixty times per second, so the timing was
>built into the electrical system already. (Modern movies cycle at twenty-four
>frames per second.) Well, it just so happens that the electrical system in
>your body operatessimilarly enough that there is a harmonization between your
>brain activity and the screen cycles.
>
>Personally, I like TV, but the number of series that can keep my attention
>keeps getting smaller. The only must-see program on my personal schedule is
>Homicide, which is on Friday at 10pm Eastern. Law and Order and The Practice
>are good, too. ER had its moments, but I think I saw both of them three or
>four years ago. My wife loves Frasier, and I think it is well done. But, since
>I remember when I Love Lucy was on for the FIRST time, I already know the
>punchlines on most every sitcom, and that takes a lot of the fun out of it. I
>have seen a fair amount of Babylon 5, and that is the only SF on TV that I
>consider watching.
>
>Unfortunately, there is no SF on my personal must-see list and has not been
>since Quantum Leap got canceled.
>
>
|