Emotional logic

[SkepticLance]

Just finished reading an interesting article in New Scientist : 30 August 2008 page 34. The theme is the way people let their emotions dictate their conclusions, even when rational thinking would dictate something quite different.

 

The first bit of this article is found on :

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19926711.500-how-to-keep-your-head-in-scary-situations.html

 

I expect the full text will become available in due course, after readers of the paper versions have moved on.

 

An example of what they are talking about is the travel decisions of people after 9/11. In the 12 months following, many Americans chose to drive rather than fly, leading to an increase in deaths by road accidents of 1600. Yet terrorism of the 9/11 type has killed fewer Americans than lightning strikes.

 

It appears that bad decisions are more likely if the subject is one involved in strong emotion. Words like 'terrorism', 'cancer', and similar can influence the decision making process leading to very poor thinking.

 

What of thinking here on the science forum? I am certain some of the messages placed are more influenced by emotion than good rational logic.

 

I would like to quote from the New Scientist article, the words of Dr. Dan Kahan, researcher at Yale Law School.

"If as a citizen you would like to form well considered views on a culturally divisive risk issue - for example, global warming, or gun control - find a knowledgeable person who shares your general cultural outlook, but who disagrees with you. You are likely to give this person's arguments a sympathetic hearing, which will help offset the natural disposition we all have to dismiss as unreliable and biased the views of persons whose basic outlooks are different to our own."

 

Sadly, I have seen little of this good advise being followed. Disagreement seems to arouse more emotion than ever.

[Mr Skeptic]

One of the things here is that people read the news. The news likes to report unusual events rather than usual ones, and because of how our brain works, our subconscious marks such events as far more likely than they actually are. Normally, estimating how likely something is by how many times you were exposed to it is good strategy; obviously, it was an even better strategy before there was journalism.

[Glider]

Emotion plays a significant part in all our decisions (here I'm talking about pre-attentive affective-motivational state, i.e. emotion, before it becomes conscious) In many cases, what we call a 'decision' is more a rationalised explanation for something we have already done or a path we have already committed to.

 

Mr Skeptic is quite right. Our emotional brains are constantly scanning our environments for emotionally valenced information. Our affective-motivational state (pre-conscious) is determined by the net valence of that information and that state determines the broad direction of decisions we are likely to make. This automatic processinng is the way our brains determine, on a basic level, the probability of harm or benefit in any given environment.

 

When something bad happens, the media report it and we will be exposed to it in every newspaper, all TV channels, radio, internet etc.. Even though it's a single event, we are exposed to it multiple times over a period of days or weeks. This is enough to tip the balance and our behavioural motivation will automatically compensate for the increased probability of harm signalled by the frequency of exposure to this (one) incident.

[pioneer]

You need a balance between rational and logical to draw the best conclusions. The rational mind would say media reporting is typically factual but often biased data since they are banking on emotional logic. If they want you to draw a particular conclusion, they only have to stack the data that way. The rational mind would say, one can't depend on this data source as being complete therefore I need to gather more data from other sources. Once all the data is in, sometimes the unconscious can synthesize this into a good emotional conclusion.

 

Most innovation uses this complete data strategy. It is sort of the "Eureka" affect. Once the emotional "eureka" is known, we then back reason it and present it in a way that looks like we rationally deduced it. People reading it thinks the conclusion followed the reasoning but often the reasoning follows the conclusion of the emotional logic synthesized by the unconscious mind.

[Glider]

You need a balance between rational and logical to draw the best conclusions.

What?

 

The rational mind would say media reporting is typically factual but often biased data since they are banking on emotional logic.

'Emotional logic'? That's a bit of an oxymoron.

 

If they want you to draw a particular conclusion, they only have to stack the data that way. The rational mind would say, one can't depend on this data source as being complete therefore I need to gather more data from other sources. Once all the data is in, sometimes the unconscious can synthesize this into a good emotional conclusion.

What is a 'good emotional conclusion'?

 

Most innovation uses this complete data strategy. It is sort of the "Eureka" affect. Once the emotional "eureka" is known, we then back reason it and present it in a way that looks like we rationally deduced it. People reading it thinks the conclusion followed the reasoning but often the reasoning follows the conclusion of the emotional logic synthesized by the unconscious mind.

What are you talking about?

 

You present your points as though they were long established and widely accepted. To me, it feels like you are just making stuff up. Can you support any of this?

[john5746]

An example of what they are talking about is the travel decisions of people after 9/11. In the 12 months following, many Americans chose to drive rather than fly, leading to an increase in deaths by road accidents of 1600. Yet terrorism of the 9/11 type has killed fewer Americans than lightning strikes.

 

While I agree with the overall conclusion that relying on emotion can lead to bad decisions, I am not convinced that this example is a good one. After 9/11 occurred, I think it was reasonable to think that it might happen again and that regular air travel would be more problematic. In a car, one has more control over his destiny than in a plane, so it isn't just simple statistics that will give you an answer as to which one is safer for all trips.

[Dak]

^ talking of wonky logic, fatal rtas, 9/11 and lightning are apples, oranges and plumbs.

 

whilst 9/11 killed less people in that year than lightning strikes have (presumably in, like, ever), i'm sure 9/11 killed more than the 1600 'extra' frtas, possibly more than all rtas that year.

 

Hence, if there is any suspicion that 9/11 might imminently re-occour, it's kinda a good idea to drive rather than fly, even if that causes 1600 extra deaths.

[pioneer]

Thoughts can lead feelings or feeling can lead thoughts. These are two distinct ways to process infomation, although the final results look the same. As an example, a scientist goes into a cave to find artifacts. He looks around and notices the cave is unsafe and begins to feel fear. This is logical thought leading to emotion. His assistant hates caves and has a phobia about them. Before he enters the cave he is already feeling fear and begins to think of the worse case scenario because the fear is leading his thinking. As they both run out one would be hard pressed to tell one from the other since they both show fear and will explain that fear the same way.

 

Logically 911 was a rare event and caused fewer deaths than dozens of other sources such as ligtning, autos, cancer, bathtubs, etc. If thought was leading emotion 911 should be low on the list of fear due to numbers. But the media hyped up the emotion of fear, by dwelling on it, so people became irrational, sort of anticipating the cave falling in even before they entered the cave. This emotional thinking still lingers and is needed to justify all the expense and even the war.

 

If the media had given perspective, such as numbers for comparison, and objectively showed not only the more entertaining fearful but also the calm and objective, this emotional induction would be softer. The thinking that results from the softer eotional would be more consistent with thought leading feeling. As long as the feeling is cool and not too excited it is similar to thought leading feeling, since this is the eotional that thought leading feeling with reason will induce. My Spock had no emotion since the product of pure reason is not emotional. To start with emotion and reach reason the emotion needs to be faint or off. The fear hype was a dead give away for emotional thinking.

[Glider]

Thoughts can lead feelings or feeling can lead thoughts. These are two distinct ways to process infomation, although the final results look the same. As an example, a scientist goes into a cave to find artifacts. He looks around and notices the cave is unsafe and begins to feel fear. This is logical thought leading to emotion. His assistant hates caves and has a phobia about them. Before he enters the cave he is already feeling fear and begins to think of the worse case scenario because the fear is leading his thinking. As they both run out one would be hard pressed to tell one from the other since they both show fear and will explain that fear the same way.

Rubbish. One fear is rational and the individual would be able to explain its origin clearly. The phobia is not rational and the individual would not be able to explain it in the same way.

 

Logically 911 was a rare event and caused fewer deaths than dozens of other sources such as ligtning, autos, cancer, bathtubs, etc. If thought was leading emotion 911 should be low on the list of fear due to numbers. But the media hyped up the emotion of fear, by dwelling on it, so people became irrational, sort of anticipating the cave falling in even before they entered the cave. This emotional thinking still lingers and is needed to justify all the expense and even the war.

Rubbish. People are familiar with lightning, cancer, RTAs, etc.. Familiarity reduces fear even though it does not reduce the potential severity of the danger. Also, these sources of danger lack a 'personal' component; they are not deliberate and not directed.

 

9/11 was different in that it was a completely novel event and completely outside of the experience of most Americans (unlike lightning, cancer and RTAs). Further, it was a personal and deliberate attack, aimed at them with purpose (unlike, lightning, cancer and RTAs). It's a completely different thing and not at all comparable.

 

 

If the media had given perspective, such as numbers for comparison, and objectively showed not only the more entertaining fearful but also the calm and objective, this emotional induction would be softer. The thinking that results from the softer eotional would be more consistent with thought leading feeling. As long as the feeling is cool and not too excited it is similar to thought leading feeling, since this is the eotional that thought leading feeling with reason will induce.

Total rubbish. People who saw 9/11 drew their own conclusions concerning the magnitude of the event. They didn't need the media for that. Imagine what would have happened if the media had subsequently reported "...but the death toll is not so bad compared to annual road deaths"

 

My Spock had no emotion since the product of pure reason is not emotional. To start with emotion and reach reason the emotion needs to be faint or off. The fear hype was a dead give away for emotional thinking.

Rubbish. First off, Mr Spock is a fictional character FFS! Second, it's not possible to disengage emotion. All animals with a brain are driven by basic affective-motivational states (including humans). The capacity for reason comes much later and behaviourally, provides the means to modify or 'edit' the primary behavioural drives.

 

The limbic brain is evolutionarily older and more advanced than the neocortex and the number and nature of the connections between the two show that the limbic brain has more input into the cortex than the cortex does into the limbic brain. In short, you can't just 'turn off' limbic function. Rational thought and emotion are not two discrete things, even though they may often be discussed as such. In discussing the comparative qualities of 'blue' (rational thought) and 'red' (emotion), people often forget that what is actually being discussed is 'purple' (behavour).

 

You need to learn something about Psychology and please stop posting rubbish.

[dichotomy]

What of thinking here on the science forum? I am certain some of the messages placed are more influenced by emotion than good rational logic.

 

 

I suppose one of the reasons I post on a forum like this is to see if some of my thoughts are influenced too heavily by emotion, or are just plain wrong . My thinking, which might be wrong, is that anonymous people whom are genuinely interested in science will be more likely to disagree with emotional and wrongly assumed comments, whereas most people at home and in the workplace tend to nod their heads more readily, which gives you a nice warm feeling of being right, but is not necessarily very helpful to oneself.

 

The marketing (as well as Political) industry likes to tap into emotions. So words like Terrorist, Cancer, Death, Quality, Bargain, Health and Beauty, all have immediate value to them in the form of gaining their audiences attention, and giving them greater control over their audience. So, I can believe the mere mention of ‘Terrorist’ to a population that is not used to terrorism has a high impact on their decision making.

[Dak]

Total rubbish. People who saw 9/11 drew their own conclusions concerning the magnitude of the event. They didn't need the media for that. Imagine what would have happened if the media had subsequently reported "...but the death toll is not so bad compared to annual road deaths"

 

Actually, as far as gauging the magnitude of the threat, i think he's probably right: if it had been pointed out that the casualties were less than the annual deaths cased by smoking/guns/frtas/etc, then i think that'd've resulted in people percieving terrorism as less of a threat than they did.

 

I can't wrap it up in psychology, but surely if you point out to people that the threat (measured in deaths) of terrorism < the threat of several other things that our countries survive on a regular basis, then that would have promoted an 'otoh, its not the end of the world' responce?

[pioneer]

Emotional logic has a good side. The best example is innovation. The innovator may try many rational approaches to achieve a particular affect. The person has a gut feeling there is light at the end of the tunnel even if the light is very fuzzy. They may work for months or years looking for the pot of gold. This feeling is the motivation, with the feeling creating a fuzzy image of what might be, but what is not yet clear to the rational mind.

 

As the experiments progress all this data and logic generated continue to evolve the 3-D memory in the brain. The evolving feeling is connected to this fast memory. The hard part is translation from 3-D intuition to 2-D rational since rational or 2-D memory is much slower and easier to manipulate. Often innovation is an accident due to the unconscious being triggered when the correct translation is achieved. The result is another feeling "eureka".

 

The classic example was the discovery of the structure of benzene. The scientist racked his brain thinking up logical scenarios. These became stored in the 3-d memory. The unconscious gave him a dream of a snake biting his tail for the ring structure. When he awoke he felt eureka and used feeling to create the logic for others. Everyone then thought it was rational to satisfy the system. After it was accepted he was able to tell the real story. Most innovation uses this stumble approach but you can't say it out loud.

[dichotomy]

The classic example was the discovery of the structure of benzene. The scientist racked his brain thinking up logical scenarios. These became stored in the 3-d memory. The unconscious gave him a dream of a snake biting his tail for the ring structure. When he awoke he felt eureka and used feeling to create the logic for others. Everyone then thought it was rational to satisfy the system. After it was accepted he was able to tell the real story. Most innovation uses this stumble approach but you can't say it out loud.

 

I remember reading about this story years ago. It really does demonstrate how powerful the unconscious is. The unconscious does have an ancient language of symbols that the conscious mind often finds difficult to interpret, until of course you get to the ‘Eureka!’ moment as you put it, and it all makes sense.

 

I struggle with why we find our own unconscious difficult to interpret; it seems so useful when you get the occasional Eureka moment. The evolutionary transition from unconscious control to conscious control of our actions seems like it would have been a tremendous struggle, if it wasn’t for some ability of the conscious to ‘translate’ the unconscious. I wonder if interpretation of the unconscious was easier at an earlier point in evolution?

 

Is it emotional logic we are discussing here, or might it really be unconscious logic?

[Glider]

Actually, as far as gauging the magnitude of the threat, i think he's probably right: if it had been pointed out that the casualties were less than the annual deaths cased by smoking/guns/frtas/etc, then i think that'd've resulted in people percieving terrorism as less of a threat than they did.

The thing is, it's never just the event itself that determines the perception of it. Other factors play a significant role. One of the most significant (and a determinent of PTSD by the way) is novelty. The trauma is not caused simply by the number of deaths (and that isn't what I meant by magnitude), it's caused by the impact it makes on the individual (death toll is actually a minor factor, because it often isn't known till well after the fact).

 

One of the predictive criteria for PTSD is that the traumatic event is usually outside of the general experience of the person. Yes, the annual toll from vehicular accidents is comaparable and the toll from gun crime is also large (I don't know the statistics for the US), but the point is, the limbic brain is not rational and does not base it's conclusions concerning the potential for harm on statistics. Americans are used to cars and guns. These things are familar to most people in the US, and so both these things have ceased to be percieved as presenting a threat (cars more than guns), even though the statistics suggest otherwise.

 

The significant factors in 9/11 were that a) it was completely novel. The event was outside of the general experience of the vast majority of Americans. b) It was a directed and personal attack and was percieved as such (wereas e.g. RTAs aren't). The overall death toll was almost incidental to these two factors, so presenting comparative statistics would have made no difference. If presented with statistics on the annual death toll from vehicles or guns, I seriously doubt any individual would have felt anything like 'oh...well, that's not so bad then'.

 

The magnitude of the event was psychologically huge, not just because it was a physically huge event, but because it was completely novel, unexpected (by most), personal and out-of-the-blue, leaving people with a feeling that they actually could be attacked 'at home' and at any time. That's what makes the long-term impact, the undermining people's personal sense of safety/security. The impact would have been similar (although obviously not the same) even if the towers had been empty at the time.

 

 

I can't wrap it up in psychology, but surely if you point out to people that the threat (measured in deaths) of terrorism < the threat of several other things that our countries survive on a regular basis, then that would have promoted an 'otoh, its not the end of the world' responce?

Not really. As I said, the limbic brain is responsible for contunually calculating the potential for harm in the environment, but it is not rational and does not base its evaluations on statistics.

 

There is a huge difference between knowing a thing intellectually, and believing that thing on an emotional level. For example, if you ask somebody with a arachnophobia to describe the actual threat froma common garden spider, they will tell you there really is none. Intellectually, they know there is no actual threat. However, if you present that person with a common garden spider, their response will be very different. That response is emotional.

 

In 1982, the British government produced a series of adverts for TV, warning people about the threat of HIV/AIDS. The edverts were pretty grim and were aimed at an emotional level (lots of images of tombstones and suchlike). The result was that suicides by young males (in their 20s) quadroupled. I was an undertaker at the time (one of my weirder jobs) and cutting down these guys who had hanged themselves got almost mundane. Post mortem tests showed that almost none of them were HIV positive.

 

There is a huge difference between percieved threat and actual threat. Presenting statistics on actual threat really has very little impact on percieved threat. However, after time, HIV became a 'popularised' term (I don't mean popular, I just mean common). Celebrities were all banging on about it and so-on, and so it lost a lot of it's mystery (not that people knew any more about it, just that it became an almost every-day term) and so its fear factor went down. People are not really scared by it now, because, like guns, knowledge of its existance has become familiar, it's no longer novel and thus no longer so scary.

[Dak]

The trauma is not caused simply by the number of deaths (and that isn't what I meant by magnitude)

 

i missed that you were (quite clearly) talking about individuals that witnessed 9/11 (presumably in person?). to clarify, i was talking about the general population who only 'experienced' it remotely through the media, and their subsequent assessment of the threat (which is what i think pioneer was talking about).

 

The significant factors in 9/11 were that a) it was completely novel. The event was outside of the general experience of the vast majority of Americans. b) It was a directed and personal attack and was percieved as such (wereas e.g. RTAs aren't).The overall death toll was almost incidental to these two factors, so presenting comparative statistics would have made no difference. If presented with statistics on the annual death toll from vehicles or guns, I seriously doubt any individual would have felt anything like 'oh...well, that's not so bad then'.

 

I dunno. surely the way that the media present something -- and the way that the media present people reacting -- has an effect at least comparable to the initial/emotional/instinctual responce to novel malace?

 

fwiw, i kinda shrugged off 7/7 as 'not that bad in the grand scheme of things', tho i'll admit that london terrorism isn't exactly novel any more.

 

Not really. As I said, the limbic brain is responsible for contunually calculating the potential for harm in the environment, but it is not rational and does not base its evaluations on statistics.

 

There is a huge difference between knowing a thing intellectually, and believing that thing on an emotional level. For example, if you ask somebody with a arachnophobia to describe the actual threat froma common garden spider, they will tell you there really is none. Intellectually, they know there is no actual threat. However, if you present that person with a common garden spider, their response will be very different. That response is emotional.

 

yes, but we aren't our limbic brain, and are capable of reacting rationally. granted, not everyone with arachnophobia can overcome it and not be scared of spiders, but people with some kind of lame half-assed arachnophobia (like me) can usually overcome it and handle spiders, unless they're feeling particularly wussy when they meet a spider, based on the knowledge that the belief is dumb (dunno wether, psychologically, fear of x == phobia of x).

 

Basically, most people must have made a mixed 'instinctive'/reasoned responce, andthe media must have influenced people towards percieving terrorism as a threat to a much greater extent than if they'd reported more calmer and, say, tried to present reasonable arguments to not really fear it based on it killing less people than so-and-so-commonplace-thing, etc?

 

It's your absolutes i'm having most trouble with btw. if you want to change to saying most people would have reacted 'naturally' rather than rationally, i'd have less trouble accepting it (tho i'd still suspect that the media framing the event in a more reasonable way would result in a more reasoned responce, at least to some degree).

[Glider]

i missed that you were (quite clearly) talking about individuals that witnessed 9/11 (presumably in person?). to clarify, i was talking about the general population who only 'experienced' it remotely through the media, and their subsequent assessment of the threat (which is what i think pioneer was talking about).

Yes, I accept your point, but even then, factors other than ultimate death toll influence level of 'shock' as it were. The novelty, surprise and personal nature still influence more the ultimate reaction. The twin towers were an iconic image in New York. New York is an iconic city, even in America. An attack that devastate the twin towers in the heart of an iconic American city will shake people right to the heart of their sense of reality and security, death toll aside.

 

 

I dunno. surely the way that the media present something -- and the way that the media present people reacting -- has an effect at least comparable to the initial/emotional/instinctual responce to novel malace?

Of course it does, just not the extent you think it does. I agree with you that the way the media present something will certainly have an effect, but most people's emotional reaction to an event like 9/11 will be decided by other things; e.g. how they feel about America/being American, how secure they felt in America prior to the attack, and so on.

 

The psychological magnitude of that event comes from the degree to which it damaged people's ideas concerning reality and the reality of life in America, not from the number of people who died, although that was certainly a compounding factor..

 

Remember, since the civil war, Americans have no experience of attacks on (or in) their homeland. In neither of the two world wars did that ever happen (apart from a few baloon bonbs from the Japanese). During the cold war, there was only the threat of such an attack, and that was enough to trigger huge amounts of fear and paranoia (look at the McCarthy witch-hunts and so-on). But America had never actually suffered a direct attack.

 

 

fwiw, i kinda shrugged off 7/7 as 'not that bad in the grand scheme of things', tho i'll admit that london terrorism isn't exactly novel any more.

I think many people did, certainly older people. The elderly lived through a blitz. In my lifetime we lived through the IRA mainland attacks, of which London took its fair share. My uncle was caught in the Old Baily bombing. A friend of mine was caught in the Cavalry Bombing in Hyde Park. I watched two go off in 1993, one in John Lewis (Oxford St.) and the other in a bin in Cavendish square.

 

I think the British have a different attitude towards such attacks, largely due to their familiarity with them. I must admit, a very small but cruel part of me has thought, after 9/11, that after funding the IRA for 35 years, the moral high ground held by Americans in the 'war against terror' isn't really that high.

 

 

yes, but we aren't our limbic brain, and are capable of reacting rationally. granted, not everyone with arachnophobia can overcome it and not be scared of spiders, but people with some kind of lame half-assed arachnophobia (like me) can usually overcome it and handle spiders, unless they're feeling particularly wussy when they meet a spider, based on the knowledge that the belief is dumb (dunno wether, psychologically, fear of x == phobia of x).

Yes, but we really are our limbic brains. Our limbic brain defines us as individuals probably more than the neocortex.

 

Yes we are capable of behaving rationally, but don't confuse that with rationality being the 'default' psychological setting. It really isn't. The continued existence of (among many other things) war, religion and religious wars should tell you that. We are capable of behaving rationally, but that is usually the result of pre-response 'editing' which occurs after primary decisions have been made. I.e. we get the immediate bahavioural urge, which is edited (morderated) by post hoc processing which results in 'Oh, I'd better not do that actually...'.

 

No, fear of X is not phobia of X. A severe irrational and involuntary fear response (both physiological and psychological) when confonted with an innoccuous stimulus (X) is a phobia.

 

Basically, most people must have made a mixed 'instinctive'/reasoned responce, andthe media must have influenced people towards percieving terrorism as a threat to a much greater extent than if they'd reported more calmer and, say, tried to present reasonable arguments to not really fear it based on it killing less people than so-and-so-commonplace-thing, etc?

The media can feed a state, but usually, they cannot create one. In the case of 9/11 the state was created by every individual who saw the event, present or not. The media, being what it is, pandered to that state and fed it, but did not determine it.

 

It's your absolutes i'm having most trouble with btw. if you want to change to saying most people would have reacted 'naturally' rather than rationally, i'd have less trouble accepting it (tho i'd still suspect that the media framing the event in a more reasonable way would result in a more reasoned responce, at least to some degree).

Sorry if you got the imprerssion I'm talking in absolute terms. It's not really my way. As a Psychologist I really talk in general terms, i.e. what is generally true of behaviour and cognitioon. Yes, there are exceptions (there always are if you talk in general terms), but these are the minority, or such things would not be considered 'generally true'.

 

People always (generally speaking) respond to events 'naturally' rather than rationally. It's only post-perceptual processing that alters the initial behavioural response motivation from the 'natural' to the rational.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Glider

[Dak]

I must admit, a very small but cruel part of me has thought, after 9/11, that after funding the IRA for 35 years, the moral high ground held by Americans in the 'war against terror' isn't really that high.

 

yeah, me too.

 

Yes we are capable of behaving rationally, but don't confuse that with rationality being the 'default' psychological setting. It really isn't. The continued existence of (among many other things) war, religion and religious wars should tell you that. We are capable of behaving rationally, but that is usually the result of pre-response 'editing' which occurs after primary decisions have been made. I.e. we get the immediate bahavioural urge, which is edited (morderated) by post hoc processing which results in 'Oh, I'd better not do that actually...'.

 

[...]

 

People always (generally speaking) respond to events 'naturally' rather than rationally. It's only post-perceptual processing that alters the initial behavioural response motivation from the 'natural' to the rational.

 

Ah, yes, but that's kinda what i meant.

 

I wasn't trying to say that, for most people, presenting statistics/etc would have prevented such a natural response, just that it would have encouraged people to 'edit' the knee-jerk reaction and, to put it bluntly, calm down and stop panicking.

 

Maybe still feel panicky, but not actually consider terrorism such a threat. the end result of how people judged the threat of terrorism would have been different (possibly significantly) if encouraged to actually stop, calm down, and think by the media?

 

eg:

 

The magnitude of the event was psychologically huge, not just because it was a physically huge event, but because it was completely novel, unexpected (by most), personal and out-of-the-blue, leaving people with a feeling that they actually could be attacked 'at home' and at any time. That's what makes the long-term impact, the undermining people's personal sense of safety/security.

 

I have difficulty believing that most people couldn't be persuaded by rational argument to not fear for their safety in their own homes, for example, even if they didn't 'believe' that?

 

People always (generally speaking)...

 

Glider, that's a really confusing way of speaking

 

for my learning, is that the norm in psychology?

 

It's only post-perceptual processing that alters the initial behavioural response motivation from the 'natural' to the rational.

 

People pick up on how others are behaving and copy(?), so wouldn't the media behaving raitonally create the impression that everyone else is, and have a massive effect on how likely people were to process their behavioural urges and actually end up being more rational?

[Glider]

I wasn't trying to say that, for most people, presenting statistics/etc would have prevented such a natural response, just that it would have encouraged people to 'edit' the knee-jerk reaction and, to put it bluntly, calm down and stop panicking.

 

Maybe still feel panicky, but not actually consider terrorism such a threat. the end result of how people judged the threat of terrorism would have been different (possibly significantly) if encouraged to actually stop, calm down, and think by the media?

 

eg:

 

I have difficulty believing that most people couldn't be persuaded by rational argument to not fear for their safety in their own homes, for example, even if they didn't 'believe' that?

Ah, I see. Yes, you're quite right. As I said, the event creates a state, which the media usually cannot, but the media feeds it and can often direct it.

 

A good example was the episode in the Daily Star a few years ago, with their 'name and shame' idea concerning paedophiles. It only takes one widely but accurately reported incidence of a paedophile attacking a child to evoke a state; outrage and anger (also anxiety and paranoia if you're a parent), but once that state exists, it can be fed and manipulated by the media.

 

In the case of the Star, it was a cynical move, pandering to the outrage they percieved in the population, and their campaign created a mob mentality that resulted in a paediatrician having their house burned down (which clearly indicates the mentality of the people who read the Star).

 

You are quite right. Given that the media (any journalist worth their salt) can broadly judge the likely public response to any particular event, they should also know that the way they report it over the subsequent days can have a large effect and sometime even determine how people express their emotional responses to the event.

 

Glider, that's a really confusing way of speaking

 

for my learning, is that the norm in psychology?

Nope. I was just taking the micky there

 

It is the norm to speak in general terms in Psychology though, because the things known about human cognition and behaviour are generally true (i.e. can be applied accurately to the vast majority of people). The problem with Psychology is that the data are extremely noisy, and due to individual differences and within subject varience, there will almost always be exceptions to a rule.

 

However, the closer you get to the 'wetter' end of the science (e.g. cognitive neurosciences), the smaller this margin of error becomes, which is why I prefer to study Psychology at least up to my knees in wetness.

 

 

People pick up on how others are behaving and copy(?), so wouldn't the media behaving raitonally create the impression that everyone else is, and have a massive effect on how likely people were to process their behavioural urges and actually end up being more rational?

Yes, in this case you are quite right. As I said, the media cannot usually create a state, but over the subsequent days/weeks of reporting on it, they can influence what people do about it.

 

Responsible reporting is important (cf the Daily Star and that poor bloody paediatrician), but there are limits. Imagine, for example, the likely public response to a newspaper that, on September 12th, reported something like "But the scale of the tragedy has to be considered in the face of the number of deaths caused on the roads by Americans themselves".

 

People will have their own response to any particular event and, I would suggest, no amount of calm reporting will prevent that (it's more likely to cause people to stop buying the paper, and editors are quite aware of that). However, remaining objective in subsequent reporting would help. You will always have rags like the Star though, screaming outrage from WAR sized headlines, pandering to the immediate public shock in a cynical attempt to boost sales and so whipping up mob mentality (which is always dangerous).

 

There is a fine line in reporting huge events between congruence with the public response (which is what responsible editors aim for), and leading the public response, e.g. being far more outraged, and leading the public to think they should be too (e.g. the Star and other crappy red-tops). However, most editors will try to avoid reporting that is too incongruous with public mood as that has a negative impact on sales. People generally don't want to pay to read that with which they disagree, or that they consider insulting or in other ways fall short of what they consider 'right'.

 

It's a bit like TV. We can bitch and moan about the programming schedules and damn the producers for vomiting out yet another 'Big Brother' or endless cycles of 'When Sheep Go Mental' as cheap, tawdry ways of filling airtime whilst pandering to the lowest common denominator, but the truth is that TV is ratings driven (as is all media). They produce and regurgitate this crap because people watch it; many, many people. Is it the fault of the media, or the veiwers?

[Dak]

[...]and their campaign created a mob mentality that resulted in a paediatrician having their house burned down (which clearly indicates the mentality of the people who read the Star).

 

would if it were true

 

Nope. I was just taking the micky there

 

Umm... I knew that

 

It is the norm to speak in general terms in Psychology

 

I meant 'is it the norm to speak in absolutes when you actually are speaking in generalities'. 'cos i missed your joke

 

Responsible reporting is important (cf the Daily Star and that poor bloody paediatrician), but there are limits. Imagine, for example, the likely public response to a newspaper that, on September 12th, reported something like "But the scale of the tragedy has to be considered in the face of the number of deaths caused on the roads by Americans themselves".

 

People will have their own response to any particular event and, I would suggest, no amount of calm reporting will prevent that (it's more likely to cause people to stop buying the paper, and editors are quite aware of that). However, remaining objective in subsequent reporting would help. You will always have rags like the Star though, screaming outrage from WAR sized headlines, pandering to the immediate public shock in a cynical attempt to boost sales and so whipping up mob mentality (which is always dangerous).

 

There is a fine line in reporting huge events between congruence with the public response (which is what responsible editors aim for), and leading the public response, e.g. being far more outraged, and leading the public to think they should be too (e.g. the Star and other crappy red-tops). However, most editors will try to avoid reporting that is too incongruous with public mood as that has a negative impact on sales. People generally don't want to pay to read that with which they disagree, or that they consider insulting or in other ways fall short of what they consider 'right'.

 

It's a bit like TV. We can bitch and moan about the programming schedules and damn the producers for vomiting out yet another 'Big Brother' or endless cycles of 'When Sheep Go Mental' as cheap, tawdry ways of filling airtime whilst pandering to the lowest common denominator, but the truth is that TV is ratings driven (as is all media). They produce and regurgitate this crap because people watch it; many, many people. Is it the fault of the media, or the veiwers?

 

hmm...

 

why do people like being angry?

 

I've never understood that, but you're completely right: people wouldn't be so prepared to buy a newspaper that calmed them down, they'd much prefer a newspaper that rowled them up and told them something wrong was happening that makes them angry/offended/disparing/etc, even tho these emotions are unpleasant as far as i can tell?

 

I thought the whole point was that those emotions were punishments that were designed to make us avoid whatever situation causes them.

 

Or am i slightly off... anger/offence/etc doesn't actually fit entirely with that... are they more 'go do something' emotions? even so, most people don't act on them, so i'm still not sure why they'd like feeling them...? they certainly feel unpleasant to me.

 

hmm...

[Glider]

would if it were true

Dammit!, you can't trust anyone these days.

 

Nevertheless, Dr Cloete must still have felt quite bad about being so targeted. The principle still holds true though; red-top rags stirring outrage and so-on.

 

hmm...

 

why do people like being angry?

 

I've never understood that, but you're completely right: people wouldn't be so prepared to buy a newspaper that calmed them down, they'd much prefer a newspaper that rowled them up and told them something wrong was happening that makes them angry/offended/disparing/etc, even tho these emotions are unpleasant as far as i can tell?

I have no idea why people seem to like to be angry really. I suspect it's not being angry that people like, it's being right, and papers howling outrage from their headlines that echoes the feelings of the reader is a kind of validation. The anger is just an overt demonstration of their 'rightness', a kind of "Look! I'm right! The papers agree with me! I'm perfectly right to be outraged and (with the implicit support of the media) I can now more freely act upon it! Let's go attack somebody!"

 

I thought the whole point was that those emotions were punishments that were designed to make us avoid whatever situation causes them.

 

Or am i slightly off... anger/offence/etc doesn't actually fit entirely with that... are they more 'go do something' emotions? even so, most people don't act on them, so i'm still not sure why they'd like feeling them...? they certainly feel unpleasant to me.

 

hmm...

You're slightly off. You are right insofar as most negative affective states are functions of (or, in fact, concomitant with) an avoidance motivation, but anger is unique and quite complex as an emotion. It contains elements of other more basic affective states, not all of which are negative (and some of which many people will pay good money to achieve).

 

Anger is a part of one side of the fight/flight arousal response of the sympathetic system, which itself is a tonic thing. It exists in a balance. Fear is one of the states on the other side. But both lead to arousal and lots of adrenaline (why people pay to go on maniacal rides or go sky-diving).

 

Supressed anger is a very unpleasant feeling and people generally know when it's inappropriate to express it, or to what degree they can express it. But justified (i.e. permitted and acceptable) anger is a rush. If you have people around you who agree with you, then it's 'acceptable', you are being given implicit permission to express your anger, and in doing so, you reinforce the same in those around you.

 

You never (or very rarely) see single individuals, or small groups of two or three, screaming in the streets and burning people in effigy, or trampling flags. They'd feel stupid doing so. But once that behaviour becomes 'acceptable' (i.e. is reflected by those around you), then anything goes. It almost becomes a competition to prove who is the most outraged.

 

A similar thing happened with the death of Diana, although it was a different emotion in that case. A single individual weeping uncontrollably in the street would feel like an idiot, but once implicit permission is given by those around them (including the media), anything goes.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Glider

[SkepticLance]

Since there seems to be some people on this thread with good knowledge of psychology, can I ask a couple of questions?

 

1. Is there not a duty for those of us who espouse science to set a good example of rational, and non emotional thinking?

 

2. I notice that there seems to be a lot of people who revel in disaster predictions. They make predictions and seem to enjoy the thought that these disasters will happen. Could someone comment on the psychology involved?

[Glider]

Since there seems to be some people on this thread with good knowledge of psychology, can I ask a couple of questions?

 

1. Is there not a duty for those of us who espouse science to set a good example of rational, and non emotional thinking?

This is a double barreled question. I would agree there is a duty for proponents of science to demonstrate rational thinking.

 

Non-emotional thinking is something else and I'm not really sure what you mean by the term and so I don't know how literally to take it. In reality, there really is no such thing. The term 'non-emotional thought' is like the term 'non-red purple'.

 

I suppose you could say that there is a duty for those who espouse rational thought to control the expression of their emotional responses, but you can't remove them.

 

2. I notice that there seems to be a lot of people who revel in disaster predictions. They make predictions and seem to enjoy the thought that these disasters will happen. Could someone comment on the psychology involved?

I remember reading a paper on this a while ago, but I realy can't rmember enough about it to comment sensibly.

 

I believe it had something to do with a low threshold of arousal, i.e. where most people find normal, every-day stimuli sufficiently arousing, some people have higher thresholds and require more intense stimuli to achieve the same levels of arousal (a bit like low-level ADHD). Thus, they exist in a kind of perpetual low-level boredom that only unusually intense events and situations can relieve and so they view the probability of such events with some glee. I don't think there is anything malicious about it. I think it's also associated with risk-taking behaviours.

 

However, as I said, it was a while ago and I may well be confusing it with something else entirely.

[Dak]

I have no idea why people seem to like to be angry really. I suspect it's not being angry that people like, it's being right, and papers howling outrage from their headlines that echoes the feelings of the reader is a kind of validation. The anger is just an overt demonstration of their 'rightness', a kind of "Look! I'm right! The papers agree with me! I'm perfectly right to be outraged and (with the implicit support of the media) I can now more freely act upon it! Let's go attack somebody!"

 

hmm... does anyone happen to know wether countries with a proper democracy (e.g., germany), or espescially switzerland where they sort of have a direct democracy, have a more mature media than the UK/US, what with them being able to shoot themselves in the foot if they form oppinions without thinking?

[SkepticLance]

To Glider

I guess my phrase 'non emotional thinking' was a bit ambiguous. And I agree that it is almost impossible to achieve in its entirety. How about a duty to make an honest attempt to think and express ideas in a rational manner, and consciously try to avoid emotional logic in such?

 

Interesting idea about arousal in disaster thinking. I have tended to assume it was a kind of Messiah complex. That is : "I predict a disaster, but don't worry. I am here and all you need to do is follow my lead and all will be well." This makes disaster prediction another attempt to gain status. Do you think there may be any merit in this idea?

[dichotomy]

Interesting idea about arousal in disaster thinking. I have tended to assume it was a kind of Messiah complex. That is : "I predict a disaster, but don't worry. I am here and all you need to do is follow my lead and all will be well." This makes disaster prediction another attempt to gain status. Do you think there may be any merit in this idea?

 

False disaster prediction could also be used entirely in a political way to gain status, like -

‘If we don’t invade and control Vietnam the world will be dominated by communists’.

 

Except, when it is used by politicians the majority tend to agree with them, at least initially.