Ambigamy

Intelligent, witty, moving.

Personally, I abhor the violence of most crime drama but I do see what you're getting at and I think it even applies to other forms of drama and even comedy. And I love the analogy with the microscope. Since you've done the research, what was the first ever crime drama?

Your attention spurs me. It's great. And yes, I agree with you about all drama being this way. So much of it is about characters working out epistemological challenges, when to face reality and when to hold onto visions of how reality could be better--for better or worse. That is, we watch the visionaries, we watch the deluded. We empathize and learn from their struggles.

Jeremy

Perhaps there are other reasons we love crime drama. In some ways watching crime dramas are like watching horror movies and I'm not sure your rationales would apply to that genre. But it's more likely that the criminal world is a culture of its own. And those of us who watch it are as fascinated by a look into that culture as we would be watching a Masai youth perform the coming of age ritual, or a day with the Amish. Criminals typically get away with all that much. The system has it's own checks and balances both internal and external.

You raise an interesting methodological question. We mostly ask "what's the reason for this?" as though there's only one. But like I said in the article "I never do anything for just one reason." Psychology is highly under-determined. We do things for many many reasons.

We generally simplify too much. We look at a behavior, find one good reason for it and think we're done. I think your explanation is great. I think it's very close to my brother's explanation as well--curiosity about a world other than the one we occupy. I never intended for readers to think my explanation was the only one.

Of course there remains the work of figuring out which explanations apply more and which apply less. Mine doesn't fit Cindy above who is repulsed by the violence. Or maybe it does but is countered by the way it is also repellent to her. And we would ask about yours whether people are as interested in watching the Masai or a day with the Amish. All other things being equal--watching on TV for example--I don't think Nielsen ratings would bear out your theory. Apparently on TV, people gravitate toward the gangsters more than the documentaries about the Amish. On the other hand if you're talking about a day face to face with gangsters or the Amish, most folks would probably chose the Amish outing.

Thanks for writing. Please hear that I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm reinforcing the methodological points I made in the article and noting that psych is a complex arena in which to ever assert "That's the reason."

Best,

Jeremy

Judging Amy. Have you ever seen it? There are re-runs on tnt.com I don't know any guys who like the show; probably because it features 2 powerful female lead characters. I love it not only because Amy (the judge) deals with REALLY tough questions in almost every episode, but she always comes into a very sound and wise decision. It makes me feel so good to be a witness to other peoples' smart decision making, even if it's fiction (perhaps because in real life I am witness to so many bad decisions, including my own etc.)

Crime and horror drama place us in states of helpless fear or anger or disgust, and then induce us down a path of resolution (usually). If we were to monitor our psychochemistry, I'm quite sure we would find that the climb toward climax increases levels of epinephrine, and at resolution we are flooded with endorphins. This pattern is addictive, very similar to the athlete's addiction.

I'm surprised there aren't more studies dedicated to the psychochemistry of drama (and advertising). Or maybe there is a secret stash of studies somewhere, guarded by an advertising corporation. And maybe an industrial counter-spy is killed when she discovers that a majority of these studies have been commissioned by an obscure branch of the State Department...

Interesting Norm, and I bet you're right, which raises the old question about two different kinds of explanation, the difference between what Aristotle called efficient and final cause, and how they interact. Your's is more efficient-, or mechanism-focused, the body's addiction to endorphin and they way it's triggered by certain kinds of drama. Mine is more about final causes or personal psychological ends, the way our personal goals make us resonate with that drama. In this case it's pretty easy to see how they interact. Mines about the psychological motives that make it so as you say "crime or horror drama place us in states of helpless fear, anger or disgust." Our theories seem quite compatible and besides, I got an endorphin rush when you suggested that "maybe an industrial counter-spy is killed when she discovers that a majority of these studies have been commissioned by an obscure branch of the State Department..."

Yeah but no but yeah but

Studies have shown that conscious monitoring is not very reliable access to behavioural causation. (That is why psychiatry is in it for the long haul.) "Motivations" are slippery buggers; even when the subject is trying to be perfectly honest, mental activity doesn't yield very well to linear verbal description, which is one reason why our dreams dissipate so rapidly upon waking.

Approaches like behavioural modification and drug therapies abandon "historical motivations" for more immediate alterations in emotions, sensitivities and behaviours, seeking to change the present rather than to resolve the past. It's a pity, in a way, because nothing is better than learning to articulate your feelings and consciously relate to those forces that have shaped who you are.

Ah, now you're on to a topic close to my heart. I work on the emergence of telos or what you call motivation, because every attempt to describe behavior in strictly physical/chemical terms is bankrupt and every attempt to describe it all by motivations is bankrupt as well. The burden is on the sciences to explain how the transition "from matter to mattering" occurs. When I'm not here I'm working on that.

Jeremy

Is there a "transition" or are they two overlapping but self-contained maps? Material and Meaning might share alignment points, even vocabulary and synchrony, but I am not convinced that they are joined at the hip.

You are in my ballpark now -- I have long been studying dualistic thought, and I'm convinced that we are "dually cognitive" -- not just two-brained (the "chemical" brain and the "sensory" brain), but epistemologically dualistic at the core of cognition, where membranes develop monitoring capabilities, and cellular "guts" develop chemical controllers, and the two cognitive families BOTH go on to develop models of the world that are very different but complementary.

The dualism emerges originally from a primitive organic ability to exploit two distinct ways the world delivers energy: radiant and molecularly packaged. These lead to two families of mechanisms, and two "architectural schools" that support these mechanisms. The cell membrane and cell interior are only one expression of this dualism; the architectural and functional dualism reemerges at many levels. Ask me for the catalog.

Associated with these families are two cognitive "styles" -- one is externally oriented (spatial, mechanical) and the other is internally oriented (temporal, personal). These are not "ideas" or "systems of thought" -- they are the miasmically interwoven fabric of experience itself, but they do allow themselves to be teased into these two family structures, as we continue to fabricate our world models to reflect a world of meaning and a world of matter that never quite resolve to a unity.

The two cognitive styles are as separate as animal and vegetable -- they form less of a dialog with, than an environment for, each other. But then something strange and wonderful happens -- they begin to shape the world so it increases the ability of the two styles to integrate. They build prosthetic devices, as it were, like language, ritual and sociality, artificial platforms upon which the divergences of the two cognitive styles are less pronounced and their complementarities are enhanced. Culture becomes the breeding ground of integrated cognition, and here we are.

I'll have to be happy with "entwinement."

I assumed as much. When you mentioned fear as the motive for the biochemistry I could tell you were my kind of guy, an entwinement kind of guy. Biochemistry R Us is what made me want to be explicit. Because of course we are but we're not just biochemical phenomena even though I assume all motives must ultimately be translatable into biochemicals.

For researchers in this area however entwinenment is a question, not an answer. HOW did motives emerge as having causal efficacy? And how do they entwine. It's a wonderful time to be working on these questions because a bunch of insights in chemistry, dynamic systems theory and the like are in place such that at least in this researcher's opinion we are about to have a truly plausible truly scientific answer.

Thanks for writing back.

Jeremy

I'm enjoying this dialog. Or should we call it a platform for my ramblings? Well, I'm enjoying it in any case.

Causality and motives are another dualism that map usefully similar, but not the same, territory (see below). The first major difference is in the functionality.

Our perceptions are not present-moment depictions -- far from it. They are futuristic projections (though the future may be a couple hundred milliseconds away), based on reams of old data, and designed to anticipate the world so we have time to respond (since it takes us at least a couple hundred milliseconds to respond to current stimuli).

This projected world doesn't have to be real (as Gestalt psychology demonstrates) but can be biased in the direction of helping us get a handle on the situation and make quick decisions. In short, our perceived world is future-biased, and the motivation-map and the causality-map are future-biased in different ways, because dualistic cognition embodies two different cognitive strategies and agenda.

The causality-bias sees the world as interacting surfaces and fields that provide cues about the behaviour of bodies infused with energy. Interactions are in the mode of contact and force. The motivational bias sees the world as meaning and passion, because it is the part of me that drives ME, and sees other beings as being like me. Its ability to model the world is through the understanding of MY OWN chemical cognition.

These two maps can't transpose because they don't even really map the same territory. For one thing, they are modelling different time-slices; for another, they are using different bodies of evidence, because they are witness to different aspects of my experience. But that is their strength as well, because they provide a dual perspective (when they are not busy squabbling).

So the problem of free will, for example, is a pseudo-problem, no more meaningful than asking "what is the color of hope?" Free will applies to one time-slice-world, causality to another. And as I have said, these maps may share (ought to share, had BETTER share) some overlapping points, but don't expect them always to take you to the same holiday hotspots.

We need to turn epistemology on its head (I love that idea), and rather than thinking that we began as a unity and have somehow become fractured, I propose that the fracture is in our origins and we have gradually modified ourselves and the world to facilitate an emergent cooperative alliance as an integrated being. IMHO, if there is work to be done, it is in trying to understand evolution, culture, and the world as bridges that facilitate the cooperation between the dual (or are there more?) cognitive beings that we are.

So what do you have to say about those of us (I'm assuming there are others like myself) who don't find these crime dramas fascinating, at all? What do you have to say about those of us who would rather surround our lives with truth and actuality? All of those shows are the same and they've been the same since the first one. The truth is, speaking from my communication education, that we love those shows because we are told to love those shows by the media. Another reason we love those shows is because those shows are the only shows available. They are cheap to produce, require little plot change from one show to another, and are a good way to make a quick buck for a few people.

Dear Pimpstatus (interesting name for a person who denies interest in gangsta matters.)

Different strokes for different folks, of course. Psychology does generalize but there are exceptions to all rules.

Your alternative explanation is no less broad. In fact it's quite sweeping and raises some very big questions. Are you saying that the media conspiracy could get us to watch anything at all? I doubt that. There has to be some fundamental resonance. If your sweeping counter-theory were true then why doesn't the media just show us movies of laundry being done? They would be cheaper still.

I guess the part I have most trouble with is your argument that some people like fantasy and others only want to surround themselves with truth and actuality. My sense, and I admit that it is quite a broad "accusation"--is that we all need some kind combination of fiction and truth, hope and realism. Some claim they only want the truth but that's what I'd call a meta-lie a higher level of lie. It's true that the strictly honest person would claim that, but so would the con artist. Even Gangsta's say they are just "facing facts."

Thanks for reading though. I wish you will with your particular blend of truth and fantasy.

Jeremy

Jeremy,

Granted, I did not write a developed response articulating specifics of every kind while separating and categorizing each and every point into a professional and researched item, but I believe I can adequately respond to your response.

Have you ever watched some of the garbage that is on t.v.? Even some of the most popular shows are complete and utter nonsense. People will watch, buy or consume whatever the media tells them to.

I've seen plenty of REALITY TV shows on MTV and such where people are literally doing laundry or other t.v. shows such as Golden Girls where the women are doing laundry, household chores, or simply sitting on furniture and that is somehow fascinating to a particular audience.

If your theory was correct and mine was absolutely wrong, then all people among all cultures would love the same media. Media, however, defines culture as opposed to conversely. People will buy, eat, and consume whatever products or services the media tell them to.

Take your article, for example. I didn't specifically search the internet looking for that article or the topic, but it was on the list of articles that were available to read so I read it. I was influenced by media (psychologytoday.com) to read what you wrote.

Granted, SOME people may watch because of the reason you listed, and that is precisely why I began my last response with "So what do you have to say about those of us... who don't find these crime dramas fascinating, at all?"

I find it interesting that instead of answering my question you replied with an argument of why I was wrong. That sounds like insecurity as though you doubt yourself.

My only point is that I do not fit in a box and I'm sure others do not, either, so I don't enjoy sweeping accusations about an entire group of people.

Oh yeah, one last thing... my username "PimpStatus" really has nothing to do with a gang, gang affiliation, gang interest, or actual self identity. I simply understand the shock and awe factor of image, advertising, content, and programming so I thought I might have a higher probability of enticing a response if I had a name such as that. Apparently, I was correct.

Apparently, you were correct. ;-)