This is why prosecutors like to tell the jury how the crime might have occurred. Once they hear the story, the scene becomes firmly embedded in their minds and there's no going back. In a way, they become witnesses to the event.
Steve
So you're not a "10" in every which way. But you're probably pretty spectacular in some way, and definitely good enough in most areas of life. If ever there were a time to stop beating yourself up for being human, it is now.
Verified by Psychology Today
In a plain white cover that belies its wide-ranging and culturally rich content, Norman N. Holland's latest (16th) book, Literature and the Brain explores what we know about how our brains and minds react to the arts. Holland, also a PT blogger, goes beyond the concept of being transported by a work of art (being pulled into flow by it), and tackles the question of why we feel real emotions toward unreal things. Part of the explanation is that "when we enjoy a literary work fully, by being 'transported,' we turn off reality-testing." We (our brains) agree to suspend disbelief and let ourselves feel as though what we're reading or watching is real.
Researchers have found that when subjects are shown pictures, they feel the emotions that would be appropriate under those actual circumstances. This helps explain the seduction of drama, literature, and poetry. For instance, we enjoy tragedies, Holland points out, because "we bring them from representations of the direst threats outside us into our inner mental processing, and there we fit them into our schemas for understanding the world. By making sense of them, we tame them."
Highly recommended for those who create or respond to any of the arts.
This is why prosecutors like to tell the jury how the crime might have occurred. Once they hear the story, the scene becomes firmly embedded in their minds and there's no going back. In a way, they become witnesses to the event.
Steve
I hadn't made that connection, so thanks! (I also notice from your own PT bio that you once appeared in Playgirl. So why aren't you a senator yet? At least you're a clear thinker.)
Thank you so much for your clear-thinking comment. However, if you've ever visited one of my PT Comments' Pages you'll see that I'm also out-spoken. Not such a good thing if you want to be a politician.
Anyway, if you're really interested, you can read all about my time in Washington at:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look-it-way/201001/i-dont-vote
Out-spoken doesn't bother me. But, after reading some of your posts, I see your point about why you wouldn't be the best candidate. Still, I always vote, if only to counteract the votes of the biggest (in my view) blockheads. I don't expect campaign promises to be fulfilled quickly. But I always choose the candidate who is smart, rational, compassionate, and patient (when there is one who fills that bill). And not too cynical. (I have nothing against a healthy amount of skepticism, but when a leader is too cynical, change becomes impossible.)
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.