Television a drug?

[Glasshopper]

As someone who grew up in a household where television was not allowed untill I was about twelve years old, I am curious as to what your views of tv are.

Do you think it is the opiate of the masses or merely chewing gum for the mind?

~Sniped from the web~
The fact that TV is a source not actively or critically attended to was made dramatically evident in the late 1960s by an experiment that rocked the world of political and product advertising and forever changed the ways in which the television medium would be used. The results of the experiment still reverberate through the industry long after its somewhat primitive methods have been perfected.

In November 1969, a researcher named Herbert Krugman, who later became manager of public-opinion research at General Electric headquarters in Connecticut, decided to try to discover what goes on physiologically in the brain of a person watching TV. He elicited the co-operation of a twenty-two-year-old secretary and taped a single electrode to the back of her head. The wire from this electrode connected to a Grass Model 7 Polygraph, which in turn interfaced with a Honeywell 7600 computer and a CAT 400B computer.


Flicking on the TV, Krugman began monitoring the brain-waves of the subject. What he found through repeated trials was that within about thirty seconds, the brain-waves switched from predominantly beta waves, indicating alert and conscious attention, to predominantly alpha waves, indicating an unfocused, receptive lack of attention: the state of aimless fantasy and daydreaming below the threshold of consciousness. When Krugman's subject turned to reading through a magazine, beta waves reappeared, indicating that conscious and alert attentiveness had replaced the daydreaming state.


What surprised Krugman, who had set out to test some McLuhanesque hypotheses about the nature of TV-viewing, was how rapidly the alpha-state emerged. Further research revealed that the brain's left hemisphere, which processes information logically and analytically, tunes out while the person is watching TV. This tuning-out allows the right hemisphere of the brain, which processes information emotionally and noncritically, to function unimpeded. 'It appears,' wrote Krugman in a report of his findings, 'that the mode of response to television is more or less constant and very different from the response to print. That is, the basic electrical response of the brain is clearly to the medium and not to content difference.... [Television is] a communication medium that effortlessly transmits huge quantities of information not thought about at the time of exposure."
~end snip~

OK, it is obvious where I stand on this but I got to go now....my show is on.

[noshadows]

tv sucks the soul man.

bring that truth!

[Hippie3]

tv's no drug,
but watching tv
can cause your own body/brain to secrete certain 'drugs'.

[Lefty]

True. I also think it has a huge effect on culture (as such for this instance). I desperately want to strangle this fool at work for whom "Whhaaaasssuuup" has become part of who he is. I'm changing jobs soon but might do it yet.

[WeedyResin]

Hmmmm this is a good f*ckin' question! Freaky is tellin' me her opinion that a drug is something put into your system, or your blood stream. I agree with this, but doesn't your moods from what you see and hear also cause a chemical reaction in your body. Maybe I should put it like this... watching a show you like puts you in a better mood right? Even better... porn, or watching a boring documentary makes you bored and tired. I think that anything that gives you a chemical and /or mental reaction is a drug. You get conditioned to something and when you don't have it, then you are very possibly unsatisfied. The media conditions our thinking constantly... this is a cool toy kids, get your parents to buy it... everyone's buying a ticket for the lotto jackpot, get yours right now!.. ya know. But then again, this would also mean that anything is a drug. I guess a dictionary would be the best way to determine that, but people are still going to have different opinions on even what the definition translates to. Maybe there should be an option (C. both yes and no).

[Hippie3]

well then by that logic
a woman would be a 'drug' too
since seeing her
triggers the release of psycho-active compounds in the male's brain.
so, too, would a familiar beloved face
like dear old grandma.
is she too a 'drug' ?

[Lefty]

Feelings & situations (obviously) cause us to release chemicals. Pretty much we self dose automatically, in a way.
But I voted yes to this just because of TV's soporific effect, extremely wide use & it's profound influence on the stupid.

[TVCasualty]

Words words words.

TV is addictive, alters consciousness, and changes the way we think. I think of it as more like a dark-side form of meditation, where the imagery is stuffed into your mind rather than created by your mind (big difference).

I guess there are 'primary' and 'secondary' drugs; some act directly on the brain, some stimulate release of certain brain chemicals. TV and sexy people (and grandma's and evil bastards) are 'secondary' drugs in that they stimulate release of consciousness-altering chemicals in the mind. People have this need for categorization that requires lines be drawn and divisions made clear (IS it a drug or ISN'T it), but reality makes no such distinctions.

If you're hallucinating from dehydration, and you drink a big glass of water that returns (alters) your consciousness back to 'normal' does that make water a drug? Or some sort of opposite of a drug? Someone please tell me the exact dimensions of the box in my mind that's labeled "Drugs" so I'll know what fits and what doesn't! (I do think my TV would fit in it, and my grandma too but she's been dead for years so she no longer takes up much space...).

[synth]

tv can be addictive and people's tv-related
behavior can be likened to drug use/addiction,
but these things don't make tv a drug.

No, A drug is a substance not something taken in by the eyeballs.

lol, lsd can be taken in by the eyeballs.

[Glasshopper]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

by that logic a woman would be a 'drug' too since seeing her triggers the release of psycho-active compounds in the male's brain.

I know I've done more dumb crap under the influence of women than I have ever done under the influence of drugs.

I bet most of you guys here have too.

[xenos]

Originally Posted by Glasshopper

I know I've done more dumb crap under the influence of women than I have ever done under the influence of drugs.

I bet most of you guys here have too.

I definitely agree on this!

[hogwild]

Originally Posted by Glasshopper

I know I've done more dumb crap under the influence of women than I have ever done under the influence of drugs.

I bet most of you guys here have too.

yes unfortunately the vagina has brainwashed me in the past.

[Lefty]

I ate a TV & snorted some vagina once.

[dead_diver]

TV...the new opiate of the masses! Just think how you look to others when you watch TV. Like a smacked out junkie LOL

[Hippie3]

dictionary defines a drug as a 'substance'
tv is just light
therefore it's energy, information,
not matter
and so not a 'substance'
nor a 'drug'.

[shadyfigure]

In contrast to the way you were raised (glass), television was not restricted by my parents. They have a term for this, being "raised by the television". I watched so much television when I was a child and I've past realized how much it damaged me later in life when I shouldve had real-world morallities, skills, and parental guidance that I didn't have. As a result being a teenager was even more the difficult (subsequiently how I got into drugs). My opinion and point is don't let your children watch too much, if any television.

[Glasshopper]

Technicaly you are correct Hippy on the subject of substance but tv is not JUST light. It is light in specific patterns directed by consciousness that has more inflence on humans than just about anything else in the 20th century. This is far more than just light. The real point of debate is if something can effect the way a person thinks in such a profound manner and be so addictive can we consider it just an inert object or do we take it's effect on us into consideration as well. This is far deeper than semantics.

[Hippie3]

what tv does for us today
live theater did for the ancients.
theater too is light choreographed by human intent
and interpreted by human consciousness.
a great book can do much the same,
alter us profoundly, make us weep.
it too is just reflected light entering the eye
patterned by human intelligence
to reach another human intelligence,
albeit via a more 'primitive' medium.
then there is art itself,
who hasn't been intoxicated by the beauty of
a sunset painted by a skilled artist ?
etc.
none of these very profound experiences
can accurately be described as drug induced
and neither is television,
which is just a technological refinement.
thinking of tv as a drug
is trying to stuff a complex human mental process
into a simple box meant for something else entirely.
you need a better word,
drug doesn't fit.

[Glasshopper]

Yes but art, books, and theater has never caused seizures like certain animation has done in Japan. Therefore I submit there is something more to it than those mediums as far as how it can affect the brain.

Originally Posted by hippy3

you need a better word,
drug doesn't fit.

Perhaps this is the case but the definitions of words change over time. I had a frind who had a very old dictionary where the definition of computer was "a person who does mathematical calculations"

[Hippie3]

tv is more intense, and faster, no doubt.
still, the power it has is in the images it shows,
if it just showed static
you might still be able to
trigger a seizure in certain individuals
but you'd lose all the other impact
along with the content.

i think one has to get down to the way
the human mind responds to light, color, images
to really understand what's going on.
it's far more complex than a chemical/substance.

[anticheffy]

epilepsy can be triggered by flashing light
that does not mean epilepsy is CAUSED by flashing light.

the things .............never mind,,,,,,,,,,,lol

[Glasshopper]

Anticheffy, I meant caused in the aspect that it would not have been triggered if the tv was not on. You are right triggered is a better word.

Originally Posted by hippy3

it's far more complex than a chemical/substance.

So hippy are you saying it is more than a drug?

[reverend trips]

I rolled up a TV once and I couldn't get it to burn right, maybe it was too wet?

[Glasshopper]

[Hippie3]

Originally Posted by Glasshopper

So hippy are you saying it is more than a drug?

assuming you and i are both defining 'more' in the same way,
yes.

i see the fundamental psychological aspects of perception as
the real question here.

now a drug operates quite differently
in that it by-passes perception.
you don't have to pay attention to a drug
to feel it's effects.
you don't have to agree with a drug
to enjoy it.

you don't even have to be conscious
for a drug to work on the body.

but
for television to affect you
you must tune in, and watch it.
and if it's much of a show,
you must listen to and interpret language,
including all its' subtle nuances.

then your brain must sort out the raw sensory input
into recognizable patterns
such as a chair or table.

you must observe gestures and facial expressions
and interpret them correctly
based on the context.

shadows and poor lighting on set
can hamper your ability to see and understand,
a ploy common to horror films
since being blind raises the anxiety level.

ditto for sounds,
explosions and thunderstorms
gunfire and police sirens
all increase the tension
but must be recognized and interpreted
to know if it was good news
or bad news.

etc.

and that's just a quick scratch on the surface,
we could go into brain structure itself...

[St. Luke]

Just one thing, Hip. What about subliminal messages? Or having the tv on while you sleep? You don't think that could have an effect?

I think it's a problem with the very word; drug. I'd like someone to give me an objetive definition of that word that doesn't end up including everything. I've never heard one yet.

[billyboy]

all this talk about TV as light and only light...there are natural sounds that create fear, joy, etc..i can write music that makes you cry, laugh, get mad, goto sleep, wonder, think in loops, etc..... theres so much on the side of the audio that comes with the tv as well..

for example a lions roar creates fear because of its infrasonic sounds.. these same sounds are used in a lot of horror movies now a days as advanced techniques to scare the living day lights out of you..... and that creates adrinalin among other goodies....

just think of how a good movie sounds in a imax thearter....... the film is almost not needed at that point.. you could listen to the entire movie and get the whole idea and let your imagenation paint the picture...

so now we're at sight and sound... and no.. even if it is programmed from someones own imagination its not a drug... its just light, and compression of air in a format that is absorbed by our brains and body.

its not a drug baby, its hollywood!!! Everyones already on drugs.. LOL

we as humans like to be entertained...

And i'm very entertained by this thread..

Is this Thread a Drug?... or better yet, Mycotopia??????

[billyboy]

Originally Posted by St. Luke

Just one thing, Hip. What about subliminal messages? Or having the tv on while you sleep? You don't think that could have an effect?

They proved that subliminal messages do not work, i beleive.
but dreaming with a TV on, thats just crazy..
I goto sleep listening to random jazz, because It makes my dreams more vivid and creative... so I could totally see that having an affect.
- B

[Hippie3]

drug- a substance that affects biological systems.

subliminal advertising actually was moderately effective,
that's why they banned it.
but it still required perception to work,
just at a subconscious level.
you still had to 'see/hear' it to be effected.

[St. Luke]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

drug- a substance that affects biological systems.

But that's everything. Food, water, anything that can be ingested will have some effect on the body.

[Glasshopper]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

drug- a substance that affects biological systems.

Are you trying to say tv has no effect on the biological system?

Originally Posted by Hippie3 <