For those who haven’t read the book, Amusing Ourselves to Death is incredible, and absolutely worth reading. One of my mentors gave it to me years ago and it became one of those mind blowing reads.
In the book, Postman analyzes how media affects humans and society. He basically gives a framework for predicting and understanding the effects of different types of media. The book was written before social media, so the examples are books, newspapers, tv, radio, etc. But so much of social media seems obvious once you read his analysis.
Every time I see the typical discussion (person A: social media makes people dumb; person B: Plato said books make people dumb) I think that the discussion could use some Postman - not all media affects us in the same way - some media encourages behaviors that are good for society, and some media encourages behaviors that are bad for society.
This is not exactly correct. When the book was written, a lot of commentators had written off television as useless garbage -- totally bad for society. Postman (correctly) complicates that by pointing out that television is great for emotional storytelling, and he is in favor of fictional television shows that model social values for people. Television turns everything into emotional content, which is why TV news evolved to be so sensationalistic -- TV is not good at news. Printed media is good at news. So, each media has uses that play to its strengths and weaknesses. When a medium is used in weak ways, that is bad for society.
(I don't know what the redeeming argument for TikTok would be...)
TikTok is good at personal content— short form videos that capture a slice of life for other real people. TikTok is a salon.
Little bits of entertainment — music, poetry, jokes/clowning, gossip, show and tell on all kinds of topics, musings about life and interpersonal relationships, practitioners demonstrating their craft.
It presents an interesting cross-section of news that's hard to get anywhere else. It's not great or even good at the normal news format but you can read about a riot and that the mayor called in the national guard in the paper, but the video of someone on their porch getting screamed at and having warning shots fired at them for not going indoors has an impact.
Printed media were emotional and sensationalistic too when there was not TV yet. Journals like that still exist and they used to be common and large. Sensationalism changed form, that is it.
Precisely - the medium is the message. Books are slow, deliberate, require imagination and attention. Seven second tiktok videos are the opposite. The method by which we consume the information impacts us just as much if not more than its content.
I've started reading more books (again) lately and the depth of character development and ideas in long form fiction is striking compared to even most long-form TV and films, let alone short attention span social media slop. (... and the best long-form TV and films are often based on books ...)
You can really get deep into characters' heads, their motivations, etc. The more I read the more I feel like it makes me a better person as I absorb empathy and deep insights about consciousness and the human experience.
I'm a huge roger waters fan, in particular the album named after this book (not to mention huxley). I was excited to finally get to read what had inspired him. I found it dated (obviously I'd read it nearly 40 years after it was published), commentary on the evils of tv.
> I think that the discussion could use some Postman - not all media affects us in the same way - some media encourages behaviors that are good for society, and some media encourages behaviors that are bad for society.
I think media simply mostly brings out the behaviors already inherent to people. If a shitty person sees their behavior validated in media, they are now more likely to act it out in real life. Likewise for good behaviors.
Some people are definitely more susceptible to such influence than others.
Bit of an aside, it was fun to notice the Australian references in the comic. Surprises me still to see something Australian on the "regular" internet.
People make too much of what Orwell supposedly feared may happen some day. He was writing about stuff the Soviet and British governments were doing in his time, and in particular, imagined what Soviet rule over Britain may look like. Assigning this philosophy to him and criticizing him for it seems unfair.
Also… maybe he achieved his purpose? Most people have read his books, and it helped generate a widespread aversion to authoritarianism… actually preventing it from happening in the USA and Britain. Many countries nowadays do have societies and governments that look a lot like 1984.
I think you are right. I wish people paid attention to Blade Runner, Alien, etc. and realized what an equal or greater danger unchecked corporations are.
No, most people pretended to read Animal Farm and 1984 in middle school and haven’t thought about them since. They didn’t understand them at the time, and they don’t see the similar manipulations going on in today’s society.
Did it really though? Ideological censorship has been on the rise for awhile. Books might only be occasionally banned but that's because their relevance in the modern zeitgeist has waned. The privatization of the public square has nonetheless meant that moderation of communication has become widespread and politically charged.
Yeah I think this is a misreading of Orwell. Orwell wasn't afraid that the government would point a gun at the public's heads and the people would hate it. He was afraid that, when that happened, the people would love it.
Authoritarians are popular. The January 6th Capitol attack was perpetrated by people who wanted the state to exert itself violently, because they believed The State and The People were one and the same, and anyone who is a victim of The State was not truly part of The People to begin with.
The threat of Big Brother is not that he'll watch us, but that we will believe he is watching everyone else on our behalf. Police militarization and mass incarceration are already proof that Americans are willing to cede rights when they believe that only "outsiders" will suffer as a result.
I see "The Circle" as being the updated version of 1984 that is more relevant in our times. In that novel, it's not a government spying on people but is a big company, and the protagonist gradually gives away her privacy in exchange for some services or benefits.
Did he fear what would happen, or propose extrapolating the current experience as a cautionary tale? Meanwhile Huxley presented a world where we voluntarily pursue ignoble goals. I don't think we're criticizing him as much as mourning we appear to have palced the yoke upon ourselves.
If anything I think that the general population is becoming more aware and educated.
A more diversified leisure industry with more options than the days of having three channels on television is not the same as drowning in amusement, or the average person spending more time on amusement than on “serious” and “thoughtful” activities. Instead, it means that the individual has more options for forms of amusement they enjoy.
I think you can argue that 'books' were deemed as intellectual in Huxley/Orwell's time, so banning them would be a sign of society decline ---> BUT, todays books can be seen as just part of the entertainment distraction. Books sales are up, but how many of them are YA, Manga , Pop-Fiction. They are as shallow and distracting as a TV Show.
I tend to think even reading the worst trash book is still better than Video. But it is still playing into distraction.
Note: I Like Manga, but those series that are 100 volumes long, that is distracting.
"Information" Is an essential element of propaganda, which must "have reference to political or economic reality" to be credible. In fact, no propaganda can work until the moment when a set of facts has become a problem in the eyes of those who constitute public opinion." Education permits the dissemination of propaganda in that it enables people to consume information. Information is indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion". Where no informed opinion with regard to political or economic affairs propaganda cannot exist making it an indispensable aspect. Propaganda means nothing without preliminary information that provides the basis for propaganda, gives propaganda the means to operate, and generates the problems that propaganda exploits by pretending to offer solutions. It is through information that the individual is placed in a social context and learns to understand the reality of his own situation. Information allows us to evaluate our situation feel our own personal problems are a general social problem thus enabling propaganda to entice us into social and political action. Information is most effective when it is objective and broad because it creates a general picture. With information quantity is better than quality, the more political or economic facts believed to be mastered by an individual, the more sensitive their judgment is to propaganda. In fact, only in and through propaganda do the masses have access to political economy, politics, art, or literature. The more stereotypes in a culture, the easier it is to form public opinion, and the more an individual participates in that culture, the more susceptible he becomes to the manipulation of these symbols.
Now add to it all that we have discovered since then in Neuroscience/Neurobiology on how to bypass the "rational" side of the Brain and you will realize that we mostly have "Informed Opinions" and "General Confusion" rather than Real "Education" and "Awareness".
If anything, the latter has become far more difficult to achieve today.
Content from Amusing Ourselves to Death presented as a visual comic to facilitate/"enhance" its communication is deeply ironic. Can't wait for the TikTok video.
A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages…chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements … they require out-door exercises–not this sort of mental gladiatorship.
A game of chess does not add a single new fact to the mind; it does not excite a single beautiful thought; nor does it serve a single purpose for polishing and improving the nobler faculties.
>>If men learn [to read], it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.<<
Plato, 400-300 BC
Basically, learning to read and write would lead to an overreliance and provide only a "semblance of wisdom", rather than "true wisdom".
haha the man probably would have been absolutely devastated to learn that his posterity has degenerated to the point of using Google while coding... or god forbid, interviewing.
I don't know that much about literacy rates and social competition in ancient Greece, but I suspect it may have been in Plato's personal interests that others remain illiterate.
Which is not really wrong. Chess can be fun, but I always thought it is pretty fascinating that the chess champions are viewed by the media as some kind of genius. I mean, it's just a game, not more but also not less.
But playing Chess at any serious level (more than a couple hours a week) has some non Chess side effects; it teaches you to examine your own behaviour, it teaches you that even if you're very good you can still lose (and hopefully how to lose well), and it teaches you that the other side gets a vote (get a turn, no action happens in a vacuum).
There was some chess prodigy who, in his teens, was already winning against most champions, and who in his early twenties abandoned chess altogether, citing it a "waste of life".
Is this meant to be an analog to Postman’s argument? Because it isn’t. His argument doesn’t really have a moral bent to it. It’s a very practical argument that different mediums are capable of carrying different messages.
I read it as a counter to Postman’s citing Huxley that society is becoming enamored with the superficial (ie the ignoble) pursuits. I read the OP as effectively saying “who is to say what is noble vs trivial, considering it varies in societal context.”
170 years ago, people may have thought chess was superficial. I think now, maybe it would be considered a more noble pursuit.
Or, maybe the OP was saying it’s a constant devolving towards the increasingly trivial.
Lenin eventually took the same view - that chess was distracting him from a higher purpose. Perhaps a harmless game would have been a better use of his time.
I much prefer people amuse themselves to death than they think and theorize themselves- (or others, in the case of many late 19th and early 20th century intellectuals) to death.
This goes beyond media entertainment. All of our senses are being exploited and overstimulated for commercial gains. Food, perfumes, music, furniture. People crave for saltiest or sweetest food. They fill their noses with strong artificial fragrances, their heads with loud, distracting, catchy music, all the while butt-slouched on the comfiest couches or beds. If this continues on, there will be a point where humanity will be so desensitized and can no longer feel anything natural with their own senses.
Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources or appreciate in value in the eyes of an economic system that prioritizes increasing capital valuations above all else, including human dignity, long-term survival and the life of other species, I would say we're already there.
Talking about a dystopian future is a convenient way to assuade our sense of dissonance that the present is most certainly not that.
Case in point, nobody wants to rid the Earth of insects, fill the oceans with plastic or plough microplastics into every orifice, but we are all complicit and can't seem to gather ourselves to fix it.
This is something I regularly read, something in the line of 'we're doomed and it's our own fault since we are actively part of this destructive system'.
I think while humanity is destroying things they are fixing things as well. Banning of heavy metals in environment, removing asbestos, getting most people to stop smoking, eating less meat, energy transition... it's not perfect but we are working on it. Meanwhile average age increases and violence decreases (averaged over a large period at least)
> First of all, I know it's all people like you. And that's what's so scary. Individually you don't know what you're doing collectively.
- The Circle by Dave Eggers
> In the course of her job, Resaint had met people like Megrimson, executives who went into work and sat down at their desks and made decisions that ravaged the world. They didn't seem evil to her. They seemed more like fungal colonies or AI subroutines, mechanical components of a self-perpetuating super-organism, with no real subjectivity of their own. That said, she would have happily watched any of them die.
- Venomous Lumpsucker by Ned Beauman
I know it's still science/climate fiction, but very relevant to your point.
> Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources ...
Or for governments, doing government jobs that produce absolutely nothing of value and force people to waste a big chunk of their lives on administrative tasks...
I come from a town where the biggest employer is the state in a few different forms. I think it's entirely valid for the government to keep them all busy 9-5, salaried and pensioned. Main function of the state IMO.
"a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case" — Nathan Heller
Whats the public vs private split to this idea? Its not a new idea -
“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.” — John Wanamaker
It would take someone mentally ill (i.e. "neurodivergent") to actually go beyond the routine and take drastic action to fix. Normal people don't go against what society deems normal. Normal people will lie to themselves rather than face the truth, and that's a good thing usually. Almost always is it better to be united in a less optimal path than divided. This is true for the individual as well as socirty.
However, in certain situations a society's path becomes so misdirected that its better to be alone than follow the group.
Readit News
In the book, Postman analyzes how media affects humans and society. He basically gives a framework for predicting and understanding the effects of different types of media. The book was written before social media, so the examples are books, newspapers, tv, radio, etc. But so much of social media seems obvious once you read his analysis.
Every time I see the typical discussion (person A: social media makes people dumb; person B: Plato said books make people dumb) I think that the discussion could use some Postman - not all media affects us in the same way - some media encourages behaviors that are good for society, and some media encourages behaviors that are bad for society.
(I don't know what the redeeming argument for TikTok would be...)
Little bits of entertainment — music, poetry, jokes/clowning, gossip, show and tell on all kinds of topics, musings about life and interpersonal relationships, practitioners demonstrating their craft.
It presents an interesting cross-section of news that's hard to get anywhere else. It's not great or even good at the normal news format but you can read about a riot and that the mayor called in the national guard in the paper, but the video of someone on their porch getting screamed at and having warning shots fired at them for not going indoors has an impact.
You can really get deep into characters' heads, their motivations, etc. The more I read the more I feel like it makes me a better person as I absorb empathy and deep insights about consciousness and the human experience.
The other strange part of video media is that intimate parasocial relationships it builds.
Deleted Comment
I think media simply mostly brings out the behaviors already inherent to people. If a shitty person sees their behavior validated in media, they are now more likely to act it out in real life. Likewise for good behaviors.
Some people are definitely more susceptible to such influence than others.
So if some behaviors are amplified more than other, isn't that equivalent to considering that a medium induces more frequently a certain behavior?
HN discussion from 2010: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1554733
Wikipedia entry for the book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
Edit: err never mind, now I see why you included the archive link. Switched to that.
Deleted Comment
Authoritarians are popular. The January 6th Capitol attack was perpetrated by people who wanted the state to exert itself violently, because they believed The State and The People were one and the same, and anyone who is a victim of The State was not truly part of The People to begin with.
The threat of Big Brother is not that he'll watch us, but that we will believe he is watching everyone else on our behalf. Police militarization and mass incarceration are already proof that Americans are willing to cede rights when they believe that only "outsiders" will suffer as a result.
Independent bookstores have been consistently growing since 2009: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpol...
The book industry is expanding with particularly strong growth in e-books and audiobooks: https://worldmetrics.org/book-industry-statistics/
Educational attainment is generally increasing as time goes on in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...
Voter turnout has increased over time in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...
If anything I think that the general population is becoming more aware and educated.
A more diversified leisure industry with more options than the days of having three channels on television is not the same as drowning in amusement, or the average person spending more time on amusement than on “serious” and “thoughtful” activities. Instead, it means that the individual has more options for forms of amusement they enjoy.
I tend to think even reading the worst trash book is still better than Video. But it is still playing into distraction.
Note: I Like Manga, but those series that are 100 volumes long, that is distracting.
Deleted Comment
Not necessarily.
Read Jacques Ellul's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul) book "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda:_The_Formation_of_M... The wikipedia page has a good synopsis of all the major points. Read carefully his arguments specifically on "Information" and "Education" and how they actually make you more susceptible to Propaganda. Excerpt;
"Information" Is an essential element of propaganda, which must "have reference to political or economic reality" to be credible. In fact, no propaganda can work until the moment when a set of facts has become a problem in the eyes of those who constitute public opinion." Education permits the dissemination of propaganda in that it enables people to consume information. Information is indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion". Where no informed opinion with regard to political or economic affairs propaganda cannot exist making it an indispensable aspect. Propaganda means nothing without preliminary information that provides the basis for propaganda, gives propaganda the means to operate, and generates the problems that propaganda exploits by pretending to offer solutions. It is through information that the individual is placed in a social context and learns to understand the reality of his own situation. Information allows us to evaluate our situation feel our own personal problems are a general social problem thus enabling propaganda to entice us into social and political action. Information is most effective when it is objective and broad because it creates a general picture. With information quantity is better than quality, the more political or economic facts believed to be mastered by an individual, the more sensitive their judgment is to propaganda. In fact, only in and through propaganda do the masses have access to political economy, politics, art, or literature. The more stereotypes in a culture, the easier it is to form public opinion, and the more an individual participates in that culture, the more susceptible he becomes to the manipulation of these symbols.
Now add to it all that we have discovered since then in Neuroscience/Neurobiology on how to bypass the "rational" side of the Brain and you will realize that we mostly have "Informed Opinions" and "General Confusion" rather than Real "Education" and "Awareness".
If anything, the latter has become far more difficult to achieve today.
A game of chess does not add a single new fact to the mind; it does not excite a single beautiful thought; nor does it serve a single purpose for polishing and improving the nobler faculties.
Scientific American, July, 1858
[0]: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/19th-century-conce...
>>If men learn [to read], it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.<<
Plato, 400-300 BC
Basically, learning to read and write would lead to an overreliance and provide only a "semblance of wisdom", rather than "true wisdom".
[0] https://fs.blog/an-old-argument-against-writing/
All of which are very valuable life lessons.
If you can be a champion at anything you deserve recognition - just look at the people lauded for chugging dozens of hot dogs
Note that this might also hold to some degree for computer programming.
"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."
170 years ago, people may have thought chess was superficial. I think now, maybe it would be considered a more noble pursuit.
Or, maybe the OP was saying it’s a constant devolving towards the increasingly trivial.
The world would have been a better place had he kept playing chess then.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Talking about a dystopian future is a convenient way to assuade our sense of dissonance that the present is most certainly not that.
Case in point, nobody wants to rid the Earth of insects, fill the oceans with plastic or plough microplastics into every orifice, but we are all complicit and can't seem to gather ourselves to fix it.
I think while humanity is destroying things they are fixing things as well. Banning of heavy metals in environment, removing asbestos, getting most people to stop smoking, eating less meat, energy transition... it's not perfect but we are working on it. Meanwhile average age increases and violence decreases (averaged over a large period at least)
> In the course of her job, Resaint had met people like Megrimson, executives who went into work and sat down at their desks and made decisions that ravaged the world. They didn't seem evil to her. They seemed more like fungal colonies or AI subroutines, mechanical components of a self-perpetuating super-organism, with no real subjectivity of their own. That said, she would have happily watched any of them die. - Venomous Lumpsucker by Ned Beauman
I know it's still science/climate fiction, but very relevant to your point.
Or for governments, doing government jobs that produce absolutely nothing of value and force people to waste a big chunk of their lives on administrative tasks...
I don't fear government, I fear the lack of it.
Whats the public vs private split to this idea? Its not a new idea -
“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.” — John Wanamaker
However, in certain situations a society's path becomes so misdirected that its better to be alone than follow the group.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment