Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Shifting perception

This NPR post is a good follow-up to the previous post about certainty -- how and why people change their minds about something. The set-up is simple, a man shot photos of huskies playing with migrating polar bears. In 1994 he published the shots in National Geographic, but people hated the photos and the photographer:

[The] photographer Rosing "was besieged by angry faxes and phone calls," from people who thought the photos couldn't be real, that the dog was probably put in the bear's path, "chained up as bait for the white monster." This wasn't play. This wasn't innocent. This was the prelude to a kill — "a sinister trap." The bear, they said, was about to spring and bite the dog; when the pictures stopped, the bear pounced. The dog, they imagined, was probably terrified. No one wanted to look at these photos, Rosing told Jon. "People just couldn't believe it," so he didn't try to sell them. He just stashed them away.


In 2007, the photos were reposted online. The reactions were flip-flopped. More modern audiences were enchanted:

What happened? How could people, maybe the same people, just 13 years later stare at the same pictures and feel so differently about them? Mooallem has a theory. In 1994, he thinks, polar bears were still thought of as proud, dangerous, scary animals. A decade earlier National Geographic put out a polar bear video called "Polar Bear Alert" that begins with a young couple pushing a stroller through Churchill, while Jason Robards, the narrator, describes the town as the "one place in the world where the great white bears roam the streets, dangerously immune to the presence of their only enemy ... man." The dad had a rifle around his shoulder. He needed to, because these bears attacked.

NatGeo's film was rich with bear clawings, bear murders. . . . This film made a particularly deep impression — that these animals were instinctive killers. Knowing that, feeling that, the sequence in Brian Ladoon's backyard made no sense. Vicious Lords of the Tundra don't nuzzle dogs.

Thirteen years later, polar bears hadn't changed, but our sense of them had. By 2007, most people had seen scenes of weak, starving bears struggling to stay on shrinking hunks of melting ice. The earth was warming and polar bears had no place to go. Suddenly, they were vulnerable, heading to extinction. Animals, says Mooallem are "free-roaming Rorschachs." We see them through the heavy filter of our own feelings, our own needs. And our filter for polar bears had flipped. Animals who'd once been proud and vicious had become "delicate, drowning" victims, lonely animals — who now just might need the companionship of a friendly husky — who might come to a backyard, looking for a hug.

Jon Mooallem believes that the stories we tell ourselves about animals totally color how we see them. "Emotion matters. Imagination matters, and we are free to spin whatever stories we want about them." The wild animals, he says, "always have no comment." 

Sociopaths have long had no comment either on the way they are portrayed. I wonder what will change now, if anything, about the public's perception of them. From the comments section of the NPR post:

"Seems to me that MOST hatred.................is based on ignorance."

Or rather, a limited perspective, which we all have. It isn't such a broad term or loaded phrase, but is the same idea. Comes from the popular wisdom that hate comes from fear, which in turn comes from a lack of understanding, especially when we are talking about people fearing/ hating other people. I agree that this is in large part the problem, a human problem. We all have a limited view of the world, and try to judge based on our understanding of our own reality. It takes someone, not necessarily with charisma, or money, or a great idea, but someone with a deep understanding of people, who can be the type of leader to bridge us past this hatred to empathy and understanding instead. Only then can we move on to solutions.


I, too, wondered if the polar bear in the first photograph was going to eat the dog, but it didn't fill me with hate. That would be totally natural. But seeing it in context with the playing is pretty phenomenal.

37 comments:

  1. The problem is the active manipulation that influences perspectives from entertainment and the media. It is a continual reinforcer that drowns out counter-arguments and perspectives.

    There is also something different with sociopathy. Unlike the polar bear, with its habitat deteriorating, the sociopath is not seen as a victim. You do not see pictures of sociopaths hugging infants. Nor do you see, and this is key, people actually taking said photos, nevermind showing them. The vast majority of observations from a curious populace comes from the criminal population. To use the polar bear example, it is as if the photographer only takes pictures of polar bears when they are attacking.

    Pictures, despite common belief, can lie. This is not just incidental, but intentional (commonly practiced and warped by media for sensationalistic purposes). The pictures lack context, or the knowledge of what is happening outside of the shot, or what happened before the shot. Since photographs are being taken in a targetted fashion, everything else that happens does not exist as far as the viewers are concerned. And by taking targetted pictures, of targetted violent/criminal sociopaths, in specific situations (where only specific pictures are released for publication), then it becomes crafted. Perspectives are not afforded the opportunity to change because someone else built it for you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To use an imminent example, I remember spotting the signs of significant editing during ME's interview with Dr. Phil. In this, anything else but notorious villainy was unacceptable, even if it took active manipulation to craft sound bites and visual shots for it. Only select questions were asked and answered for the final product.

    They should have introduced more panning shots and woven the questions and answers more smoothly, with better transitioning. The editing was too obvious in this case.

    It is an example where, unlike the polar bears, the entire conversation - the perspective - is built to lead to a single desired result, and only that result. It is a manipulation that is ironically rather sociopathic in its design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you really think her interview would be objective?

      Delete
    2. Why wouldn't it be?

      Delete
    3. Because Dr. Phil is about ratings and advertising.

      Delete
  3. Bob, are you ME, or her coworker?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neither. Our only commonality is that we are both diagnosed high-functioning sociopaths.

      Delete
  4. "Emotion matters. Imagination matters, and we are free to spin whatever stories we want about them." ^

    I remember when ME was talking about her writing. Related to this, I had said on the forum, that I thought sociopaths would not be the best writers, artists etc. I thought it was because they couldn't portray emotion as well as neurotypicals. People disagreed with me. This illustrates the point in a way. Art, photography, movies, etc. are all looked at in a different way depending on your emotional perception.

    I agree society influences it as well. But I think emotions do too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nice and very helpful information i have got from your post. Even your whole blog is full of interesting information which is the great sign of a great blogger.

    Apple® - MacBook Pro® with Retina Display - 15.4" Display - 8GB Memory - 256GB Flash Storage

    Apple® - MacBook Pro® with Retina Display - 15.4" Display - 16GB Memory - 512GB Flash Storage

    ReplyDelete
  6. I see your point. In today's busy society, we have only time
    for stories that the media covers continuously.
    For example, if an altercation takes place between the races,
    and a white male is the chief instigator, the story will recieve
    contineous airplay. The reason for this is because of liberal media
    desire to promote most white males like "Simon Legree" types
    who live lives of luxury at the expense of oppressed black males
    and white women. A story like the brutal Collen Ritzler rape,
    mutalation, and murder will not have national "legs" because
    this is NOT the kind of story the media likes. In a busy world, media
    coverage, enforced by politics and acidemia, INDOCTRONATES
    the public. This purposefull disinformation is done with the agenda
    of destroying the White Male "Christian." The white female has her
    "purposes." She is the cultural epitomy of beauty and sexual
    desiribility. The personification of the "Halo Effect."
    Look at this "Blade Runner" trial. A scrumpiously beautiful white
    female wants "out" of her relationship with her "half-man" white
    boyfriend. He's obviously very frustrated that he's losing his
    grasp. She's on the verge of "going places," most notably, into
    other men's beds. It's the perfect media news story: "Wicked,
    intolerant, impotent white man can't satisfy his woman." Never
    mind the fact that many white gals that take up with men from
    other races ALSO suffer beatings and are killed. Heck, a pretty
    white teacher can't even conduct a Jounior High class with out
    being raped and murdered by her black student. A 3 foot long
    tree limb was shoved up her vagina, but that's okay. It's the white
    christian male's fault that he HAD to commit the crime.
    The upshot of all this is the extermination of the white, christian
    male. You DON'T need white males to create gorgeous white
    females. There's plenty of white male sperm in reserve, so one
    can regulate what type of children are allowed to be born.
    A pretty white geshia-like slave girl can be put in every home, and
    the white male can be killed in utero.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not to mention the disproportionate average of white homosexual males that won't be reproducing.



      Delete
    2. You forget the disproportional number of black males which are seen arrested in shows like Cops.

      Delete
    3. It's a silent war, that is being instigated through the media.

      It's everywhere. From the music people listen to, the porn they view, the churches they go to.

      Delete
  7. The irony.

    Major was a horse of another colour I can't see. Major's too dangerous, I don't wanna take a chance. Never never I won't take a crazy chance. Major was major in an army's long ago. Everything he said everybody thought he knows about you. Then he took you in that little room. Major keeps on running through my mind, major keeps on measuring measuring time.....
    Like a sicle and a sicle and a sicle and a wail!
    Always in the always of my
    No no no no no no
    Everybody gonna bow down na na
    Everybody gonna bow down na na
    Get it on na na with my with my slave.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you don't tell me what you want how am I going to know what needs to be done?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Most hatred is based on facts, most folks hating stuff are not afraid of unknown things but loathe certain things which they know very well. Hatred is seldom ignorance. Why can´t folks be able to hate things without being told they don´t know what they´re doing or are in the grip of "unrational passions"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary, hate comes from things they either don't know, or more importantly "think" they know. For example, people hate brussel sprouts. They loathe them. Is it because they know it tastes bad, or is it because they have learned that it tastes bad from stereotypical anecdotes? Cook them properly and put a good sauce on them and they taste just fine. But people hate them, because they "believe they must" hate them. Not because they taste bad, but because "they are brussel sprouts".

      Delete
    2. And why is hate always linked to fear? Just because somebody hates something does not mean that person is afraid! Yes, it must? No, that´s not so. But it is..? Nup.

      Delete
    3. You can hate something because you significantly dislike or are repelled by it. That can be because of fear. It can also be because of anger, or disgust.

      Delete
  10. Seems folks are desperate for a narrative, but the neurotypicals want one that fits in with some emotional subtext or even a moral. What comes to mind is projection, people impose their own psyche on what they see and then extrapolate some narrative, it always seems that people speak more eloquently about themselves while they are kvetching.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe sociopath's have long had not comment about how they are portrayed because they don't care? Hasn't lack of empathy as a criteria, or primary feature, of sociopathy been discussed on this blog at length?

    If sociopath's input is needed for a change in how they are portrayed (which I don't believe it is), and they continue to not comment, then what will change? Seems like things will just stay the same.

    MelissaR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MelissaR
      You schould be the first one stepping forward

      Delete
    2. It's the issue of persecution. To be realistic, it would take many non-violent/criminal sociopaths sacrificing their livelihoods to public persecution under existing conditions over a long period of time to have a real chance at it. A chance, which operating in real life, would be remote. Hate lives in a bubble, but it doesn't operate in a bubble. And unfortunately, neither does money nor spectacle.

      Delete
    3. Bob, I agree. It would take a huge effort to overcome the violent stereotype sensationalized by the media with portrayals of serial killers. While I don't think this stereotype is going to change anytime soon, I hope that with recent mass shootings people are going to realize how dangerous untreated (un-medicated) schizophrenic people can be, and this brings awareness to how important it is for such people to have access to medication.

      I'm much more fearful of schizophrenic people, especially those with active hallucinations, than of those with Axis II issues. To explain it in purely empathic terms, to be in a room with an un-medicated or low functioning schizophrenic person is "scary creepy". To be in a room with someone with an Axis II issue could be simply very annoying; an exception might be an actual serial killer, that could be "scary creepy" as well.

      MelissaR

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I had an interesting discussion with my spouse today, in which they suggested that a diagnosis of a personality disorder could be used to legitimize bad behavior. The subject of the conversation had nothing to do with me, but it was interesting to see such animus towards people with personality disorders from the person closest to me. These kind of statements remind me that if I am ever diagnosed, I'll need to keep my own secret. It does make me wonder if they knew how my brain worked, if it would change their perception of the personality disordered, or if it would change their perception of me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't make the bad behavior any more "legitimate". What it does is it provides a possible explanation - an influencing cause that can explain the effect. Your spouse is under the mistaken impression that "legitimizing" it with an explanation makes it acceptable. The actions and their effects haven't changed, just their reasons why.

      Delete
    2. Isn't it logical that learning new information about someone, especially someone you are close to, changes your perception of them? Maybe the issue is fear. You're fearful of how you will be perceived by your husband and fearful of how your relationship would change. Fear of the unknown is what prevents maybe people from change. If you find out you have a personality disorder and tell your husband, this won't change your disorder. The change could be in the form of acknowledgement and acceptance.

      MelissaR

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I agree. The label doesn't really change anything, nor does it justify bad behavior. She can be obstinate in her opinions. She studied psychology in undergrad, which leads her to believe that she is the authority on such matters in our household. Sometimes I think she already has me figured out. She has been around long enough to see some of the worst sides of me. It might explain why she is so vehement about rejecting explanations that might justify my own bad behavior. I think she might want me to know that she will hold me accountable for what I do, regardless of the explanation for it.

      Bob and I had a conversation a few days ago about cost-benefit and consequences. I try to frame most of my decisions in terms of their consequences to me. So there is a real possibility that if I disclosed a diagnosis to her, that it could upset the balance of our relationship. That seems like an unnecessary hassle to me.

      Delete
    4. It would not just be an unnecessary hassle, but a threat to your livelihood. Knowledge of it can spread like a contagion, with all of the unwanted stigmatism attached to it.

      Delete
    5. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions, diagnosis or not.

      MelissaR

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. They say a picture is worth a thousand words; that doesn't mean it tells the whole story. It would simply be better (and smarter) to get the full story before passing judgment.

    ReplyDelete

Comments on posts over 14 days are SPAM filtered and may not show up right away or at all.

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.