Entertainment and Real Life

Started by winkio, May 25, 2013, 03:36:07 am

Previous topic - Next topic

winkio

Here is one of the most unexpected lessons I learned at college:

People's outward emotions are rarely genuine.  People that smile a lot can suffer from depression and anxiety.  People that love drama and gossip can be bored and lonely.  People that are polite and humorous can be jealous and dark.  One of my male friends who was the life of the party and was always going outwith friends had secret hour long crying sessions a few times a week.

This gave me the realization that human interaction is not real, in a way.  Everyone is hiding some part of themselves, and putting on an act with a public avatar.  Real life is only as real as an online game.  But with that realization, I learned the lesson that was so unexpected (at least to me).

Online games, forums, facebook, reddit, tv shows, movies, video games, art, music, literature: all of these things are as socially 'real' as real life. 

Now, this is from a human interaction standpoint, not a physical interaction standpoint.  Obviously, reading about violence is different than playing video games than violence, which are both much different than experiencing violence in real life.  But friendship, respect, desperation, guilt, and the full spectrum of human interaction can be experienced on any medium just as fully as in real life.

So then, what is the point of social interaction?  Why do people prefer different media?  Why do we crave entertainment?

Or, if you like, is this winkio guy full of shit?

KK20

Considering your recent posts, I'm going to guess that your parents did the "You need to get out more" lecture on you? I've been there countless times...

I have to say that I am more real on the Internet than I am in person. All of this social media makes it easier for social interaction. I don't think it impedes it at all. It's probably parents going nuts that we're growing up with things that they consider the unknown. Hell, if the Internet and texting was of their time, I'm sure they'd be no different than us.

In a world that likes to pick on other people's flaws and mistakes, it makes sense why people portray this false image to protect themselves. And of course we can also mention the whole "Technology puts a wall between people and protects them from physical harm" spiel.

Social interaction has been kind of an animal trait--survival is better when we are in numbers rather than alone. But since we have become much more advanced (or act like it) than the typical primate, social interaction has become more of a entertainment than a necessity. But I don't think any human who has lived without some form of social interaction can be considered sane...

Preferring different media? Why, it's a matter of preference. Do we all have to like the same thing?

Craving entertainment also goes back to heritage I believe. I'm sure there are scholarly articles that touch this subject. For one, we know that entertainment makes us feel good, and feeling good is a natural desire by all animals.

Perhaps this is why I'm not so good with human contact--I'm just naturally bad at it and don't prefer it. Yet my parents keep on insisting that I need to get outside more and go do things with friends rather than "Staying cooped inside playing on your damn computer".

Other Projects
RPG Maker XP Ace  Upgrade RMXP to RMVXA performance!
XPA Tilemap  Tilemap rewrite with many features, including custom resolution!

Nintendo Switch Friend Code: 8310-1917-5318
Discord: KK20 Tyler#8901

Join the CP Discord Server!

Blizzard

May 25, 2013, 06:31:09 am #2 Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 06:40:38 am by Blizzard
I disagree with some things and agree with others here.

@KK20: I don't feel that social interaction is entertainment. Social conditioning and 2nd hand learning is what keeps our society working. We simply don't have time anymore to go through everything and collect so much 1st hand experience. That's why we learn from others instead. And if you cut off that part and only learn from a certain media, this skews your view of the world even more. In social interactions you at least adjust to the values of other people. Not that this is the ultimate goal, but it's still better than a completely fabricated reality caused by media.

The main problem with "entertainment" nowadays is that we are exposed to a cult of constant stimulation. But since this kind of stimulation is not really fulfilling, we are only fooling ourselves into living a mediocre life of having one fix after another. This is a very difficult concept to wrap your head around.
This is actually where the whole concept falls flat. I'll give you an example that I saw. You buy a new pair of shoes and feel good for maybe a few weeks. And then you're back at point zero. So you buy another pair to feel good again. In this scenario you are being spoon fed good emotions and a feel of self-esteem that are based only externally. I was already familiar with that concept when I watched this. And then the guy said something that blew my mind all over the wall. It wasn't so much what he said (since I was familiar with that way of thinking), but literally the words he used. "Did it ever occur to you that maybe you're supposed to feel like this all the time." That part with "maybe you're supposed to" did it for me.

@winkio: I do believe that most people are not authentic in most cases, but that's not so much their own fault. Society has placed certain superficial standards on everybody that usually cannot be met. And since people don't know who they are or what their values are, they simply look around for guidance which is offered by other people and media. You could say it's a rigged game that you can't win. Because of all this, they can't be genuine or authentic. They feel that it's not enough, that they don't meet the standards of society and have to pretend to be something they are not. And that is actually true, they don't meet them, but those standards are nothing more than an illusion.
Of course there is no big conspiracy going on here or something. e.g. The latest fashion trend was created just by a dude that was trying to be creative. He isn't aware of the damage this can potentially cause to numerous individuals who will now wear these clothes just to meet the standard of "beautiful" or "cool".

The rest of my answer for you is also in the part for KK20 (about entertainment and stimuli).
I also want to add that there is the concept of self-amusement. You can have a great time just by enjoying yourself and your surroundings in any form without the need for constant external stimuli. Of course something like this may require years of practice to learn it, but it's totally worth it.

EDIT: There is also something else I wanted to say about that part with people faking something while being something else. This doesn't come down to just meeting society's standards. Sometimes we place certain standards on ourselves and create much pressure to meet these standards (which are actually yet again dictated by wanting to something you are not). While you may appear alright on the outside, you are rotting inside because somewhere deep you know that this isn't you, at least not yet. Some standards are good (e.g. if you want to be a fun and happy person), but the method to attain them is wrong. Rather than trying to fix the outside, one should start over from the inside. One has to take one's beliefs and values and completely rework the from the ground up. This obviously takes years and the majority of people just prefer to be a shell of themselves with a social mask on at all times.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

winkio

But Blizzard, you have to admit that when you are interacting with other people in real life (say, talking and eating lunch together), you are not directly interacting with them.  Your public, social self is interacting with their public social self, and there is some misrepresentation, mistranslation, and deception occurring.

On the point about the cult of stimulation, vs. fulfilling interactions, I definitely get where you are coming from, and how it makes sense to you, and a great deal of other people.  But I would counter that there are many people who get absolutely no fulfillment out of social interaction.  In fact, I got little out of social interaction in high school, but the first two years of college, I felt that social interaction was very fulfilling.  Then after those first two years, it can no longer hold my interest, and it is fulfilling no longer.  Anyways, these same people that do not find real life social interaction fulfilling do find art, or music, or online gaming deeply satisfying and fulfilling.  It is not a one minute or one day or one week high that these other media can produce, but a constant, enriched good experience.  People often dismiss the cultures around novels, or tv series, or video games, as things that are distracting, and waste people's time, and that everybody should be having social interactions in real life.  This argument causes others to feel guilty or ashamed that they prefer a different type of social media, but I would argue that this is completely backward.  I argue that the diversity of social media that currently exists has expanded our collective culture and raised our intelligence.  So I encourage people that like reading books to read books, and people that like being on facebook to be on facebook, because I believe it leads to a smarter, stronger, and more creative culture.

Also, @KK20, while my parents have used that lecture on me around 6 years ago, it hasn't come up recently.  I was actually going to post this in the about your life thread, but realized it would go better in this section.

Neoend

@winkio
At the mention of a public social self, I was reminded of what an old Prof of mine used to say,
"You aren't who you think you are, you aren't who others think you are, you are who you think others think you are"
If you can understand the logic of the statement, you'll see the implications to social dynamics, and I for one think a good amount of people fall under it.

Now in regards to the main discussion, which I hope I've understood correctly:
Mind you, I'll be speaking in generals, because anything involving psychology isn't in absolutes.
Winkio I agree that there are people who don't get much fulfillment from social interaction just as there are those who do. And now its become a question of fulfillment. So in regards to fulfillment one can get from reading novels, playing video-games and the like, I am with you on the sentiment of going after what provides you intrinsic fulfillment. But recognize the cultures around novels is much more friendly and accepted and video-games have also become much more commonplace even though the distraction stigma still exists. But this in itself happened because of how society  has progressed. Similar to how textbooks lag a generation or 2 behind advancements in science and knowledge, cultures lag a bit behind the streamlined environment that technology allows.

In regards to a couple of points in your original post, I agree that some of the things that you specified are as socially real as real life, but I think its a bit to hasty to say that real life is as real as an online game. That statement implies too much. Real life interaction, for all the deception that they have, that interaction is spoken in more languages and more elements go into it, basic body language for example. Granted there are those who wouldn't be able to take in all the languages of interaction nor do they have intrinsic motive to seek that interaction. The point of this bit is that because of the level of this society, real life interaction can not be fully emulated or replaced. Note though, it is entirely possible to feel emotions that could come from interaction, but that's because those emotions aren't exclusive in the first place.
One last thing of note, social interaction is still necessary in society, and the one most accepted just happens to be physical or "to the point" interaction.

Anyway, this is a fun discussion, I hope my points are clear
Also, I agree with blizzard last bits on standards as reasons for why interaction is as obscure as it is.
Hey! if you like webcomics and other fun distractions check out my site:
www.laforix.com

Blizzard

May 26, 2013, 05:12:35 am #5 Last Edit: May 26, 2013, 05:27:40 am by Blizzard
Quote from: winkio on May 25, 2013, 09:25:52 pm
But Blizzard, you have to admit that when you are interacting with other people in real life (say, talking and eating lunch together), you are not directly interacting with them.  Your public, social self is interacting with their public social self, and there is some misrepresentation, mistranslation, and deception occurring.


Yes, of course. And that's normal. But the point is to be as authentic as possible. You can never be 100% authentic, that's only an ideal. But one should try to achieve this ideal, that's what it's about. The whole thing about being authentic is to take down the social mask. It's not just to be who you really are, to be simply yourself, it's about to be your best self, your true self. People often feel bad or negative and then they identify with these emotions (and lots of other things) and then they think that they are bad or negative. And that's because they don't know who they are so it's difficult for them to be authentic. Even the people that are authentic as much as possible, there are still things that were caused by social conditioning that will mess with that. So improvement in this area is a lifelong journey, there is no point where you can say "Ok, I'm done, I reached the ultimate enlightenment." And the more you get to know yourself and the more a happy person you become, the more authentic you can be towards others.

Quote from: winkio on May 25, 2013, 09:25:52 pm
On the point about the cult of stimulation, vs. fulfilling interactions, I definitely get where you are coming from, and how it makes sense to you, and a great deal of other people.  But I would counter that there are many people who get absolutely no fulfillment out of social interaction.  In fact, I got little out of social interaction in high school, but the first two years of college, I felt that social interaction was very fulfilling.  Then after those first two years, it can no longer hold my interest, and it is fulfilling no longer.  Anyways, these same people that do not find real life social interaction fulfilling do find art, or music, or online gaming deeply satisfying and fulfilling.  It is not a one minute or one day or one week high that these other media can produce, but a constant, enriched good experience.  People often dismiss the cultures around novels, or tv series, or video games, as things that are distracting, and waste people's time, and that everybody should be having social interactions in real life.  This argument causes others to feel guilty or ashamed that they prefer a different type of social media, but I would argue that this is completely backward. I argue that the diversity of social media that currently exists has expanded our collective culture and raised our intelligence.  So I encourage people that like reading books to read books, and people that like being on facebook to be on facebook, because I believe it leads to a smarter, stronger, and more creative culture.


And this is exactly the problem. Neither social interaction nor any kind of other interaction or stimuli should be there to fill a hole inside of you. It's not gonna make you happy, no matter what. It can only give you a temporary good feel. I most definitely agree that people who like books should read books, people who play games should play games, people who watch TV should watch TV, people who like to be on Facebook should be on Facebook etc., there is nothing wrong with that at its core. The problem is that people do it to feel good and to not look at the "ugly" reality. So the problem is basically that they aren't doing it because they like to do it, they are only doing it because it makes them feel good for a while.

This is obviously a completely wrong approach. They should fill this hole themselves. They should learn how to be happy without anything else. This is the point where stimuli don't work anymore and you stop doing certain things, because you didn't really enjoy some of them. The things that you really enjoyed, the things that you were really passionate about, they will remain. And they won't be filling some hole in your inner self anymore, now they will be enriching your life in ways you didn't even think it was possible.

This is also why some people feel ashamed or guilty for doing certain things. Somewhere deep inside they know that this is only an excuse not to do the things they really want to do, or they feel that they will be judged for not fulfilling society's standards (because of the hole yet again).

I'm not even talking out of my ass here, I have seen this on myself as well as a lot of other people. I used to watch a lot of TV when I was a kid since I didn't have that many friends. When I got more social in high school, I kinda stopped watching TV. Ever since I started going to college (7.5 years ago) I don't even have a TV at my place at all. Sure, I still like to watch a movie or some show from time to time. But I do it because I enjoy it. Same with games. The amount of games that I play has gone back drastically ever since I was a kid. But I still like to play some from time to time, because I like playing games for the sake of playing game, not to feel happy or good while I do it. Even social interaction used to be me trying to fill some hole inside of me to some degree. It's not anymore. Now I enjoy the social interaction just for the joy itself. You could say "don't be dependent on the results, enjoy the process" or "the goal is not the goal, the goal is the journey".

Now I went a bit deep here, but I really believe that this is a core problem in our society. Marketing people know this and they exploit it to the maximum extent possible. They aren't evil or anything, they probably don't even realize the damage it can do. They are just trying to sell stuff and find their own path in life.

@Neoend: I agree that direct social interactions are much stronger in regards of a multitude of channels. The ratios are body language 70%, para-verbal communication (the way something is said) is 23% and words are only 7%. Even though you can communicate with people through words in online games, you are literally missing out on 93% of what the person is communicating. I feel that this is a huge disadvantage. I know how different it was just to talk with winkio and some other people here over Skype rather than just writing. e.g. Lobstrosity felt so different when talking to him than how it feels when just writing.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that there are also acquired tastes. Some people start doing certain things, because they want these things in their lives. At first they won't really enjoy it, but once they get past a certain point, it will become a new passion for them. Because it didn't start as a stimuli and was never trying to fill a hole, it couldn't develop like that. This happens rarely, mind you. People prefer to do stuff that makes them feel good rather than doing the stuff they really want, even if it's hard at first.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.