averageJOE
zombie
I think they can have an affect on people, but not a direct controlling influence. Not in a "monkey-see, monkey-do" sense.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Movies...media influence on people Agree/Disagree ?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Maybe, if they're really weak minded or were raised to think that doesn't matter. The decision to cheat is still made by them. I sincerely doubt any man or woman would lay blame at whatever movie their cheating partner cites for "influencing" their decision though. They would still blame the cheater in question. Because personal responsibility is a thing.
Yes of course. Like I said, I am not a psychologist so I cannot definitively say one way or the other how they affect the addicted. Maybe as much as those not addicted, maybe more, I don't know.
most of people are influenced may provoked by media .
Many people i know considere that if their partner insist to watch erotic/sex movie that kind of cheating (in TV or Mobile or PC ..etc)
What the media responsibility, if it's provoke them to make bad deed (normalize cheating on wife/husband,normalize immoral issues) or misleading them or steorotypes ....etc
if psychologist said that someone is addicted to Internet , is that kind of media control too ?
Most influenced I can believe that. Most people provoked..........might need to be a tad more specific. Provoke emotion? Provoke action?
That's quite the narrow definition. But that's people's prerogative. I don't think many artsy people would be considered faithful if that were the case. Of course what one considers erotic varies person to person.
It's an addiction. People with an addictive personality can get addicted to things. That's as far as my meager knowledge of psychology takes me.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
@Godobeyer
Yes, media can, and does, influence people. It is not an excuse, though, for ones actions, of course.
Yes, media can, and does, influence people. It is not an excuse, though, for ones actions, of course.
Last edited:
Just drinking , but never being too drunk ?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I wouldn't personally use that analogy. I think it is more like, one can be very influenced by media. I do not think that it is something which could necessarily be calculated in that manner.
that's would be cool tool/discovery is someone detected/mesure how much he/she influenced by media or avoid to be influenced by media at all !!!!
that's may impossible today , may possible in future
Oh that could prove pretty interesting.
Would there be one for measuring how much society influences someone so they could avoid society in the same way? How about one for religions? How about one for parental influence?
dogfishparisi
Member
This is a very interesting question. We are all affected by the stimuli that fill our senses. But people are affected in varying degrees. The trustworthiness of the source, The frequency by which it is repeated, the compatibility of the information, all influence the degree of integration that occurs between the stimuli and the observer.
The propagation of ideas to exert influence, and ultimately to control the masses, is obvious. Read Edward Bernays , he puts things in perspective.
The propagation of ideas to exert influence, and ultimately to control the masses, is obvious. Read Edward Bernays , he puts things in perspective.
MARCELLO
Transitioning from male to female
I'm think the media can be good and bad, but bad is way much worse than good. I think at some point it could be considered a cancer. Example for good is cartoons, and example for bad is... everything else
Recently, we have seen the reactions of Europeans ( although by no means they are responsible for what's happening in Syria )after the Syrian child found dead on a beach in Turkey.
To be honest, I don't even b leave that news from the so many misleads the media cause.
What if it was a lie for ratings?
I would say it would depend on the individual. Some people can watch or play violence all day long and never dream of committing any violence whatsoever, while with others, it could influence him or her. I used to love watching Road Runner cartoons and would never dream of harming anyone (outside of protecting my loved ones if they were in danger).
They can influence people in ways you really wouldn't expect. For example, people in countries where exposure to movies and film is ubiquitous behave differently, in general, to being shot. It appears that seeing people get shot and falling or being flung down by the impact of a bullet becomes internalized, adding a psychological element to the trauma of gunshot wounds (GSWs). Meanwhile, as NATO and in particular US forces noted in Somalia (as well as elsewhere), in countries where there exists far less exposure to action flicks, cop shows, and other TV/Films depicting people being shot, soldiers would hit a target causing lethal trauma, but instead of falling down or freezing up, the target would simply move to new cover, return fire, then suddenly die almost as if they never noticed they were shot. Even something so physical as lethal trauma has a very psychological component that media exposure can influence.
Also, consider why Modern Standard Arabic isn't the only "standard" Arabic dialect, as informally Egyptian Arabic is spoken just about everywhere Arabic is a or the native language: Egypt is basically the only place where movies in Arabic are made (and, since Modern Standard Arabic is an "artificial language" but is also the dialect used for newspapers and TV broadcasts, exposure to native Arabic dialects is further limited).
That said:
1) People influence media content. The reason that movies like the Saw films or series filled with graphic sex and violence like True Blood or Game of Thrones exist is because they have an audience. Restrict televised media to children's shows, lectures on academic subjects, and g-rated movies and you'll find that the internet will fill the gap before you can blink (indeed, it has already started to challenge mainstream TV/movies with e.g., miniseries on YouTube, straight-to-Netflix productions, etc.).
2) There are limits on what can and can't be (or at least can't easily be) internalized or influence action and thought. To see this, consider watching videos that are supposed to teach you how to shoot, to learn Karate or Krav Maga or some other martial arts, to play piano, to dance, or even to learn pre-calculus or calculus. To the extent such things can be internalized, it is only via practice. You can watch someone solve differential equations all day or spend a week watching some series "Learn Muay Thai in 7 days!" or something, and get basically nothing out of it because this kind of passive learning limits what can be learned. Playing violent video games, watching graphic movies, etc., is such a weak predictor of behavior as to be non-existence, especially when you factor in the direction of relationship (those who act violently and love violent media are likely drawn to violent media because they like violence rather than liking violence because they watch violent media).
3) There is a difference between being responsible for one's actions and being influenced. It is impossible to not be influenced by a myriad of factors, from family and culture to epigenetic developments in the womb. Everybody is influenced by their surroundings and upbringing. Remove the typical influences (such as more than absolute minimal interactions with other humans) and you get feral children who will likely never be capable of speech, social interactions, or most of the things we as humans do. We're social animals. Being influenced by society and its "products", though, doesn't negate responsibility.
Also, consider why Modern Standard Arabic isn't the only "standard" Arabic dialect, as informally Egyptian Arabic is spoken just about everywhere Arabic is a or the native language: Egypt is basically the only place where movies in Arabic are made (and, since Modern Standard Arabic is an "artificial language" but is also the dialect used for newspapers and TV broadcasts, exposure to native Arabic dialects is further limited).
That said:
1) People influence media content. The reason that movies like the Saw films or series filled with graphic sex and violence like True Blood or Game of Thrones exist is because they have an audience. Restrict televised media to children's shows, lectures on academic subjects, and g-rated movies and you'll find that the internet will fill the gap before you can blink (indeed, it has already started to challenge mainstream TV/movies with e.g., miniseries on YouTube, straight-to-Netflix productions, etc.).
2) There are limits on what can and can't be (or at least can't easily be) internalized or influence action and thought. To see this, consider watching videos that are supposed to teach you how to shoot, to learn Karate or Krav Maga or some other martial arts, to play piano, to dance, or even to learn pre-calculus or calculus. To the extent such things can be internalized, it is only via practice. You can watch someone solve differential equations all day or spend a week watching some series "Learn Muay Thai in 7 days!" or something, and get basically nothing out of it because this kind of passive learning limits what can be learned. Playing violent video games, watching graphic movies, etc., is such a weak predictor of behavior as to be non-existence, especially when you factor in the direction of relationship (those who act violently and love violent media are likely drawn to violent media because they like violence rather than liking violence because they watch violent media).
3) There is a difference between being responsible for one's actions and being influenced. It is impossible to not be influenced by a myriad of factors, from family and culture to epigenetic developments in the womb. Everybody is influenced by their surroundings and upbringing. Remove the typical influences (such as more than absolute minimal interactions with other humans) and you get feral children who will likely never be capable of speech, social interactions, or most of the things we as humans do. We're social animals. Being influenced by society and its "products", though, doesn't negate responsibility.
Pudding
Well-Known Member
I agree movies can influence on people.
(1) But how the influence be manifest on the people?
(2) Is the influence on the people means that they'll 100% guaranteed to be brainwashing by the movie/media they see, and resulted in them to do exactly the same things as show in the movie/media?
(3) Is their original personal moral/knowledge vanish after they view the movies which have moral/knowledge which contradict to theirs? Is the vanish only occur after they've view many many times to the movies? How many times will take effect for the vanish? Is the vanish guaranteed to be occur?
(4) Is the people means some or all people?
It'll be meaningful if you can quote and link his opinion to here, so other people can understand/refute to his details opinion.
It'll be meaningful if you can present some example of movies which promote cheating is good and encourage the violence/adultery. But not all movies is the same in promoting "bad things", how do we consider have they promote "bad things" or not is debatable.
If horror movies makes some people uncomfortable, then maybe they shouldn't watch the movie.
I agree movies/media can influence on people, but in the end it's people who's use their own moral/knowledge to judge/determine should they do exactly the same things as shows in the movies/media or not.
Criminal doesn't get the exemption to punishment just because they say movies/media influence them to commit crimes in the situation they've been brainwashing and lost their mind/control, otherwise why should we need police/law to begin with?
People should take responsibility for their actions.
Pudding
Well-Known Member
It's unreasonable for a person/group to wants to ban all movies/media/books just because some of it is bad.
Or if they wants to control all movies/media/books to suit their own prefer moral/knowledge, that is also unreasonable as not all people can agree with each other.
Whether movies/media really guaranteed to brainwashing and control people or not haven't completely be concluded.
Be educated and don't take any information for granted that it must be correct, otherwise if the information turns out to be wrong then one should blame himself.
Be one's own master and don't echo the views of others without thinking.
If one have already use his moral/knowledge to judge the information, agree with it and do the exactly same things as show by the information, take responsibility for what they do.
Or if they wants to control all movies/media/books to suit their own prefer moral/knowledge, that is also unreasonable as not all people can agree with each other.
Whether movies/media really guaranteed to brainwashing and control people or not haven't completely be concluded.
Be educated and don't take any information for granted that it must be correct, otherwise if the information turns out to be wrong then one should blame himself.
Be one's own master and don't echo the views of others without thinking.
If one have already use his moral/knowledge to judge the information, agree with it and do the exactly same things as show by the information, take responsibility for what they do.
Pudding
Well-Known Member
In that case, they're all guiltless, all the wrongdoer or criminal should be release free?
Once all the movies/media/books/everything have been adjusted and control in the perfect condition of universally good standards of morality/rules, then no people will do any wrong things and world peace arrive? What is the method to accomplish this goal? What is the universally good standards of morality/rules? Any perfect complete guide to it?
Last edited:
maybe they are all guilty (media) for dirty messages , wrongdoer and criminal are guilty too for practice that messages .
Most of movie messages made the good man is who win in the end .
IF this message is inversed, that would hurt the society . it's inversed in some movies .as movies which make up the cheating/killing/raping/rob as good think
the universal standards of morality : no lie, no cheat, no kill innocent, no harm innocent , no abuse innocent ..;etc
This implies that people are so very malleable that simply watching the bad guy win is enough to convince someone to behave badly. There are perhaps some very weak minded individuals who will react to that. The thing is though, from the age of like 7 most people are taught how to properly analyse a movie. (Starting small obviously.) We are taught the difference between depicting something, promoting something and condoning something. For example in 1984 Big Brother ultimately wins. This does not mean the story promoted or even condones Big Brother as a concept. They are very obviously the bad guys and the story paints them as barbaric and for them to win that means we lose. Having the "bad guys" win in a movie/TV show or book is not media telling people to go out and copy these "winners." It's simply part of storytelling and having an antagonist win is a good way to explore complex themes and make the audience actually think.
By age 10 or sometimes younger people are able to separate fiction from reality. Even as a wee 8 and 9 year old child I had enough sense not to emulate the bad guys in the stories even if they end up winning. I'm not that stupid.