andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-01-12 11:51 pm
andrewducker) wrote2003-01-12 11:51 pm
Pushing Buttons
Following on from the "Amused to Death" reference a few days ago, more thoughts.
Erin told me today that I was great at "pushing her buttons". This is a fantastic metaphor. I believe that we have certain instincts/needs/primal neural clusters/whatever inside our brains. If you like computer metaphors (and I do), you can think of them as buttons that we like to have pressed. These buttons have evolved to make us want to carry out certain actions that tend to lead to genetic propagation. However, genetics being somewhat slower than culture, they lag a long, long way behind the methods we've found to subvert them.
So, for instance, you can take the 'sex' button. We like sex (anyone who doesn't is excused, except nICk, for whom there is no excuse) at a very deep primal level. If you ask someone why they like sex, there's no rational answer. It's not predicated on any other need or want, it's a need/want in itself (unlike, say, programming, which I enjoy for the sense of satisfaction I get from making something do what I want it to and the reduction of stress inherent in exerting some control over my environment). So, anyway, it's a primary level want, an actual button in your head, waiting to be pressed. Now, it's there because sex means spreading your genes. However, your genes aren't expecting masturbation. Masturbation presses your sex button, making your primal sex urge think "Hey, we got laid, release the endorphins!". It doesn't do a terrific job, because people would still rather have sex than masturbate, but as an approximation it's not bad.
Now, other buttons include fighting (for most men and some women, anyway). The reason I like picking up a machine gun and blowing holes in some other Counterstrike player is because it presses the "You have just committed violence against some other person and shown your dominance and mastery" button. Not only that, but it does it without any risk to me and with the added advantage that I can press the button many times an hour, don't get blood all over the carpet and don't feel bad for actually killing someone. Obviously it doesn't do it to the same extent that actual violence does, but the compromise is worthwhile. Some other people find the compromise of Laser-tag better, others prefer Paintball. Any way round, we're pressing that button to some extent, while making compromises to prevent actual damage to ourselves.
Another way to press that button is through films, books and tv. These are all methods for pressing our buttons (of various kinds) based around the fact that the human mind can take in stories and evoke feelings because of them. This (and here we step into blue sky theorising) is probably because feeling emotions when you're told emotional things is probably a good way of reinforcing the messages in the stories. Any way round, our imaginations allow us to press our buttons with complete safety. I can watch James Bond and enjoy the vicarious thrill of his car chases, killings and seductions.
I suspect the reason that books are a less common form of entertainment than (say) films or tv is that they are more abstract, requiring more internal processing in order to produce the internal effect. TV is easier, film is the easiest as you are captive and they have total control over the environment allowing them to surround you with sound and buffet you with vision.
Anyway, my overall point is that people obviously want to have (sombunall) their buttons pressed. They will pay handsomely for it. It is in the interest of those that want to make money to find better and better ways of pushing our buttons. Certain things have been known to bypass the external input model and go straight to direct button pushing (amphetamines and cocaine push one button, for instance, ecstacy pushes another) and when it becomes too cheap to push your buttons, so that you can opt out of society and keep yourself in a constantly pressed state then it threatens the very fabric of society and governments tend to step in.
The question is, how good or bad a thing is this? Are you happy to be a consumer, paying to have your buttons pressed? Is there any escape from this by producing rather than consuming, as (for instance) writing novels merely presses a different button? Is there any greater merit in pressing your buttons from a distance (playing a computer game to press your 'success' button rather than sticking an electrode into your brain and pressing it directly)?
I don't have answers to these questions, but they bother me occasionally. I can't see any end to the quest to make things simpler and easier for ourselves, to press our buttons more easily and cheaply. And the endpoint I see, if you stretch this as far as possible, is a person living in a state of permanent stimulation, plugging themselves into the 'fun machine' which then keeps safely, hygenically and exactly in a state of contented blissfull orgasmic happiness until their money runs out and they have to unplug themselves to go to work.
Erin told me today that I was great at "pushing her buttons". This is a fantastic metaphor. I believe that we have certain instincts/needs/primal neural clusters/whatever inside our brains. If you like computer metaphors (and I do), you can think of them as buttons that we like to have pressed. These buttons have evolved to make us want to carry out certain actions that tend to lead to genetic propagation. However, genetics being somewhat slower than culture, they lag a long, long way behind the methods we've found to subvert them.
So, for instance, you can take the 'sex' button. We like sex (anyone who doesn't is excused, except nICk, for whom there is no excuse) at a very deep primal level. If you ask someone why they like sex, there's no rational answer. It's not predicated on any other need or want, it's a need/want in itself (unlike, say, programming, which I enjoy for the sense of satisfaction I get from making something do what I want it to and the reduction of stress inherent in exerting some control over my environment). So, anyway, it's a primary level want, an actual button in your head, waiting to be pressed. Now, it's there because sex means spreading your genes. However, your genes aren't expecting masturbation. Masturbation presses your sex button, making your primal sex urge think "Hey, we got laid, release the endorphins!". It doesn't do a terrific job, because people would still rather have sex than masturbate, but as an approximation it's not bad.
Now, other buttons include fighting (for most men and some women, anyway). The reason I like picking up a machine gun and blowing holes in some other Counterstrike player is because it presses the "You have just committed violence against some other person and shown your dominance and mastery" button. Not only that, but it does it without any risk to me and with the added advantage that I can press the button many times an hour, don't get blood all over the carpet and don't feel bad for actually killing someone. Obviously it doesn't do it to the same extent that actual violence does, but the compromise is worthwhile. Some other people find the compromise of Laser-tag better, others prefer Paintball. Any way round, we're pressing that button to some extent, while making compromises to prevent actual damage to ourselves.
Another way to press that button is through films, books and tv. These are all methods for pressing our buttons (of various kinds) based around the fact that the human mind can take in stories and evoke feelings because of them. This (and here we step into blue sky theorising) is probably because feeling emotions when you're told emotional things is probably a good way of reinforcing the messages in the stories. Any way round, our imaginations allow us to press our buttons with complete safety. I can watch James Bond and enjoy the vicarious thrill of his car chases, killings and seductions.
I suspect the reason that books are a less common form of entertainment than (say) films or tv is that they are more abstract, requiring more internal processing in order to produce the internal effect. TV is easier, film is the easiest as you are captive and they have total control over the environment allowing them to surround you with sound and buffet you with vision.
Anyway, my overall point is that people obviously want to have (sombunall) their buttons pressed. They will pay handsomely for it. It is in the interest of those that want to make money to find better and better ways of pushing our buttons. Certain things have been known to bypass the external input model and go straight to direct button pushing (amphetamines and cocaine push one button, for instance, ecstacy pushes another) and when it becomes too cheap to push your buttons, so that you can opt out of society and keep yourself in a constantly pressed state then it threatens the very fabric of society and governments tend to step in.
The question is, how good or bad a thing is this? Are you happy to be a consumer, paying to have your buttons pressed? Is there any escape from this by producing rather than consuming, as (for instance) writing novels merely presses a different button? Is there any greater merit in pressing your buttons from a distance (playing a computer game to press your 'success' button rather than sticking an electrode into your brain and pressing it directly)?
I don't have answers to these questions, but they bother me occasionally. I can't see any end to the quest to make things simpler and easier for ourselves, to press our buttons more easily and cheaply. And the endpoint I see, if you stretch this as far as possible, is a person living in a state of permanent stimulation, plugging themselves into the 'fun machine' which then keeps safely, hygenically and exactly in a state of contented blissfull orgasmic happiness until their money runs out and they have to unplug themselves to go to work.
no subject
Lest anyone think that I am just weird, it was at least partly a conscious descision and effort at the start. I was certainly trained by my parents to not show (and not to have?) emotional reactions to films/Tv etc. and when I thought about it, I agreed.
I do dislike manipulative behaviour (and I don't do it myself - and I do keep an eye on me for the possibly less conscious varieties).
no subject
You obviously enjoy the whole "running round being a viking", riding motorbikes, etc.
And I believe that you were somewhat excited about the last LOTR film :->
no subject
Most of my hobbies were/are just a means to an end. That end usually being eating and/or drinking (These days. Sex used to come into it in the past). The rest of it often seems (by comparison) like something that I have to put up with to get there, a bit like exercise & watching what I eat is something I have to put up with in order to look the way I want to/be able to carry the shopping.
I think people often misread my level of enthusiasm for things. Most people are much, much, much more enthusiastic about nearly everything (except maybe eating drinking and sleeping) than I am.
So I really am pretty much driven by the very base, 'built in' buttons and pretty much aware of it too.
no subject
Read this http://www.endocrineweb.com/hypo1.html
Some of the symptoms halfway down sound surprisingly like you...
no subject
On balance, I think not. Anyway, you can't just walk in and ask to be tested for it.
I think I just have dodgy sleep patterns, which is possibly breathing related - maybe caused by my weird nasal bridge.
no subject
You can, because that's basically what Mike (my brother) just did.
Well, he gave them a list of symptoms that sounded close enough that they did a blood test. Results soon, hopefully.
no subject
I don't think we'll ever get to the stage of sitting plugged into the fun machine. For the same reason we'll never die out because people stopped having sex and just masturbated all the time. The mind is too complex for even primary buttons to be pressed so easily as with an electrode. And I do mean mind, not brain. I've been known to press the buttons chemically from time to time, and yet the strongest responses in just about every way that I can think of have occurred without that kind of external help. Too many things are linked.
no subject
Saying that "it's complex, so it can't be done" doesn't ring true to me - we're building objects with ridiculous complexity at the moment, the complexity is doubling ever 15 months (or so) and our understanding of the brain is getting more and more detailed.
I think it's a question of "when" not "if"
Re:
no subject
1) I don't believe in the spirit, spirituality, etc. At least not in any mystical form (ESP, etc. I'm divided on, but even then it wouldn't really matter in this case).
2) I don't believe there is anything "better" to do. In fact, the whole idea of "better" is, to me, purely subjective and a matter of personal preference. There's no absolute "better" or "worse" any more than there's an absolute "good" or "evil".
As you almost certainly wouldn't agree with either of these statements, I don't think we're going to reach agreement.
Re:
no subject
What's your basic belief that doesn't correspond to mine?
Re:
no subject
However, I'm not even going to start to discuss this sort of thing as I know from the past that it is hopeless. As Andy says, we are coming at it from different points of view. (mine is much like Andy's but without the doubt over ESP-type things [i.e. Kirsty says 'No supportable evidence'])
no subject
I draw a distinction between things which are possible and things which aren't.
On the possible scale, I range from "Kirsty" (seen her, had extended conversations, doesn't seem to violate any known laws of physics - 99.99999% likelihood) via JFK conspiracies (something bloody odd happened that day, chances of massive coverup 50%), ESP (strange thing that I've never seen any direct evidence for, but people claim to have found evidence for/experienced - 0.1%), God (the universe could have been created by an immense force - 0.000001%).
On the other hand, things like "free will" and "absolute morality" and "natural law" and "intrinsic meaning" and "obscenity" seem to me to be nonsense phrases that don't actually denote anything whatsoever. It's not that they refer to things I don't believe in, so much as I can't even grasp what they could be referring to. Any attempted explanations tend to either invoke things that "everyone knows" or "God" or "common sense" or tortuous logical paradoxes.
Re:
no subject
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I admit I was expressing an opinion, and it may not have seemed very nice in cold hard type.
Re:
no subject