Home > Uncategorized > Fear Factor

Fear Factor

Post on May 29, 2007 by 8 Comments »

Fear FactorTalk about your unexpected pleasures. I picked up Al Gore's new book The Assault on Reason and started reading it over the Memorial Day weekend. Who knew I would learn that brain researchers can explain what TV news directors have known all along: "If it bleeds, it leads!" More importantly, Gore goes on to explain why this phenomenon has important consequences for our democracy.

This is not a review of the book and I want to cover only a specific topic which Gore addresses in the first chapter. Fear. Gore makes the case that the more fearful we become the less likely we are to use reason in the decision-making process. Fair enough. But here's where it gets interesting.

Brain researchers explain how the amount of TV you watch can determine how susceptible you are to fear. And now the bad news. Americans watch 4 ½ hours of TV daily. That is 75% of your discretionary time (when you are not sleeping, working, etc.). Unfortunately, this directly affects the amount of time spent reading. Gore outlines how the founding fathers relied on the written word in their presumption of a "well informed citizenry" to make our democracy work. They had no idea that a nation of readers would one day be a nation of TV watchers. And here is the key: how you get your news matters. Quoting from Gore's book, here's why:

"Our capacity for fear is "hardwired" in the brain as an ancient strategy that gives us the ability to respond instantly when survival may be at stake. By contrast, reason is centered in parts of the brain that have most recently evolved and depends upon more subtle processes that give us the ability to discern the emergence of threats before they become immediate and to distinguish between legitimate threats and illusory ones. Brain researchers describe how disturbing images go straight to a part of the brain that is not mediated by language or reasoned analysis."

-Al Gore

Finally someone has explained it. For 5 years my wife has heard me complain that "America has completely over-reacted to 9/11." As Gore notes, research shows that TV can produce "vicarious traumatization" for millions. After the attacks of September 11 people who had frequently watched television exhibited more symptoms of traumatization than less frequent TV viewers. The visual imagery on television can activate parts of the brain involved in emotions in a way that reading about the same event cannot. Television's ability to evoke the fear response is especially significant because Americans spend so much of their lives watching TV.

In other words, we are prime targets to be ruled by fear rather than reason.

Of course, Gore goes on to detail how George Bush used the fear factor to further his political agenda.

Is it any wonder, then, that the two leading contenders for the Republican nomination are Rudy "9/11" Giuliani and John "the Islamofascists will follow us home" McCain. Republican leaders are very scared, and they want you to be scared, too. When a politician depends on exploiting your fears rather than appealing to your ability to reason, they do not deserve your vote.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments (Closed):8

  1. krm0517
    May 29, 2007 at 10:00 am

    The theory is interesting but I disagree with your conclusion. I believe that if people had read about a foreign attack on their nation’s capital and on their largest urban and economic center, people still would have demanded and supported retaliation. I believe the whole of human history would support this position.

    I think the difference is the aftermath of the war. People today are horrified by the images coming out of Iraq and the Middle East and want those images to stop. Therefore, they are demanding that we leave the battle.

    Centuries ago, nations would have certainly went to war if foreign invaders attacked their capital and other major population centers whether or not television existed. Word of mouth would have sufficed. They would not have stopped warring until their enemies lay in ruin or until their war chests were depleted.

  2. sturner
    May 29, 2007 at 11:06 am

    krm…you misinterpreted what I have written (why do I need to say that to you so often?).

    Al Gore, Steve Turner, 99% of Americans, France for godsakes,and most of the rest of the world agreed with retaliating against our attackers. Therefore, attacking Afghanistan was perfectly justified.

    BTW, I’m not against images from a warzone. I’m not against the footage from 9/11 being shown over-and-over. I just think our elected officials should use the images to put the issue in perspective rather than use them to stoke fear. Reasonable people should be able to agree on that much.

  3. krm0517
    May 29, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    We were not attacked because of our policies toward Afghanistan…

    The nation of Afghanistan did not attack us. Over throwing the Taliban does nothing to address the issue of Al Qaeda other than (theoretically) taking away one of their safe havens.

    Al Qaeda still exists and will continue to exist until people in this country and in other nations are willing to have an open and honest debate about why 9-11 happened in the first place. At the center of that discussion must be Iraq’s Baathist regime (why our troops in the Middle East in the first place).

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

  4. sturner
    May 29, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    krm…this is not really the proper forum to fully debate 9/11and our invasion of Iraq. Maybe on another blog at another time we can have a go at it.

    My only point is that if a politician is speaking and you feel more afraid than you do informed, then you should be very skeptical of their message. Real leaders with a legitimate message do not need to fear-monger.

  5. krm0517
    May 30, 2007 at 8:23 am

    You mean like telling the elderly that if Social Security is reformed their benefits will be reduced and they will be forced to live in the streets and eat dog food? Or like telling people that if they don’t stop driving to work they are going to destroy the Earth with their greenhouse emissions while you are flying around the world in your personal jet to promote your latest book or film? Or maybe you are talking about the politicians who warn that our nation is falling apart at the seams due to rampant poverty while they are getting $400 hair cuts and giving subprime loans to the victims of Hurricane Katrina?

    Yeah, I don’t believe them either…

  6. sturner
    May 30, 2007 at 10:09 am

    krm…got it. I’ll let the Edwards people know to take you off their mailing list.

    By the way, why are you so coy about your candidate? So far, I’ve only heard you complain about other candidates. You’ve been hinting at it for weeks now in various comments, so why don’t you tell us which (I’m assuming Libertarian) candidate you find so tantalizing.

  7. krm0517
    May 30, 2007 at 10:37 am

    lol, I’m actually not impressed with anyone at this stage in the game. The problem with politics is that only politicians run for political office.

  8. sturner
    May 30, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    krm..you’re losing your credibility, buddy.

    For the last two days you’ve been advocating for third party candidates. While at the same time, criticizing Democratic or Republican voters as “too scared,” “frightened,” “maintaining the status quo,” and “denying the truth for the sake of political posturing.”

    That’s alot of self-righteous indignation for someone who can’t even identify a third party candidate they like.