TV as a Social Calibrator

I think it’s important to look at human behavior and human interaction with media from a broad perspective. Findings from biology, neuroscience, and evolution can challenge us to rethink traditional theoretical heuristics from psychology (and elsewhere) that inform our judgments about everything from media use and development to assessing media experience. Adriaan called my attention to this provocative blog entry (Why we laugh together and can’t get enough of TV) about the role of narrative in a social context to teach individuals the accepted beliefs and behaviors within an individual’s cultural context. In essence, monitoring the responses of others in your social group “calibrates” your behavior to that of the group. Adriaan argues that the human social brain is tricked by television, and driven to watch programs–often by ourselves–by our social brain, but without the social feedback. Thus it becomes wasted time.

I absolutely agree with the use of narrative as a way of disseminating social beliefs and behaviors. Humans are pack animals and that means observing the standards of the group. Narrative is an effective way of giving information because it involves the use of metaphors, symbols, and emotions that increase transmission bandwidth because contextualizing information allows more meaning to be delivered more effectively.

I am not sure I agree with TV as a waste of time. I will agree that it is a largely passive activity; at least physically. But research has shown that many individuals form parasocial or one-sided relationships with characters and personalities on TV that give them a sense of meaning and companionship. Individuals also learn by seeing behaviors modeled (think Sesame Street), and they satisfy other needs from TV as well (for better or worse). TV narratives also extend beyond the viewing experience. How many people asked their colleagues the next day: “Did you see American Idol last night?” “Did you see the Celtics beat the Lakers?” The same social calibration then happens around the watercooler instead of during the watching/telling of the narrative. Through this extended arena, TV also lets you also define your tribal affiliation. (Are you a Laker fan or a Celtic fan?)

I also wonder if our brains are even more fooled than Adriaan describes. Technology has developed much faster than humans have evolved. In virtual environments, such as Second Life, most of the people I know experience the environment in many ways as if they were there in person. Some are calmed by the sound of breezes and the moonlight, others are exhilarated by dancing, still others feel the same shyness or social anxieties they experience in real life. It’s possible that our brains hear canned laughter on TV and file that away as meaningful data about beliefs and behavior in our ‘social behavior’ synapses and neural connections.

I like to think about how human experience carries the baggage of our ancestors–from stress responses to decision-making. Not in the Freudian way, although that can be an interesting perspective, but in the importance of understanding our own biology as well as the technology behind media when we think about media experience.