Emotions are not really a short topic but here is a thumbnail sketch on some of what I have been considering. Emotions work to try to keep us feeling pleasure instead of pain. Thus, when someone tries to decide whether a person on trial showed the proper (or sufficient) emotion, it is as useful as the people who made determinations as to whether a woman having visions was a witch centuries ago. Clinically depressed people have flat facies (general appearance; an appearance and expression of the face characteristic of a particular condition especially when abnormal) and show a 'deadpan'. Many people have schooled themselves in a defense mechanism, to not show emotion so that they will be less vulnerable to people using their emotions to hurt or torture them.
Some people have an ability to 'read' other people's emotions quite accurately. I'm assuming this is done by filing away data associated with particular expressions then the brain does a search on the 'symptoms' and concludes the feelings (emotion). For example as to how confusing this can be and how easily misread, people may cry from sadness, pain, exhaustion, stress, frustration or happiness. This suggests the importance of context in determining emotional response. Often when one sees a person who has been hurt, one may show an identifying sadness, though some people (who feel no joy) cannot resist laughing when they see a pratfall or similar accident. The sadist may show laughter and real pleasure at witnessing the pain of the tortured.
My basic point is, emotions are too easily misread and conclusions are reached by assumption. with insufficient evidence. In courts, media often picks up that the defendant didn't show enough remorse. Terror and anxiety often masks other emotions which can include remorse and shame. Denial may also obscure what might have been a different emotion felt.
Thus, those who play on people's emotions may be real masters at manipulating to get people to 'feel' what they want them to feel. The TV appliance demonstrator convinces people they cannot live without this latest widget which will make all work easier; the elixir salesperson convinces the public that they are missing the fountain of youth if they don't rush to eat, drink, rub on, or otherwise use their product. There are groups in the United States currently who are inflaming anger, like Glenn Beck who has mentioned revolution more than 170 times in around 250 of his shows. through lies. Anti-abortion zealots have raised the sense that abortion is so bad, it is justifiable to take the life of a doctor (an adult, teacher, parent, on whom many rely) to save the life of an unborn fetus. It is unconscionable to make a choice to take one life to save another when no crime has been involved. Sarah Palin, who seems to charm many, is another who is inflaming towards Revolution and works on the gun-toting crowd.
Those in the media and public view have no idea that they will be responsible for any violence that erupts as result of these inflammatory speeches they give. Will they be held responsible for the consequences? If we examine precedent, it may be unlikely. The poor brainwashed soul who takes illegal action will be the one to pay the price. For some sense of the thinking that allows someone to fall prey to the inciting to action when otherwise helpless and not understanding that 'government', we often see a paranoia. Read the letter from Timothy McVeigh to Fox News as to why he bombed the Murrah building. It speaks to the point.
No comments:
Post a Comment