What just happened?

09May08

One of the most basic of human assumptions is that we all share the same kind of consciousness. That assumption is slowly being whittled away by the increasing sophistication of studies in cognition, and by the personal testimony of those who, in one way or another, differ in the quality of their consciousness. Realistically though, if two people are watching a television program or a movie, we tend to think that they are both seeing the same thing. This is just one of the areas where self-observation is telling me something very different — that a different kind of consciousness will see the world in a very different way.

An example: As a rule, I don’t care much for television series, and that includes mystery/crime programs. But every once in a while I hear about one that sounds interesting, and check it out, usually by renting from Netflix. I’m currently going through “Wire in the Blood,” which I like because it’s edgy and dark, and character-driven. Disappointingly, much of what I liked about the first few episodes has been toned down significantly, in very much the same way that “Dexter” has been toned down to be more in line with mainstream tastes, but I still enjoy it.

At the end of the most recent episode, Tony Hill, the main character, arrives at the scene of several murders while the killer is still there, and confronts him. I had no idea whether he had figured out where the killer would strike next or whether it was sheer coincidence that he happened to be there at the right time. What just happened here, and why did I miss it? Knowing that Tony’s deep insight into the mind is key to his success, I have to believe that his presence was actually explained. So, something that had been in my peripheral awareness suddenly came into clear focus — I don’t watch this type of program for the plot, and I often miss important statements about what’s going on, and wind up not really understanding why things happen as they do.

What am I seeing instead of plot, clues, scenario, etc?
Faces — Is the actor’s face interesting to look at and does it express the appropriate emotions?
Voices — What is distinctive about the actors’ voices, and do they express the appropriate emotions?
Interactions — the shifting relationships between the characters.
Psychological plausibility — Is there something in the script that violates the established traits or psychological profile of a character?

My attention is given to factors which give plot a low priority. Skill in pattern identification, and intolerance for repetition mean that the minute variations in a limited number of plot lines lose my interest very quickly. This reaction is the direct opposite of the species-normal preference for familiarity spiced with novelty. People put up with routine, not because they have no choice about it, but because it’s preferable to living in a disorganized and seemingly chaotic world. That preference tends to operate in every sphere of life. Television series can go on for many years without any serious loss of fans, and it’s because the constant introduction of novelty, no matter how superficial, covers the recycling of old plots. Novelty enlivens the sameness of everyday life, distracts the attention from important things that shouldn’t be ignored, and helps maintain the status quo.

Filed under: Human nature   |  
Tags: attention, novelty, television