The problem with "Social Chaos"

  • Thread starter GizmonicScrewdriver
  • Start date
Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum

Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
G

GizmonicScrewdriver

Guest
Has anyone noticed that people emulate what they see on reality television?
They want to be the "cool cats"?

Yet they forget the reason those "cool cats" behave that way is because they act for the camera in hopes of getting their own spinoff?
Our neighbor has always behaved very, very bizarre. It wasn't until we visited and we spent some time and she forced us to sit through her playlist of television.
Every repulsive reality show you could think of. I was wondering to myself, "did she have a soul before this?".

The social behavior has become a circle, I think it will mellow down now that alot of the cesspool of that is gone.
But I do believe that may have played into it.
Thoughts?

Sorry to be such a "Wow I'm gonna big topic out the gate" kinda guy.
(Some forums hate that for some reason. So my cousin says. HAHA)


It's just been bothering me.
 
My guess is that we are all socially awkward in some ways and she is just one of the more severe cases. It's hard to tell why she is being inscrutable. It may be that she is insecure of herself and is subconsciously projecting "social skills" she learned from reality shows. It may be that she just enjoy behaving in a certain way. Who knows?

I'm also curious about her bizarre behavior. What could she possibly have done to offend you this much? If you feel that she is deliberately annoying you or is harming someone with her weird behavior, you may want to discuss this with her in person. In a polite and mild manner, of course.

Imo it's likely that she's simply enjoying herself and doesn't know that people get bothered by her awkwardness. The fact that she likes reality shows and is willing to share with you her playlist may be her way of trying to be friendly. It's just my guess though! :rolleyes:
 
You may have misunderstood. I was just using her as an example. I'm not close with this person. I in no way was hoping to analyze or help her. She has issues and I don't care to deal with her. Shes the type who lets her dog crap on lawns and if the person who's lawn says anything she calls them every filthy word in the book. That's just the start. But ty for your concern. Moving on with the topic at hand if you wish. :D
 
GizmonicScrewdriver said:
You may have misunderstood. I was just using her as an example. I'm not close with this person. I in no way was hoping to analyze or help her. She has issues and I don't care to deal with her. Shes the type who lets her dog crap on lawns and if the person who's lawn says anything she calls them every filthy word in the book. That's just the start. But ty for your concern. Moving on with the topic at hand if you wish. :D

It seems like I've misinterpreted your situation. Thanks for clarifying things up. :)

Oh wow...so she is acting weird AND mean? Whatever psychiatric struggles she might be going through, your neighbor does sound like someone I would hesitate to be friends with since that's too overwhelming. It's clever for you to stay away from her.

You said you were using her as an example, does that mean you've observed plenty of people behaving like this around you?
 
I have no idea if people emulate the horrible behaviors of reality TV. I don't watch.

We all know that every social behavior is deemed good or bad according to group-think. If the group think's it's not bad behavior, but the majority of groups do think it's bad, then the first group will be a little island oasis on their own. So, based on this group-think model, I would imagine that an individual could want to emulate TV characters on reality TV because the individual is taking social cues from the TV show instead of real life. I see that as plausible.
 
I think Case just said it. It's basically what I was trying to point out. But good show! both of you. Cookies for you. And me because I started the topic..(nom nom)
 
People have been imitating that big box with moving images since it was invented. More than one kid jumped off the balcony in the hopes of flying like Superman in the 50's, we just didn't hear about it as much with no social media.

I don't watch tv. The few times I've seen reality tv, none of the people on there struck me as being "cool cats", as much as being fake constructs designed to lurer people into thinking real life was actually like that, so they can watch while the station gets in the ratings.

If governements had a head on their shoulders, they'd give obligatory courses on the workings of "reality" tv (there really isn't much reality to it) or force said shows to disclose how they make them.
 
Richard_39 said:
People have been imitating that big box with moving images since it was invented. More than one kid jumped off the balcony in the hopes of flying like Superman in the 50's, we just didn't hear about it as much with no social media.

I don't watch tv. The few times I've seen reality tv, none of the people on there struck me as being "cool cats", as much as being fake constructs designed to lurer people into thinking real life was actually like that, so they can watch while the station gets in the ratings.

If governements had a head on their shoulders, they'd give obligatory courses on the workings of "reality" tv (there really isn't much reality to it) or force said shows to disclose how they make them.

No you lose the point, some people look at retaily shows and ..................TLRD

:D
 
GizmonicScrewdriver said:
Richard_39 said:
People have been imitating that big box with moving images since it was invented. More than one kid jumped off the balcony in the hopes of flying like Superman in the 50's, we just didn't hear about it as much with no social media.

I don't watch tv. The few times I've seen reality tv, none of the people on there struck me as being "cool cats", as much as being fake constructs designed to lurer people into thinking real life was actually like that, so they can watch while the station gets in the ratings.

If governements had a head on their shoulders, they'd give obligatory courses on the workings of "reality" tv (there really isn't much reality to it) or force said shows to disclose how they make them.

No you lose the point, some people look at retaily shows and ..................TLRD

:D

LOL My first language is french, somethings I can't figure out...what's TLRD?
 
....Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Denunciation

This section essentially finishes the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.[80]


Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
Conclusion

The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions and, by necessity, the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.


We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Signatures

The first and most famous signature on the engrossed copy was that of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. Two future presidents (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams) and a father and great-grandfather of two other presidents (Benjamin Harrison) were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26) was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer. The fifty-six signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows (from north to south):[81]


New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: George Read, Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Influences and legal status
English political philosopher John Locke (1632–1704)

Historians have often sought to identify the sources that most influenced the words and political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence. By Jefferson's own admission, the Declaration contained no original ideas, but was instead a statement of sentiments widely shared by supporters of the American Revolution. As he explained in 1825:

Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.[82]

Jefferson's most immediate sources were two documents written in June 1776: his own draft of the preamble of the Constitution of Virginia, and George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Ideas and phrases from both of these documents appear in the Declaration of Independence.[83] They were, in turn, directly influenced by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, which formally ended the reign of King James II.[84] During the American Revolution, Jefferson and other Americans looked to the English Declaration of Rights as a model of how to end the reign of an unjust king.[85] The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and the Dutch Act of Abjuration (1581) have also been offered as models for Jefferson's Declaration, but these models are now accepted by few scholars.[86]

Jefferson wrote that a number of authors exerted a general influence on the words of the Declaration.[87] English political theorist John Locke is usually cited as one of the primary influences, a man whom Jefferson called one of "the three greatest men that have ever lived".[88] In 1922, historian Carl L. Becker wrote, "Most Americans had absorbed Locke's works as a kind of political gospel; and the Declaration, in its form, in its phraseology, follows closely certain sentences in Locke's second treatise on government."[89] The extent of Locke's influence on the American Revolution has been questioned by some subsequent scholars, however. Historian Ray Forrest Harvey argued in 1937 for the dominant influence of Swiss jurist Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, declaring that Jefferson and Locke were at "two opposite poles" in their political philosophy, as evidenced by Jefferson's use in the Declaration of Independence of the phrase "pursuit of happiness" instead of "property".[90] Other scholars emphasized the influence of republicanism rather than Locke's classical liberalism.[91] Historian Garry Wills argued that Jefferson was influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment, particularly Francis Hutcheson, rather than Locke,[92] an interpretation that has been strongly criticized.[93]

Legal historian John Phillip Reid has written that the emphasis on the political philosophy of the Declaration has been misplaced. The Declaration is not a philosophical tract about natural rights, argues Reid, but is instead a legal document—an indictment against King George for violating the constitutional rights of the colonists.[94] Historian David Armitage has argued that the Declaration was strongly influenced by de Vattel's The Law of Nations, the dominant international law treatise of the period, and a book that Benjamin Franklin said was "continually in the hands of the members of our Congress".[95] Armitage writes, "Vattel made independence fundamental to his definition of statehood"; therefore, the primary purpose of the Declaration was "to express the international legal sovereignty of the United States". If the United States were to have any hope of being recognized by the European powers, the American revolutionaries first had to make it clear that they were no longer dependent on Great Britain.[96] The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law domestically, but nevertheless it may help to provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws.[97][98][99][100]
Signing
The signed copy of the Declaration is now badly faded because of poor preserving practices in the 19th century. It is on display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
Main article: Signing of the United States Declaration of Independence

The Declaration became official when Congress voted for it on July 4; signatures of the delegates were not needed to make it official. The handwritten copy of the Declaration of Independence that was signed by Congress is dated July 4, 1776. The signatures of fifty-six delegates are affixed; however, the exact date when each person signed it has long been the subject of debate. Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams all wrote that the Declaration had been signed by Congress on July 4.[101] But in 1796, signer Thomas McKean disputed that the Declaration had been signed on July 4, pointing out that some signers were not then present, including several who were not even elected to Congress until after that date.[102]

The Declaration was transposed on paper, adopted by the Continental Congress, and signed by John Hancock, President of the Congress, on July 4, 1776, according to the 1911 record of events by the U.S. State Department under Secretary Philander C. Knox.[103] On August 2, 1776, a parchment paper copy of the Declaration was signed by 56 persons.[103] Many of these signers were not present when the original Declaration was adopted on July 4.[103] Signer Matthew Thornton from New Hampshire was seated in the Continental Congress in November; he asked for and received the privilege of adding his signature at that time, and signed on November 4, 1776.[103]
On July 4, 1776, Continental Congress President John Hancock's signature authenticated the United States Declaration of Independence.

Historians have generally accepted McKean's version of events, arguing that the famous signed version of the Declaration was created after July 19, and was not signed by Congress until August 2, 1776.[104] In 1986, legal historian Wilfred Ritz argued that historians had misunderstood the primary documents and given too much credence to McKean, who had not been present in Congress on July 4.[105] According to Ritz, about thirty-four delegates signed the Declaration on July 4, and the others signed on or after August 2.[106] Historians who reject a July 4 signing maintain that most delegates signed on August 2, and that those eventual signers who were not present added their names later.[107]

Two future U.S. presidents were among the signatories: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The most famous signature on the engrossed copy is that of John Hancock, who presumably signed first as President of Congress.[108] Hancock's large, flamboyant signature became iconic, and the term John Hancock emerged in the United States as an informal synonym for "signature".[109] A commonly circulated but apocryphal account claims that, after Hancock signed, the delegate from Massachusetts commented, "The British ministry can read that name without spectacles." Another apocryphal report indicates that Hancock proudly declared, "There! I guess King George will be able to read that!"[110]

Various legends emerged years later about the signing of the Declaration, when the document had become an important national symbol. In one famous story, John Hancock supposedly said that Congress, having signed the Declaration, must now "all hang together", and Benjamin Franklin replied: "Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." The quotation did not appear in print until more than fifty years after Franklin's death.[111]

The Syng inkstand used at the signing was also used at the signing of the United States Constitution in 1787.
Publication and reaction
Johannes Adam Simon Oertel's painting Pulling Down the Statue of King George III, N.Y.C., ca. 1859, depicts citizens destroying a statue of King George after the Declaration was read in New York City on July 9, 1776.

After Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration on July 4, a handwritten copy was sent a few blocks away to the printing shop of John Dunlap. Through the night, Dunlap printed about 200 broadsides for distribution. Before long, the Declaration was read to audiences and reprinted in newspapers throughout the thirteen states. The first official public reading of the document was by John Nixon in the yard of Independence Hall on July 8; public readings also took place on that day in Trenton, New Jersey and Easton, Pennsylvania.[112] A German translation of the Declaration was published in Philadelphia by July 9.[113]

President of Congress John Hancock sent a broadside to General George Washington, instructing him to have it proclaimed "at the Head of the Army in the way you shall think it most proper".[114] Washington had the Declaration read to his troops in New York City on July 9, with thousands of British troops on ships in the harbor. Washington and Congress hoped that the Declaration would inspire the soldiers, and encourage others to join the army.[112] After hearing the Declaration, crowds in many cities tore down and destroyed signs or statues representing royal authority. An equestrian statue of King George in New York City was pulled down and the lead used to make musket balls.[115]
William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence, freed his slave believing that he could not both fight for liberty and own a slave.

British officials in North America sent copies of the Declaration to Great Britain.[116] It was published in British newspapers beginning in mid-August, it had reached Florence and Warsaw by mid-September, and a German translation appeared in Switzerland by October. The first copy of the Declaration sent to France got lost, and the second copy arrived only in November 1776.[117] It reached Portuguese America by Brazilian medical student "Vendek" José Joaquim Maia e Barbalho, who had met with Thomas Jefferson in Nîmes.

The Spanish-American authorities banned the circulation of the Declaration, but it was widely transmitted and translated: by Venezuelan Manuel García de Sena, by Colombian Miguel de Pombo, by Ecuadorian Vicente Rocafuerte, and by New Englanders Richard Cleveland and William Shaler, who distributed the Declaration and the United States Constitution among creoles in Chile and Indians in Mexico in 1821.[118] The North Ministry did not give an official answer to the Declaration, but instead secretly commissioned pamphleteer John Lind to publish a response entitled Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress.[119] British Tories denounced the signers of the Declaration for not applying the same principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to African Americans.[120] Thomas Hutchinson, the former royal governor of Massachusetts, also published a rebuttal.[121][122] These pamphlets challenged various aspects of the Declaration. Hutchinson argued that the American Revolution was the work of a few conspirators who wanted independence from the outset, and who had finally achieved it by inducing otherwise loyal colonists to rebel.[123] Lind's pamphlet had an anonymous attack on the concept of natural rights written by Jeremy Bentham, an argument that he repeated during the French Revolution.[12
 
Richard_39 said:
GizmonicScrewdriver said:
Richard_39 said:
People have been imitating that big box with moving images since it was invented. More than one kid jumped off the balcony in the hopes of flying like Superman in the 50's, we just didn't hear about it as much with no social media.

I don't watch tv. The few times I've seen reality tv, none of the people on there struck me as being "cool cats", as much as being fake constructs designed to lurer people into thinking real life was actually like that, so they can watch while the station gets in the ratings.

If governements had a head on their shoulders, they'd give obligatory courses on the workings of "reality" tv (there really isn't much reality to it) or force said shows to disclose how they make them.

No you lose the point, some people look at retaily shows and ..................TLRD

:D

LOL My first language is french, somethings I can't figure out...what's TLRD?
Haha it means "too long didn't read". Should have added that so you understood the joke. Had nothing to do with your country of origin and the fact I pasted the American Declaration of Independence.
 
Yeah, I gotta admit that flew right over me. Then again, sometimes, things do. Often, I assume the language barrier is at play.
I also have a tendency to self-reflect at the same time I'm writing to someone, so it comes out really long and detailed. Probably dreary to read, too. I'll be careful ;-)
 
GizmonicScrewdriver said:
Has anyone noticed that people emulate what they see on reality television?
They want to be the "cool cats"?

Aye! I have noticed that. There's this theory by Psychologist "Albert Bandura" on this term called "Modelling" where people learn via observation and emulation.

If I recall it right, he did a study with children, which turned out to be very interesting and eye opening.
It went something like this:

He got children separated, watching 2 videos where a man is seen interacting with a "Bobo doll". 1 of the video would feature the man being passive and pretty chill with the doll. The other however, would feature the man being aggressive towards the doll- Kicking and punching it as though it was a bad doll that deserved the beatings.

Later, the children were exposed to the Bobo Doll itself. The behavior was as expected. Children who witnessed the passive behavior towards the doll behaved passively around it while the aggressive ones modeled after the aggressive adult!

It was once said that watching someone being aggressive towards others may provide a cathartic experience (Some sort of relief and hence reduce in aggression) but the study proved that things doesn't work that way lol. At least it proved that watching another person being aggressive sure ain't an effective way in reducing aggression but might even increase the drive lol!

It's a very interesting study, don't you think? Tells us a lot about how we humans learn and how easily we are affected by our environment, eh? Of course there are other theories on human behavior and learning but this one is definitely one of the fascinating ones as well.

Apologies for a noob question (I'm new here! XD) but am I allowed to post links to videos here? I'd love to share a link to YouTube on this theory in case anyone is fascinated by this as well and wants to learn more about it :)

If I'm not allowed to, feel free to YouTube search it up! There's lots of cool video that explains the theory in much more details! If I'm allowed to, I will put it up for ease of access so hopefully, someone can let me know? I tried searching on the forum but found no answer so just gonna ask to be sure :3
 
Interesting stuff, and I think when you post to The Cornflake Homunculus there's no turning back.



Seriously yeah if it's safe for work. (Which as revolting as The Cornflake Homunculus is, it's SFW.)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top