 These people may only want to associate with and freely talk to people they agree with -- i.e., people who will not challenge or dispute their beliefs.  |
|
|
If people only listen to people or broadcast programming that supports their viewpoints, society can become more polarized and less willing to consider other (sometimes better informed) views. This ongoing process, called incestuous amplification, springs from three psychological defense mechanisms we'll discuss.
Incestuous amplification makes the compromises necessary for progress within a democratic society less and less likely. In addition, this can degenerate into a closed-minded "us" and "them" mentality, with people becoming less willing to listen to the views of those that don't agree with "us." The old saying, "I've got my mind made up, don't confuse me with the facts," comes to mind.
For the media there can be a ratings advantage in catering to and promoting the preferred beliefs of audience segments. These people may only want to associate with and freely talk to people they agree with -- i.e., people who will not challenge or dispute their beliefs. Therefore, the "hold" of these media outlets over their particular audience can grow, and other media outlets are soon seen as "biased."
As the isolation from other ideas continues and the confined views become more and more dominant, a "them" and "us" mentality can develop. The "thems" can become the enemy. Throughout history we've seen how this can turn into a need for "us" to save society from "them." This is commonly seen as a patriotic or religious duty.
If the incestuous amplification expands, as it has in some small segments of our society -- generally spurred on by sub-sections of the Internet -- violence (in the name of what is believed as being "right) can become an accepted response.
As we noted, incestuous amplification is almost always accompanied by the following three defense mechanisms.
Personal Defense Mechanisms
1. First is selective exposure, where individuals try to minimize exposure to ideas that run contrary to their own beliefs. In this way their views have little chance of being challenged or changed — even though important new facts may emerge.
Those who try to limit their own exposure (or other people's exposure) to new ideas may be creating a situation that actually works against them in the long run.
Studies
-- especially those associated with brainwashing -- indicate that
people who do not have a chance to compare and defend their ideas are most apt to abandon
them when they are confronted with an opposing view -- even though that opposing view is unsound.
However, those who have had ample opportunity to test and defend their views are most likely to hold on to them when they are challenged.
Interestingly, some radio talk show hosts screen their guests so that no one who holds a view contrary to their own will be featured on the show.
Rather than welcome the chance to confront what they think is an inferior idea and stimulate thinking, they seem to fear such ideas. Thus, you can often tell how a secure a person is in their personal beliefs by how well they tolerate opposing beliefs.
2. The second defense mechanism is selective perception. In this case when individuals are presented with ideas or data that contradict their beliefs, they refuse to "see" or recognize the information.
If, despite their efforts, they have to confront these ideas, the individuals may try to discredit the source, or attribute the ideas to an incompetent, corrupt, or evil source.
3. Finally, there is selective recall. Simply put, we tend to remember things that support our viewpoints and conveniently forget those that don't.
For example, after a TV program is shown which contradicts some of our personal beliefs, we tend to remember only those facts that support our original beliefs. Or, we may remember "different facts," and feel that the program actually supported our views.
All of these defense mechanisms have been demonstrated in studies.
TV Production Index
To Home Page
© 2007, All Rights Reserved
