Stereotypes In Thinking Fast And Slow By Postman
Our System 1 is unreliable, can contribute to rash judgements, oversimplifications, and contribute to a reliance on stereotypes. This system provides answers whether they are based on facts, skills or heuristics. Thus, where these thoughts are based on truth or not we rely on them to make sense of the world around us. Most of the simple tasks and thoughts completed by individuals happen from their System 1. The book, Thinking Fast and Slow, highlights the issues that can arise when we rely on this part of our brain. Oversimplifications and cultural stereotypes occur from thinking and acting without conscious awareness. What we think and how we perceive things may be influenced by things and stimuli we are not even aware of. In class we have
…show more content…
consistently discussed the media’s bias and role its role on influencing perceptions. The book discusses the implications of priming and framing as they relate to the brain. Media Gatekeepers make use of System 1 thought to meet their objective. They prime events by making them disproportionally visible. After they are primed it becomes easy for our brain to make rash judgements based purely on simple exposure to an issue. Beyond just visibility, the way that events and people are discussed can have massive implications on the ways that issues, or people, are framed and discussed.
The book built upon the concepts of priming and framing in two ways. First, while paradoxically, little knowledge can make our System 1 question less. Without having extensive knowledge on a topic, it becomes difficult to ask questions about the content. This is true with politics or many of my classes. It seems that the more I learn about a subject the more questions that I have. A greater understanding of context and history allows me to understand the confluence of forces that impact an issue. Second, the book discusses that as humans we are severely risk adverse. We give more weight and worry to the bad and the unlikely than we should. For the longest time, I had a fear of flying. My grandma told me that more people die each year from accidents revolving cows than do in plane crashed. I knew, that to some degree, my fear was irrational. However, I had a much larger exposure to the idea of death by plan crash than death by cow. On an institutional level, this correlates to the media’s portrayal of terrorism. People disproportionally worry about terrorists and terrorism far more than they should. Thus, some label the entire Islamic culture as terrorists because of the acts of the few. This concept of risk aversion is further perpetuated by episodic framing, which we discussed in class. News is told in a dramatic and compelling way because then we give more weight to the information told, and it is more likely to spark a reaction from us. The study previously read comparing the United States and United Kingdom’s use of rhetoric in the media demonstrates this. There, United States media utilized words like “war” and “terror” more than European sources. Consequently, this can reinforce the inaccurate notions that people have about certain groups or cultures. Simple thought from System 1 makes it so that this happens without questions.
Thus, the words a person uses can have massive implications on the meaning and interpretation of a message.
Meaning that the meaning can lay in the medium as much as it does the message. The author explains that there is an appeal for attractiveness. Attractive individuals are more likely to have their words be trusted or accepted. I think to United States media and the use of News Anchors in television. The people that provide us with news are inherently trusted, even though they are not experts in their fields, but because they appear to fit a mold. I have read the author Postman. He posits that television is not a proper medium for important discussions because we care more about cosmetics than ideology. To some extent, I think the author of Thinking Fast and Slow would agree. Who states a message, what they look like, and how that message is told seems to carry equal, or more, weight than the content of that message. Last week’s reading, by Nashmi et al, explains that the United States is the only nation, of those studied, that included Sports and Entertainment as YouTube video news content. This demonstrates that while, nearly, all brains may function similarly each society will have different determinations of what content is important. Untimely, this is one factor as to why values differ among societies. In our society, data, numbers and facts do not sale as much as dramatized content. This correlates to the authors ideas surrounding System 1 and System 2. Looking at pure facts and numbers would require us to utilize our System 2 thought to make sense of the information we are provided. However, compelling narratives remove that step. Rather, we can accept the story we are told as truth. This can contribute to reinforcing dominant perceptions and frames of the
media.
These factors contribute to the author’s notion of an availability cascade. This occurs when small events lead to a public panic as the media competes for attention. To draw viewers, major media sources have to report first, provide new information, or a unique take on an issue. Considering the frequency of new stories, this often means events are told before the full story is understood. Thus, people jump to conclusions with little evidence. The idea of an availability cascade goes hand in hand with the notion of symbolic threats. This occurs when non-threatening events seem threating with the words or behaviors used to describe them. These conclusions can lead to overgeneralizations and cultural stereotypes. They become increasingly dangerous when symbolic threats are perceived by the dominant groups about minority populations. There, a difference in power can lead to dangerous in-group biases where help to those in need can be avoided based on an inaccurate perception that the dominant group may be harmed. I think of the wrong perception many have about minority communities where topics like the migration crisis or immigration can lead to the labeling of innocent people as criminals. Ironically, while those individuals face an actual necessity to escape their home countries it seems that many co-opt their narrative of panic and use it as an excuse to avoid responsibility for those in need.
We rely on our System 1 because so many tasks that we complete do not require complex thought. This system allows for us to go through the motions and save the necessity of complex thought for events and actions that are not commonplace. However, reliance on this system of thought can have complex implications. When we interact with individuals from other cultures, races, or backgrounds our brain builds linkages, or we base our experiences off narratives and personal stories. Thus, it becomes easy to assume that all people are like the people we have interacted with previously. To make it easy on our brains, there is an assumption that all people in a group will fit molds of what we assume they are or should be. As the world, international problems, and people becoming increasingly complex it is becoming imperative for our thought and responses to match the complexity of the issues that we face. When System 1 is relied on we group issues and people together and fail to recognize differences or analyze problems logically. To change the negative implications that can arise from simple System 1 thought, the book explains, that it requires an investment of effort. An individual must no longer do what is easy or what they are programed to do. Rather, they must consciously attempt to stop this reliance. While there is a vast diversity in people in this world there are commonalities about the way that we think. With few exceptions, all people are risk adverse, quick to subconsciously jump to conclusions, and are programmed to often think without consciously analyzing and being aware. Gaining awareness about the process that opinions and actions are formed through is the first step to changing patterns that can negatively impact society and those that exist within it.
consistently discussed the media’s bias and role its role on influencing perceptions. The book discusses the implications of priming and framing as they relate to the brain. Media Gatekeepers make use of System 1 thought to meet their objective. They prime events by making them disproportionally visible. After they are primed it becomes easy for our brain to make rash judgements based purely on simple exposure to an issue. Beyond just visibility, the way that events and people are discussed can have massive implications on the ways that issues, or people, are framed and discussed.
The book built upon the concepts of priming and framing in two ways. First, while paradoxically, little knowledge can make our System 1 question less. Without having extensive knowledge on a topic, it becomes difficult to ask questions about the content. This is true with politics or many of my classes. It seems that the more I learn about a subject the more questions that I have. A greater understanding of context and history allows me to understand the confluence of forces that impact an issue. Second, the book discusses that as humans we are severely risk adverse. We give more weight and worry to the bad and the unlikely than we should. For the longest time, I had a fear of flying. My grandma told me that more people die each year from accidents revolving cows than do in plane crashed. I knew, that to some degree, my fear was irrational. However, I had a much larger exposure to the idea of death by plan crash than death by cow. On an institutional level, this correlates to the media’s portrayal of terrorism. People disproportionally worry about terrorists and terrorism far more than they should. Thus, some label the entire Islamic culture as terrorists because of the acts of the few. This concept of risk aversion is further perpetuated by episodic framing, which we discussed in class. News is told in a dramatic and compelling way because then we give more weight to the information told, and it is more likely to spark a reaction from us. The study previously read comparing the United States and United Kingdom’s use of rhetoric in the media demonstrates this. There, United States media utilized words like “war” and “terror” more than European sources. Consequently, this can reinforce the inaccurate notions that people have about certain groups or cultures. Simple thought from System 1 makes it so that this happens without questions.
Thus, the words a person uses can have massive implications on the meaning and interpretation of a message.
Meaning that the meaning can lay in the medium as much as it does the message. The author explains that there is an appeal for attractiveness. Attractive individuals are more likely to have their words be trusted or accepted. I think to United States media and the use of News Anchors in television. The people that provide us with news are inherently trusted, even though they are not experts in their fields, but because they appear to fit a mold. I have read the author Postman. He posits that television is not a proper medium for important discussions because we care more about cosmetics than ideology. To some extent, I think the author of Thinking Fast and Slow would agree. Who states a message, what they look like, and how that message is told seems to carry equal, or more, weight than the content of that message. Last week’s reading, by Nashmi et al, explains that the United States is the only nation, of those studied, that included Sports and Entertainment as YouTube video news content. This demonstrates that while, nearly, all brains may function similarly each society will have different determinations of what content is important. Untimely, this is one factor as to why values differ among societies. In our society, data, numbers and facts do not sale as much as dramatized content. This correlates to the authors ideas surrounding System 1 and System 2. Looking at pure facts and numbers would require us to utilize our System 2 thought to make sense of the information we are provided. However, compelling narratives remove that step. Rather, we can accept the story we are told as truth. This can contribute to reinforcing dominant perceptions and frames of the
media.
These factors contribute to the author’s notion of an availability cascade. This occurs when small events lead to a public panic as the media competes for attention. To draw viewers, major media sources have to report first, provide new information, or a unique take on an issue. Considering the frequency of new stories, this often means events are told before the full story is understood. Thus, people jump to conclusions with little evidence. The idea of an availability cascade goes hand in hand with the notion of symbolic threats. This occurs when non-threatening events seem threating with the words or behaviors used to describe them. These conclusions can lead to overgeneralizations and cultural stereotypes. They become increasingly dangerous when symbolic threats are perceived by the dominant groups about minority populations. There, a difference in power can lead to dangerous in-group biases where help to those in need can be avoided based on an inaccurate perception that the dominant group may be harmed. I think of the wrong perception many have about minority communities where topics like the migration crisis or immigration can lead to the labeling of innocent people as criminals. Ironically, while those individuals face an actual necessity to escape their home countries it seems that many co-opt their narrative of panic and use it as an excuse to avoid responsibility for those in need.
We rely on our System 1 because so many tasks that we complete do not require complex thought. This system allows for us to go through the motions and save the necessity of complex thought for events and actions that are not commonplace. However, reliance on this system of thought can have complex implications. When we interact with individuals from other cultures, races, or backgrounds our brain builds linkages, or we base our experiences off narratives and personal stories. Thus, it becomes easy to assume that all people are like the people we have interacted with previously. To make it easy on our brains, there is an assumption that all people in a group will fit molds of what we assume they are or should be. As the world, international problems, and people becoming increasingly complex it is becoming imperative for our thought and responses to match the complexity of the issues that we face. When System 1 is relied on we group issues and people together and fail to recognize differences or analyze problems logically. To change the negative implications that can arise from simple System 1 thought, the book explains, that it requires an investment of effort. An individual must no longer do what is easy or what they are programed to do. Rather, they must consciously attempt to stop this reliance. While there is a vast diversity in people in this world there are commonalities about the way that we think. With few exceptions, all people are risk adverse, quick to subconsciously jump to conclusions, and are programmed to often think without consciously analyzing and being aware. Gaining awareness about the process that opinions and actions are formed through is the first step to changing patterns that can negatively impact society and those that exist within it.