One direction, worth $1 billion. Most compare them to The Beatles, I don’t see why. They don’t have nearly a quarter of the talent The Beatles had. Yes they’re making LOADS of money and have billions of fans but I think there’s some another reason as to why that is.
One directions fans are hormonal teenagers meaning they are most likely looking for something to belong to, a fandom perhaps will make them feel like they’re part of something, like they have an identity and a goal to work towards. Or maybe ‘fan girl-ing’ is a learnt response to show how much of a great fan they are. It could be that they want to be the ‘best’ fan out there as it gives them as sense of superiority.
The way I see it is that the fans form an attachment to the boys as they’ve seen them grow from X-factor and now they feel like they must be loyal to them. The adrenalin and endorphin’s released when dancing and looking at the ‘oh so attractive boys’ gives them a good feeling which they then associate with the boys so every time they see/hear them they get that sense of good feeling again leading them to do spam Twitter, Facebook and Youtube with confessions of their love for their music. They’re like addicts with the need for 1D.
So,comparing them to The Beatles can be understood in terms of how popular they have become but not in terms of talent. Giving the audience what they want is way different to being a musical genius.
Habits are actions that we repeat so often that they become automatic and engraved in our neural pathways. So knowing this we can conclude changing these habits is hard.
Some useless articles suggest rewarding yourself eachtime you do a certain action that you want turned into a habit will ensure that you start to do that automatically. This sounds a lot like operant conditiong. Humans require more than rewards to be able to change a certain aspect of their life that has become so natural to them.
For example take smoking,a habit, you cant just stop smoking by rewarding yourself eachtime you don’t. It doesn’t work like that. What’s needed is a strong motivation to want to achieve the new action, social support and ability to tolerate carvings and all the other discomfort.
The media is such a massive part of our lives that it practically controls us without us realising. Maybe not directly but they certainly control our information flow which in turn leads us to come up with inaccurate conclusions of issues and matters surrounding the world. Perhaps it can be argued that we allow the media to control us because hardly any of us bother referencing anything we read hear,or see.
Well why is this?
Maybe we’re all just so naive that we believe everything we’re told. Or, the media is so cunning at manipulating information we need to know that we cant help going along with what is said.They seem to be using techniques that lead people to easily conform to their ideas. For example repetition is used a lot. One piece of news will be repeated again and again at different times on the same and different pieces of media which leads us to have a feeling of familiarisation with the information. This feeling makes us feel like we know more about it than we actually do, which probably leads us to accept them as true when in reality they’re far from it.
Informational social influence (ISI) which is a way in which people conform , is probably in action when it comes to media control. People find it easy to accept information coming from people who they believe to hold some sort of intellectual power over them. The experts and studies are their fore falsely quoted, as we don’t have any reason to disbelieve those experts, so we believe them instead of questioning the validity of what we’re told. Also the media has a habit of using celebrities to emphasis a certain point because they know people will automatically agree with a celebrity they like. This is because that celebrity for the them is a good referential point, so anything that celebrity says or does is accepted by people.
As people find those surrounding them to be talking about and believing ideas put forward by the media they are then even more likely to give in and accept those ideas,not because they think the idea are true but because they don’t want to be the odd one out. This is another way in which people conform called normative social influence (NSI). This mainly happens when a lot of people believe in one thing and the only reason you go along with it is because you don’t want to be ridiculed. Secretly you may not believe it or may not even care.
After we’ve found ourselves believing what we hear without any evidence and start to publicly announce those views we find yourself committing ourselves to those views so when we’re questioned for references and evidence instead of saying we don’t have any, we try to find other ways of justifying those ideas. So in reality we are fooling ourselves. We’re agents of the media, fooling each other.
Don’t negative people just irritate you? They irritate me! I hate it when all people care and think about is the negative aspects of their life when i’m sure there is alot of positive they can be grateful for instead. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about those people who genuinely have crappy things going on in their life. I’m talking about those few of us who moan and stress themselves out for no reason. I guess it shouldn’t annoy me as much as it does, but the people around me usually determine how i feel and if they’re being negative all the time then they need to remove themselves from my life. For example if i have a person near me who’s always negative and is moaning i tend to get worn out by them and start to become negative about life.
I should cut these people some slack though because recently i found that some people are just genetically prone to high levels of pessimism, neuroticism and anxiety. These people seem to have greater activity on the right side of their frontal cortex than the left. This is known as cerebral asymmetry. No one knows why it happens…just that it does. I guess the left side of my frontal cortex is more active and i’m glad this is so 🙂
I’ve always been a positive person. Well I’ve always tried to be a positive person because ..it feels better i guess.
Why is it that we spend so much money and effort into trying to stand out but instead end up blending in…?
I’m angry. I’m angry at the way we’ve been brought up to ‘shine’ but we don’t do that. Instead we try to live up to the expectations of others so that we don’t get ridiculed.
Every where I look everyone is surrendering to the ideal fashion standards set by the media. Walking through the streets all I see is clones. Wearing chinos, vans, snapbacks..face looking like its been dipped in a bucket of paint…the list goes on because originality no longer exists.
On the surface everybody talks about how unique they are and seem to be busy trying to stand out but failing miserably. I often question why this may be. It seems like we’re prisoners to our own reality. We want to stand out and leave a mark in history but we end up trying so hard to make a difference that instead we get stuck in a never ending cycle of impressing others.
We’re so obsessed with perfecting our look that we’ve lost touch with ourselves. We can no longer identify if what we wear or how we present ourselves is really what we are the inside, because frankly I think that most of us look the way we do because it’s just what we think people want to see. I guess we’re just scared to be ourselves because we don’t want to be rejected from society. BUT WHY!?! Why can’t we just say NO. I WILL WEAR WHAT I WANT. I WILL DO WHAT I WANT…and I don’t give a toss what you think.
Evolution psychologist see men as sex crazed individuals who care only for passing on their genes. So I was thinking maybe this could explain homosexual behaviour.
As part of sexual selection men are involved in more intense intersexual selection as women are choosey when it comes to picking a mate for the following reasons.
-Their Eggs are limited whereas sperms are not so they want to spend time looking for the mate with the best genes that will help to make an offspring that will have the best chance of survival and ability to attract the opposite sex. Females also spend more energy producing every single egg. Males don’t need to do this to produce sperms, I’m guessing it’s pretty easy to make sperms…well easier than making an egg because women can only produce one every month whereas men can produce sperm whenever and however often.
-The number of eggs drop as the female contributes in more sexual activities; whereas the amount of sexual activity a male takes part in doesn’t make any difference to their sperm count.
-Cost of pregnancy- Females go through 9 months of pregnancy meaning they can produce a limited amount of offspring’s in their lives and so the males get fewer opportunities to be with a female. Males on the other hand can produce an unlimited amount of offspring’s as they are only needed for a few minutes to produce sperm.
-More time spent caring for the offspring (maternal investment). They have to breastfeed the baby for at least 3 years where as males don’t need to do this.
All these reasons make women a lot more picky towards sexual mates because they can reproduce a limited amount of times so they’d want to pick a mate that is the healthiest and attractive so that those traits can be passed on to their offspring.
Men are more promiscuous, seek more sexual encounters and have a bigger appetite for sex and so they try to impregnate as many women as possible…but this is not always likely because they might be unable to attract willing sexual partners which leads us to the evolutionary prospective of rapists, but that a whole different blog that I need to write.
I’m not claiming to be an experienced psychologist or some sort of researcher or anything but I think that perhaps from an evolutionary view the reason some people are homosexual is because people get the feel that females are a lot more choosey when it comes to having sex and men aren’t. So if they are able to easily engage in sexual activity with another man then there is no need to have to work really hard to get a female. Also they do not have to take part in intense intra sexual selection, which will enable them being able to avoid aggression from males and therefore promote survival.
Research clearly shows that gay men have a lot more sex and lesbians have less. Symons (1979) found from a study that 25% of gays in San Francisco had more than 1000 sexual partners whereas lesbians rarely had more than 10 sexual partners in their life time, they seem to be more preoccupied with evolving a long term relationship.
-They don’t actually come to make any offspring’s so this may not be valid explanations for homosexuality. However many homosexual couples may make use of surrogate moms. This allows them to get the best out of the position. Gay men; lots of sex and offspring’s with their genes. Lesbian women; sex partner that they have taken time to choose and an offspring.
-They know there’s more to a relationship than sex, so therefore to saying gay men only want sex in a relationship is not right.
The argument about homosexuality being a life choice has been going on for years on end now. To be frank I have no idea why this is so. Let people be who they want to be.
I notice people either saying that it’s either completely genetic or social (nature nurture) I personally think that it’s silly to say its either one or the other because its probably a mixture of both. Though to say it’s a life choice is ridiculous. No one wakes up one day and decides they will be a homosexual.
I’d just like to say if homosexuality was learnt or if it was a choice then why do we have gay and lesbians in more religious countries that sees homosexuals as being criminals? They get hung and stoned to death! Why in the world would anybody ever want to choose a life style that came with treatment like that?? It makes no sense to me. So think again before saying it’s a life choice.
‘Hamer et al. found that the gay men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side.’ I would link this to the finding by researchers at UC Santa Barbara and Uppsala University in Sweden who have come to realize that sexual orientation can be decided through epi-marks. These are switches that are passed down from the opposite sex parent…
Epigenetic markers are “an added layer of information that clings to our DNA,” and regulate the expression of genes according to an external trigger. The external trigger here I’m saying would probably be the uncles and perhaps the family environment in which they were ‘allowed’ to be gay.