Week VI, Post II: The Media Equation

I've just finished reading chapter 1 of "The Media Equation." It's interesting to me to learn that despite our best efforts, and despite what we think to be reasonable and rational, humans (for the most part) equate media with real life.

I printed out the article to read (reading too much on a computer gives me a headache) and took notes in the margins as I read. Something that struck me: "Motion in pictures, especially motion that appears directed at the viewer, stimulates physical activation in the brain as if the moving objects were actually present. Pictures, too, are natural experience" (p. 5). I found myself writing The "visual" part of the brain is not thinking "That's TV. That's a movie." It isn't thinking at all. It simply sees movement and reacts to it. That's why we get scared at movies. The part of our brain that sees the monster actually registers a monster. I'd bet a different part of the brain keeps us calm and in our seats while the part of our brain registering the monster wants to flee.

Just a few pages later, "The automatic response is to accept what seems to be real as in fact real." (p. 8). As an anthro minor, I found myself wondering what would cause our brains to be confused by media. Why do we accept such falsehoods as reality? I wrote in the margin on that page It's a biology, a part of our creation. I came up with a theory that perhaps, because humans evolved in a time with no computers, no pictures, no media whatsoever, whatever we saw that seemed real was in fact real. Threats and movement and sounds that appeared to be present actually were, and they triggered automatic responses in our minds and bodies. Now, because of media, those automatic parts of us, those instincts are triggered by seemingly real things. We can't help it. We can sometimes override our instincts through reason (most likely using a seperate part of the brain for this) but it takes focus and energy.

Then I come to page 12: "People are not evolved to twentieth-century technology. The human brain evolved in a world in which only humans exhibited rich social behaviors, and a world in which all perceived objects were real physical objects. Anything that seemed to be a real person or place was real...Modern media now engage old brains."

I laughed out loud to myself. This was precisely the theory I had come up with on my own. (I guess it's good to know that my anthropology training has clearly taught me something.)

Even so, the media equation is a strange concept to me. I suppose this follows along with the authors' commenty that "People respond socially and naturally to media even though they believe it is not reasonable to do so, and even when they don't think that these responses characterize themselves" (p. 7). I know I'm going to be closely monitoring myself the next few days and taking note of how I respond to media, as I certainly don't think those responses characterize me. We'll see.

Dr. F. asked how the media equation impacts my work. I suppose it all has to do with creating lessons and activities that students can relate to. Obviously, students will repond better to something they relate to and find an emotional connection with that something they don't relate to. This provides indication that technology would be great to use on a regular basis in the classroom. Reading a textbook is often emotionless and dull. However, if that content can be written into the storyline of a movie or book (see The Number Devil then students will, because of the media equation, make connections with the story and the character. These connections will certainly help them retain information and be more motivated to learn the material. The media equation is a grand incentive to use media in the classroom!