Sorry, I don’t think I was clear about my question. My question was: what makes you think that TV & movies cause these failures? You seem to keep repeating the conclusion, but I don’t understand how you get there. For example, how do you exclude the possibility that idealizing the “magical-esque feeling neurological component to romantic love” predated TV & movies, and that TV & movies simply recorded that idealization?
I don’t exclude that possibility. In fact, I’d say the “magical component” to romantic love does predate movies and TV. It predates all fiction, I’d imagine. Cave men fell in love and then made drawings about it on the cave walls. And then some other cave men came along and misunderstood the drawing when they compared their comparitively stale relationships with their cave women to the Storybook Romance depicted on the walls.
Even without the recorded idealization, I think people do chase the highs of love and infatuation based on their personal idealizations, and it hurts their chances of finding a fulfilling lorn-term romantic relationship. But Hollywood is loud & everywhere. And lots and lots of people are really bad at distinguishing fiction from reality. So, if you havne’t created an unrealistic view of love on your own, then there are movies and TV shows and books eveywhere ready to help you get infected by irrational expectations.
I’d say the “magical component” to romantic love does predate movies and TV. It predates all fiction, I’d imagine. Cave men fell in love and then made drawings about it on the cave walls.
Sexual attraction (and the central nervous system consequences thereof) predates humans.
However as far as I can recall the concept of “romantic love” and specifically the notion of the sequence romantic love → marriage → live happily ever after, this notion was the product of the European Middle Ages.
Note that outside of the Western countries the idea that one should marry one’s romantic love interest is not widespread.
As far as I know, the idealization of romantic love started in the Middle Ages, but it was of a knight for a high status lady, not part of his marriage, and not supposed to be consummated sexually.
I’m not sure when the idea started that romantic love was supposed to be the basis of marriage.
I’ve heard the same, but I’m not sure how seriously to take the meme. I happened to read some Chrétien de Troyes chivalric romances recently (in translation), and the romantic relationships he depicts, while consistently idealized in character, sometimes conclude in marriage and aren’t exclusively chaste. (Indeed, I’m told de Troyes introduced the character of Lancelot to the Arthurian canon, and we all know what he’s famous for.)
Since de Troyes was writing in the 12th century, I’m inclined to take his work as at least somewhat authoritative.
Sexual attraction (and the central nervous system consequences thereof) predates humans.
Yes. Though it seems to me language, and humans’ capacity for it, is what I am ultimately suggesting is at issue with regard to movies influencing our expectations about what romantic love is like in the long term.
As soon as the idealization was recordable—able to be communicated to a non-participant in whatever form the sexual relationship took—then I think the map started to include errors in transmission about how to optimize for long-term fulfillment in romantic relationships. To the extent people had access to the errant map and used it as the primary (or sole) resource for doing long term love right, they were vulnerable to doing it wrong. Movies are just this concept on steroids, and only humans can make movies.
No doubt nature couldn’t care less about whether we’re fulfilled long-term...as long as we’re good at short-term mating and preparing Jr. to be good at it too, then our replicators are probably happy as clams.
I think you’re looking for defense of a position that Brillyant isn’t taking. Specifically, you seem to think that Brillyant is claiming that Hollywood invented this. It seems to me that Brillyant is instead claiming that Hollywood blasts this in people’s faces and presents it as normality or the way things should work unless something is wrong with you, and with the persistent strong reach Hollywood has, this message is often converted into individual expectations.
This is quite plausible and fits extremely well with my existing model of reality, much more so than a claim that this unhealthy attitude was generated in the American films industry. Still no specific data, but I have a pretty high prior in favor of it.
Brillyant said “Hollywood is responsible for some huge chunk of the sum total of all relationship problems.” To my way of thinking, that seems to pretty clearly be asserting a causal relation.
And to my way of thinking such a causal relationship is inconsistent, for example, with the observation that all relationship problems existed in more or less the same form prior to Hollywood.
More generally: if B existed before A, and continues to exist in more or less the same fashion after A, I see no grounds for saying that A is responsible for B. Even if A blasts B in people’s faces, or presents B as normality; even if A has a persistent strong reach.
But it apparently seems plausible to both you and Brillyant that Hollywood causes relationship problems despite all of that. So as I say, perhaps I’m confused, either about what y’all are actually claiming, or about how to think about cause and effect.
Perhaps, for example, there was an earlier cause, but now it’s gone, and Hollywood is sustaining an effect that would not exist without it. That’s not logically impossible, but it seems an unjustified speculation.
And to my way of thinking such a causal relationship is inconsistent, for example, with the observation that all relationship problems existed in more or less the same form prior to Hollywood.
They might have existed in the same form, but very different levels of prevalence.
Suppose that a disease exists, but is contained in a small local population until one individual exports it, personally infects hundreds of individuals, who infect others until it reaches pandemic status. Would you say that the fact that the disease previously existed in the same form is inconsistent with the individual having a causal relationship with the pandemic?
Not at all, and that would be a fine example of the sort of observation Brillyant could hypothetically make that would justify the actual claim. There are dozens of other similar examples, any or all of which might or might not be the actual observations Brillyant actually made.
What I asked, that started all of this, was for a summary of Brillyant’s actual reasons for making the claim.
What I’ve ended up in instead is an extended conversation about what sorts of observations might in theory justify a claim like that.
Which, while not irrelevant, isn’t really an answer to my question, or if it is I’m just not understanding it. Which continues to lead me to think that I’m simply being unclear, or perhaps confused. It’s probably best for me to tap out here. Thanks for your patience.
Brillyant said “Hollywood is responsible for some huge chunk of the sum total of all relationship problems.”
To my way of thinking, that seems to pretty clearly be asserting a causal relation.
Hollywood’s role here is promoting and popularizing a set of existing relationship tropes, not necessarily coming up with those tropes in the first place, and it isn’t the sole champion of these tropes. If an unspoken or explicit agreement took over the majority of Hollywood studios, script writers, and so forth, then we could get a healthier, more realistic set of relationship tropes promoted and popularized, competing with the unhealthy relationship tropes.
What would happen? People’s expectations would be more in line with reality, since the media they consume that shapes their expectations is more in line with reality. They would be more inclined to communicate with each other because they are inundated with examples of people communicating with each other freely to resolve isues. Average relationship health would increase.
The unhealthy tropes would still exist. They’re popular now for some reason, and that reason probably wouldn’t simply disappear, plus they’ve got a lot of inertia, in terms of both existing media and existing mindshare. And if the magical collusion for healthy relationship tropes were merely between Hollywood organizations, then advertising agencies and novellists and songwriters and other media producers would still be able to promote the unhealthy tropes. But removing a major source of reinforcement of the problematic ideas and replacing them with a source of reinforcement of less problematic ideas would result in fewer problems overall.
Again, this is expounding on Brillyant’s point, not offering evidence. I want you to have a clear idea of one of the better forms of that position, but I don’t have the data myself. It should be relatively easy to find evidence for similar issues, specifically eating disorders, but also violence and violence-accepting attitudes toward women.
I really wasn’t trying to pick a fight here. I was asking for clarification about what was being said. “I believe Hollywood is responsible for some huge chunk of the sum total of all relationship problems, in part because I believe those problems did not exist before Hollywood” would have been a fine example of such a clarification. .
Sorry, I don’t think I was clear about my question.
My question was: what makes you think that TV & movies cause these failures? You seem to keep repeating the conclusion, but I don’t understand how you get there.
For example, how do you exclude the possibility that idealizing the “magical-esque feeling neurological component to romantic love” predated TV & movies, and that TV & movies simply recorded that idealization?
I don’t exclude that possibility. In fact, I’d say the “magical component” to romantic love does predate movies and TV. It predates all fiction, I’d imagine. Cave men fell in love and then made drawings about it on the cave walls. And then some other cave men came along and misunderstood the drawing when they compared their comparitively stale relationships with their cave women to the Storybook Romance depicted on the walls.
Even without the recorded idealization, I think people do chase the highs of love and infatuation based on their personal idealizations, and it hurts their chances of finding a fulfilling lorn-term romantic relationship. But Hollywood is loud & everywhere. And lots and lots of people are really bad at distinguishing fiction from reality. So, if you havne’t created an unrealistic view of love on your own, then there are movies and TV shows and books eveywhere ready to help you get infected by irrational expectations.
Sexual attraction (and the central nervous system consequences thereof) predates humans.
However as far as I can recall the concept of “romantic love” and specifically the notion of the sequence romantic love → marriage → live happily ever after, this notion was the product of the European Middle Ages.
Note that outside of the Western countries the idea that one should marry one’s romantic love interest is not widespread.
As far as I know, the idealization of romantic love started in the Middle Ages, but it was of a knight for a high status lady, not part of his marriage, and not supposed to be consummated sexually.
I’m not sure when the idea started that romantic love was supposed to be the basis of marriage.
I’ve heard the same, but I’m not sure how seriously to take the meme. I happened to read some Chrétien de Troyes chivalric romances recently (in translation), and the romantic relationships he depicts, while consistently idealized in character, sometimes conclude in marriage and aren’t exclusively chaste. (Indeed, I’m told de Troyes introduced the character of Lancelot to the Arthurian canon, and we all know what he’s famous for.)
Since de Troyes was writing in the 12th century, I’m inclined to take his work as at least somewhat authoritative.
Yes. Though it seems to me language, and humans’ capacity for it, is what I am ultimately suggesting is at issue with regard to movies influencing our expectations about what romantic love is like in the long term.
As soon as the idealization was recordable—able to be communicated to a non-participant in whatever form the sexual relationship took—then I think the map started to include errors in transmission about how to optimize for long-term fulfillment in romantic relationships. To the extent people had access to the errant map and used it as the primary (or sole) resource for doing long term love right, they were vulnerable to doing it wrong. Movies are just this concept on steroids, and only humans can make movies.
No doubt nature couldn’t care less about whether we’re fulfilled long-term...as long as we’re good at short-term mating and preparing Jr. to be good at it too, then our replicators are probably happy as clams.
I think you’re conflating “sexual” and “romantic”.
I guess. Though I’m not sure there is much harm in doing so in this context.
I think you’re looking for defense of a position that Brillyant isn’t taking. Specifically, you seem to think that Brillyant is claiming that Hollywood invented this. It seems to me that Brillyant is instead claiming that Hollywood blasts this in people’s faces and presents it as normality or the way things should work unless something is wrong with you, and with the persistent strong reach Hollywood has, this message is often converted into individual expectations.
This is quite plausible and fits extremely well with my existing model of reality, much more so than a claim that this unhealthy attitude was generated in the American films industry. Still no specific data, but I have a pretty high prior in favor of it.
Perhaps I’m just confused.
Brillyant said “Hollywood is responsible for some huge chunk of the sum total of all relationship problems.”
To my way of thinking, that seems to pretty clearly be asserting a causal relation.
And to my way of thinking such a causal relationship is inconsistent, for example, with the observation that all relationship problems existed in more or less the same form prior to Hollywood.
More generally: if B existed before A, and continues to exist in more or less the same fashion after A, I see no grounds for saying that A is responsible for B.
Even if A blasts B in people’s faces, or presents B as normality; even if A has a persistent strong reach.
But it apparently seems plausible to both you and Brillyant that Hollywood causes relationship problems despite all of that. So as I say, perhaps I’m confused, either about what y’all are actually claiming, or about how to think about cause and effect.
Perhaps, for example, there was an earlier cause, but now it’s gone, and Hollywood is sustaining an effect that would not exist without it. That’s not logically impossible, but it seems an unjustified speculation.
They might have existed in the same form, but very different levels of prevalence.
Suppose that a disease exists, but is contained in a small local population until one individual exports it, personally infects hundreds of individuals, who infect others until it reaches pandemic status. Would you say that the fact that the disease previously existed in the same form is inconsistent with the individual having a causal relationship with the pandemic?
Not at all, and that would be a fine example of the sort of observation Brillyant could hypothetically make that would justify the actual claim. There are dozens of other similar examples, any or all of which might or might not be the actual observations Brillyant actually made.
What I asked, that started all of this, was for a summary of Brillyant’s actual reasons for making the claim.
What I’ve ended up in instead is an extended conversation about what sorts of observations might in theory justify a claim like that.
Which, while not irrelevant, isn’t really an answer to my question, or if it is I’m just not understanding it. Which continues to lead me to think that I’m simply being unclear, or perhaps confused. It’s probably best for me to tap out here. Thanks for your patience.
Hollywood’s role here is promoting and popularizing a set of existing relationship tropes, not necessarily coming up with those tropes in the first place, and it isn’t the sole champion of these tropes. If an unspoken or explicit agreement took over the majority of Hollywood studios, script writers, and so forth, then we could get a healthier, more realistic set of relationship tropes promoted and popularized, competing with the unhealthy relationship tropes.
What would happen? People’s expectations would be more in line with reality, since the media they consume that shapes their expectations is more in line with reality. They would be more inclined to communicate with each other because they are inundated with examples of people communicating with each other freely to resolve isues. Average relationship health would increase.
The unhealthy tropes would still exist. They’re popular now for some reason, and that reason probably wouldn’t simply disappear, plus they’ve got a lot of inertia, in terms of both existing media and existing mindshare. And if the magical collusion for healthy relationship tropes were merely between Hollywood organizations, then advertising agencies and novellists and songwriters and other media producers would still be able to promote the unhealthy tropes. But removing a major source of reinforcement of the problematic ideas and replacing them with a source of reinforcement of less problematic ideas would result in fewer problems overall.
Again, this is expounding on Brillyant’s point, not offering evidence. I want you to have a clear idea of one of the better forms of that position, but I don’t have the data myself. It should be relatively easy to find evidence for similar issues, specifically eating disorders, but also violence and violence-accepting attitudes toward women.
Thank you. And yes, I agree with this, with the understanding that we’re not saying anything here about the plausibility of that magical collusion.
Not just the collusion, but managing to design a coherent replacement for the current tropes.
Sure? cue reactionaries’ claims about divorce and stuff
Upvoted anyway for an excellent heuristic, even though I’m not sure the premise is correct in this case.
I really wasn’t trying to pick a fight here. I was asking for clarification about what was being said. “I believe Hollywood is responsible for some huge chunk of the sum total of all relationship problems, in part because I believe those problems did not exist before Hollywood” would have been a fine example of such a clarification. .