The speakers we deserve

Why do people trust those they like, and why are they so easily deceived by attractive scoundrels and scoundrels?

The media burlesque, farce and buffoonery of the overwhelming majority of public opinion leaders under other circumstances could well be considered very funny and even cute. We see the rapid rise and fall of influence, the fantastic “change of shoes in the air” that would do credit to circus trapeze artists.

But the circumstances of the war are different. Reputational risks are decreasing due to the fact that people are now less and less retaining in their memory previous statements, positions and orientation of speakers. This is due to systemic overload of short-term memory.

Short-term memory is capable of retaining information for several minutes, after which the latter is lost or moves on to other memorization processes. This memory is also an important step in the process of rewriting information into long-term memory.

Typically, a person can receive approximately seven pieces of information at a time. If there is too much information or it is too traumatic, the “energy saving mode” is turned on, like in a computer. People don't want to remember things that are unpleasant to remember. Politicians have been using this for decades, and right on their heels are their “clients,” the service personnel.

The second important component is that the media image of the speaker is as different from a real person as the movie character Goloborodko is from the real president. To paraphrase a well-known saying, we can say: “Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but is not a duck.”

This mainly applies to the conversational genre, because it is much easier to please visually - it does not require intellectual effort. The text, even if it is written stupidly, activates the right hemisphere of the brain, which, simply put, is responsible for rational thinking. There is less psychological trauma here, because when you criticize something obviously stupid, your self-esteem increases. However, there are characters who manage to attract a lot of hatred towards themselves simply by speaking with their mouths.

Why do people trust those they like, and why are they so easily deceived by attractive scoundrels and scoundrels?

During stressful times, attachment needs increase. Attachment depends on a person's ability to develop basic trust in themselves and significant others. When self-confidence decreases, attention shifts to others. Basic trust in the world is an experience of security, continuity and stability of being. Basic self-trust promotes self-preservation and autonomous existence. If there is no first and second, then everything goes to the speakers.

Positive emotions, emotional intelligence, self-control, having goals in life, and resilience depend on the degree of trust in oneself and in the world. Hysterical, painful and tireless contemplation of bloggers and speakers in search of something good is an amateur “coping strategy” for emotional survival in a difficult life situation.

The hottest word right now is “strategy.” If we talk about a massive request, it means a quick and understandable mechanism for solving problems. But, as often happens with foreign words, they name something completely far from what it actually means.

The time horizon for strategic planning is 5-10 years. At most - one or two. And the request is for a hint of such a behavioral model, according to which one can use existing personal resources to find ways to avoid stress and solve problems related to it.

Predicting and responding to a future stressor displaces from the mass consciousness not only the personal history of specific characters, but also history as a whole. Therefore, in fact, no one ever learns from personal and historical mistakes.

Media speakers personalize and globalize the problem they are talking about. They shift responsibility for its solution to external factors or to those who caused it. This transference is emotionally acceptable and pleasant because it relieves the person of responsibility for working with his own thoughts, but increases learned helplessness. The person no longer makes attempts to improve his condition, does not try to avoid negative stimuli or receive positive ones, although he has such an opportunity.

Social support seeking is a type of behavior in which a person seeks help from an environment in which people they perceive as powerful compensate for the lack of support in their own family and circle of friends.

Here the speakers (now for some reason they are all called experts) are divided into three basic groups.

The first is doing its best to create around itself something like a sect of supporters and supporters. These are unstable entities because they are virtual. But monetization is promoted.

The second, as people say, “borrowed Sirko’s eyes.” And according to his position, by order or simply in anticipation of future personnel changes in his favor, he praises the authorities.

The third, the least numerous, but the most qualified, operates with numbers, the history of the issue, and confirmed facts. But first of all, it's boring for the public. Secondly, such information tires an already overloaded brain.

These three parameters sometimes form exotic two-component options. For example, some investigative/whistleblower journalists and others. The inside information they receive is leaked to them in the competitive struggle of one influence group against another.

This does not mean that it is untruthful, just watch your hands.

And this does not mean at all that these people have no conscience. It’s just that conscience is a category that actually has no ethical dimension. She is very individual and functions according to personal ideas about her.

The closer we get to the TV, the more we see propaganda and encouragement of the “avoidance strategy.” This sounds paradoxical, because all forces seem to be really aimed at promoting mobilization. But the way they do it, it would be better not to do anything, because it turns out the opposite.

Here we are not talking about “draft dodgers,” although this is a direct consequence. There are different ways to avoid contact with the surrounding reality if it traumatizes you. You can use passive methods of avoidance, for example, immersing yourself in illness (if you talk to yourself for a long time about exceptionally poor health, then this will soon happen). Alcoholism and drug addiction at this “celebration of life” also have every chance of blooming wildly. I’m not even talking about ubiquitous antidepressants, this is just a psychopharmacological reduction.

All of the above depends on the specific stressful situation, age and state of the individual’s resource system. But if there is an authoritative message that suggests coming to terms with the situation, accepting it as inevitable, learning to coexist with new circumstances that cannot be overcome objectively, accepting them as part of your life, then escaping reality into the world of propaganda is a completely comfortable option.

In situations of loss (for example, the death of someone close, loss of health, etc.), external negative circumstances are perceived as irreversible. Evasion from reality is becoming one of the leading behavioral models.

At the same time, so-called addictive behavior is formed - a direct dependence on the consumption of information from various referents. It does not matter whether they reduce or increase emotional stress. The only important thing is that someone from the outside takes full responsibility for your emotional sphere. This is called "external locus of control."

“Don’t shoot the pianist, he plays the best he can,” an American tale says that once upon a time, during the Wild West, such an inscription was common in saloons. It is not a fact that all cowboys could read, but all could shoot. And it’s not at all a fact that it’s accurate.

Therefore, the hateful shooting of a small part of civil society at the performers of unpretentious political-economic-military melodies is beautiful, like in Westerns. But this is more for self-comfort and maintaining status. Which is also not bad from a psychological point of view.

The people who create the soundscape in the media saloons play what they know how to do, or what they are told to play.

Why are most of these melodies so primitive and inarticulate?

Because the government (if we generalize the totality of groups responsible for making legislative decisions and, most importantly, for implementing them) is the main “deviator” in this country.

The authorities are the main “deviators” because they are afraid to make unpopular decisions. And the decisions that are made irritate most people. Well, at least those who are their own media.

Probably, these decisions meet all the requirements of democracy. Probably the first democrat of this kind was the robber Procrustes. He lured travelers and put them on his bed. When people were shorter than the bed, Procrustes lengthened them, and when longer, he cut off their legs. Until the hero Theseus came and cut off the legs of Procrustes himself.

Why is this happening? Because since the “privatization” of the 1990s, Ukrainian society has never fully (street protests moderated by politicians and individual speeches by opinion leaders of small communities cannot be considered representative) presented its claims to the authorities. Society copied the behavior of the government and the oligarchs it generated as socially approved, and therefore ethical.

Those who tell the truth have a traditionally sad fate. Most have heard of the Greek priestess Cassandra, who predicted the fall of Troy. God Apollo made it so that no one believed Cassandra and she was perceived as crazy, although she was the daughter of a king.

There is even “Cassandra syndrome” - this is the devaluation of reliable information in favor of misinformation.

A minority may know another similar story due to the famous Laocoön and Sons sculpture, which is attributed to Michelangelo, although the original existed as early as 200 BC.

The priest of the god Apollo, Laocoon, chose patriotism instead of official duties, because Apollo wanted the destruction of Troy. Laocoon warned his compatriots not to bring a wooden horse with enemy warriors into the city. For this, the angry gods sent huge snakes against him and his sons, who strangled them, which, in fact, is the plot of the sculpture.

But we do not know the names of those priests who showed loyalty by approving the introduction of the Trojan horse into the city, which soon died. They were probably very famous in their time and had a good public reputation.

There will be no morality here. Everyone plans their own life strategy for success, but, as they say, “if you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans.”

What should we do in this situation? Learn to separate thoughts and emotions when consuming a media product and not let emotions take over thoughts. Our traditional Ukrainian culture of behavior is structured in such a way that almost all folk songs begin with “Oh!”

The priority of emotions over thoughts makes us beautiful and very creative, but this is in peacetime. Which in the entire history of mankind is actually very small. The history of peoples is the history of wars. In wartime, the vast majority of emotions are negative and the rational component of thinking refuses to work at all.

It seems to us that emotions and thoughts are absolutely inseparable things. But if we think about sex, then usually the emotion comes first, and the thought comes “after.” That is, technically speaking, a person is quite capable of very effectively separating thought and emotion if he really needs it.

Most of you have probably already had emotional disappointments after having information sex with celebrity opinion leaders who suddenly lost influence and discredited themselves. Therefore, perhaps, before you emotionally copulate with someone, you should use your head a little.