http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-were-living-in-the-age-of-fear-w443554 Sure,this is just a pop psychology article in a rock and roll magazine. But if you take 15 minutes to read it, I think a lot of things become clearer about the seemingly unfathomable thought processes we see exhibited here. It turns out we are the sum of our experiences, of course.
Too much, not enough or just right, their interpretation is derived from their experiences. The article does address the cultural suddenness that we have become inundated with "news". We probably haven't developed an appropriate filter for it yet. It might take decades to accept the bombardment with critical discerning. You can't function in a constant state of hyperbole, but that's what our commercial information systems require.
Don't think having filter is the answer. It's not the information, but the response to it. Just awareness of the response your brain and body creates - the emotions, the thoughts, would go a long way. Emotionally intelligent and understanding how the brain and mind work should, hopefully, be standard lesson in public school.
Very good link, OP. I wouldn't call it pop psychology. There is a lot of empirical data from serious researchers in it. I agree with you that there is a "cultural suddenness" to the bombardment of stimulation we experience nowadays, but I don't feel the article says exactly that. This is not to find fault with you, but to emphasize the claims of this good piece of writing, which I appreciate you posting. It seems to some extent, according to the article, we will never be able to adapt to the bombardment, because our brains are hardwired to respond immediately and more forcefully to perceived threats than they are to perceived windfalls or blessings. And our "news" is probably not going to change, because "news" should be new, and things like suicide and traffic accidents are not new to us--therefore not news--even though they are more deadly than terrorists, for example. But our ability to immunize ourselves against the effects of misleading "news" may develop, by reminding ourselves "do unto others" and so forth, as the piece explains. I must differ on one more point. The article makes a crucial distinction between fear and anxiety, and I think the title of this thread should be "The Age of Anxiety." Anxiety, according to the piece, is a reaction to a perceived possibility, while fear is a reaction to an immediate threat. Fear is what you say you felt after someone points a gun at you; anxiety is the sense of unease arising from the knowledge that someone could possibly point a gun at you. It is sad to me that the "home of the brave" is so dominated by anxiety now. The article cites lots of clinical evidence to show that anxiety makes people more politically conservative. Thus conservatives seem--oddly, to me--voracious in their consumption of unpleasant, negative discourse. I often wonder how the audience at a Trump rally seem to enjoy hearing 60 or 90 minutes of "This is a disaster. That person is a lying loser." It confirms and legitimizes their anxiety over death in its literal and metaphorical senses, not only anxiety about one's heart stopping forever, but the anxiety over the death of American Greatness, the death of American racial/political/whatever identity, the death of Christian values, the death of masculinity, and so on. One antidote suggested in the article is to leave the echo chamber of like-minded people/media and seek (gasp) diversity of experience, for like-minded people do not merely commiserate; they make each other's views more extreme, in this case, intensifying anxiety. To me, this is the most immediately useful passage in the piece: Inherent in the ways the news is both reported and received are a number of biases that guarantee people are not informed, but rather misinformed. The first problem with the news is that it must be new. Generally, events that are both aberrations from the norm and spectacular enough to attract attention are reported, such as terrorist attacks, mass shootings and plane crashes. But far more prolific, and thus even less news-worthy, are the 117 suicides in the U.S. each day (in comparison with 43 murders), the 129 deaths from accidental drug overdoses, and the 96 people dying a day in automobile accidents (27 of whom aren't wearing seat belts, not to mention the unspecified amount driving distracted). Add to these the 1,315 deaths each day due to smoking, the 890 related to obesity, and all the other preventable deaths from strokes, heart attacks and liver disease, and the message is clear: The biggest thing you have to fear is not a terrorist or a shooter or a deadly home invasion. You are the biggest threat to your own safety. It would make logical sense, then, that if Americans were really choosing politicians based on their own safety, they would vote for a candidate who stresses seat-belt campaigns, programs for psychological health to decrease suicide, and ways to reduce smoking, obesity, prescription-pill abuse, alcoholism, flu contagion and hospital-acquired infections. But our fears are not logical.
The filter is our free will in what 'news' we choose. We can call bullshit and turn it off. We can vet news sources for usefulness, we can choose not to use news for entertainment. But the urgency is compelling. The article is titled The Age Of Fear..... Probably because it sells more issues than the Age of Anxiety would, ha.
The degree and rationality at which it becomes the unhelpful is the point. What are useful fears and anxieties and what is debilitating. Political fear in the US is probably the latter because of our checks and balances, dependence on precedence in law and the polar opposition of a two party system.
