Weekly Geekly Rundown for June 14, 2024
Selective Attention Revisited
I know that I’ve talked about the psychological phenomenon of selective attention. It’s a natural part of human cognition that forms the basis for a lot of biases we experience in our day to day lives. I haven’t studied the relationship between selective attention and political polarization, but I think that would be a worthy avenue of research. Affective political polarization takes up a lot of cognitive load when it is activated and that cognitive load is often directed at motivated cognition processes.
That’s a fancy way of saying that when we see something that makes us mad that is connected to our political identity or reasoning processes go into overdrive to demonstrate all the reasons its terrible. According to motivated cognition theory, the emotion leads the reasoning. This isn’t something that only conservatives do (sorry non-Swingers Jon Favreau) and it’s not something only liberals do (sorry Ben Shapiro facts may not care about our feelings but our feelings dictate how we interpret facts). It’s not even something smart and educated people can avoid (sorry Carpini and Keeter). In fact, we do it More and Faster (see awesome KMFDM song below). The more intelligent you are the more capable you are of making arguments and selecting information that supports your prior beliefs. You want to know who the most partisan voters are? It’s the most informed. But we all also suffer from selective attention. We can only see so much and this wonderful video from the Daniel Simons studies shows why.
I don’t have time, in this prefatory section of my Weekly Geekly Rundown, to go over all the aspects of selective attention, cognitive bias, and motivated cognition. Heck, I don’t have room in my dissertation for that, but before I move on I want to do two things. First to recommend the great Substack byDominic Packer & Jay Van Bavel called The Power of Us. It’s a fairly good rundown of social identity and psychology and they were kind enough to present a “curriculum” for those interested in the subject.
The curriculum highlights a number of extremely important articles on social identity and polarization, including a personal favorite of mine the Bail et al. piece that discusses how people exposed to opposing views on Social Mediatend to radicalize more rather than moderate their beliefs. It was a kind of shocking study as many assumed that engaging in dialog with opposing ideas might get you to consider them more and update your own priors, but affective motivated cognition kicks in and makes things worse. At least, according to their design which I think is flawed.
Take a look at this image. This is a graphic depiction of the frequencies with which participants were exposed to political information by the study.
Do you notice anything about this that might exacerbate polarization? What is missing from this distribution of exposure that might increase the moderating effect of opposing views? What views are people seeing most frequently? The modal exposure both left and right is a pretty extreme position and 50% of all responses the bots expose the participants to are that extreme or greater. They are giving the reader the sense that politics is extremely bimodal, and it can be but isn’t always. Imagine if their political exposure was more like this.
How might the study have turned out then? Based on prior research by Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee (1954) — I know old research — of the Columbia School, the inclusion of Sociable Citizens into the mix might actually moderate and bond by creating pathways to deliberation that don’t exist in the model. The basic Bail model is a better representation of Iris Young’s Activist Challenge to Deliberative Democracy than it is an active attempt to foster deliberation. For the activist, regardless of ideological position, the status quo (aka the middle point) is intolerable. So here we have participants being exposed to activists on both their side and the other side ideologically, but never a moderating voice. The only natural response is to drift, in the Downsian ideological space (aka Hotellingian consumer space) sense, towards the set of beliefs closer to your own. That’s a path towards radicalization.
The reason I like the Bail study, and think it is amazing, is that while their model doesn’t fit their hope that exposure increases understanding, the model does mimic real Social Media algorithms. That is, unless you carefully curate to create the model I prefer. I just think they should have done a follow up to see if engagements with Sociable Citizens led to decreased polarization.
Now that I’ve got that long “first thing” done, it’s time for the second part, the part that relates to all the Geekiness that abounds here. What do polarization and social identity have to do with Geek Culture? Everything. You see Geek Culture is filled with Social Identities because we feel deep connections with the things we obsess about. They become a part of our individual identity in meaningful ways.
As much as the critical media tries to blame modern politics for the “review bombing” of various intellectual properties, such assertions miss the forest for the trees. Are we politically divided and does that shape some opinions about popular culture? Yes. Undeniably, yes. However, political preferences need not enter the equation at all.
Let me use as an example Conan fandom. There are two camps in hard core Conan/Robert E Howard fandom. The Howard Purists and the L. Sprague de Camp Apologists. These divisions are not on political grounds, but they are deeply personal and lead to serious arguments and anger. A Howardian like Mark Finn is a great scholar and a great advocate of Howard’s work, but he has disdain for de Camp. A de Campian like Sprague de Camp Fan is a great advocate for Howard’s work who believes that without de Camp Howard’s work may have been lost to the dustbin of History. Finn would likely reject this assertion and would wonder whether de Camp’s keeping Conan alive was more like “Keeping Conan Alive on Really Crappy Life Support that Results in Conan Looking Nothing Like Conan.” There is something to that, but I think it underappreciates how seriously de Camp took Howard. Why? Because much of the rich, much ricer than de Camp’s, analysis of Howard was widely distributed because de Camp made sure it was published. The Howard Collector, collections of AMRA, as well as AMRA itself, benefited from de Camp.
Even so negative opinions about de Camp from Howardians are strong. Why? Because a lot, and I mean a lot, of really bad Howard pastiches were written because of de Camp. De Camp may have saved Conan from obscurity (a Howardian would have added “arguably” there), but de Camp may also have almost doomed Howards overall writing to be rejected for its genuine artistry. It’s complicated AND it matters.
The same is true for Star Wars fans, for Ghostbusters fans, for Swifties, and for D&D fans. A recent meme may make fun of D&D’s edition wars, but it misses the point.
For fans, real fanatics, for whom D&D is a part of their identity, these things MATTER and they are going to fight for what matters to them. The response to fans who fight for what matters to them isn’t to reject them as reactionary or mere “review bombers” and “haters.” A better response is to actually look at what they are advocating for, not against but for because they are typically advocating for something, and seeing where you can find common ground. Sometimes that means the division of the fandom into subcultural identities like the OSR, which will then divide into further subcultural identities. That’s fine and good. Let it. It makes for great conversation.
Love what you love. Fight for what you fight for. Attack the ideas and not the people. Mark Finn is very good on this point in his critiques of de Camp. Don’t “like” something because you are supposed to, but because you actually do. I don’t care if the supposed to like comes from aesthetics or politics. Some stuff I think is very strong aesthetically doesn’t appeal to me and some stuff I agree with politically is terrible entertainment. When arguing about something because multiple identities are applying pressure in evaluation, as happens in Star Wars and Star Trek, try to base your analysis on the identities internal to the IP and not those external before assuming any critique comes because of the external critiques. Not to change your own mind, but to understand where the other person is coming from. Let the areas of cross pressure unite rather than divide and engage in good faith. That’s the path forward, or at least I hope it is. I’ll have to get a HUGE NSF grant and rerun Bail et al. with my new model to find out.
Why did I write all of that? Well, I’m going to be reacting to reviews of Inside Out 2 this week and given how much I HATED Inside Out, I needed to ground myself before engaging.
Weekly Film Article Cavalcade
The Lamentations of Luke Y. Thompson
When I watched the original Inside Out with my wife and daughters, I experienced something I’d never really experienced before. I was angry with a Disney film. I’d been disappointed with Disney films in the past (Hunchback of Notre Dame). I’d been angry at myself for taking my FAR TOO YOUNG daughters to see an emotionally powerful Disney film (Brave). But I’d never been angry at the actual film before. Inside Out set me off. Not only were the representations of Joy and Sadness better described as Mania and Depression, with Depression being as big a liar as actual Depression is, but they killed Bing Bong. I mean, what the fuck Disney? At least they didn’t ignore the ability of imaginary friends, or temporary escape into fantasy, as a means to cope with Depression. They acknowledged that, but then asserted that this process killed your imaginary friend and killed a shit ton of your memories as well. It was fucked up.
I didn’t really understand why I hated Inside Out so much until I was taking a course on the Psychology of Happiness with Dr. Sonia Lyubomirsky. The class was an eye opening experience for me in how we process memory and how our memories are not pictures, rather they are emotionally encoded fragments that allow us to recreate events within our minds and that those recreations are then re-encoded with our current emotional state to create a new emotional balance. It was a great class where we talked about the connection between psychology and genetics, psychology and environment, and a ton of stuff. It was one of the most valuable experiences I had in my entire academic career. AND it made me hate Inside Out even more because I really came to understand that as accurate as the presentation of encoding memory was in the film (and it is surprisingly rooted in the science of emotions), that I was right that “Sadness” was Depression and not sadness. To be fair, I was the only person in the seminar who hated the film. That may have to deal with my own traumatic experiences (my mom died of heroin addiction), but I feel very strongly about it.
All of this is to say that I’ll be going into Inside Out 2 with a lot of skepticism and that makes it a film where critical opinions will matter a lot. Luke Y Thompson’s review of the film over at SuperHeroHype is very lukewarm (no pun intended). He is both grateful and critical of the film for avoiding the overtly maudlin storyline of the original. He’s grateful because he thought the first film over relied on the tear jerking elements, but critical because in avoiding the maudlin the new film has very low stakes.
You know what, and I’ll come back to this when examining Courtney Howard's review, I’m glad it has low stakes. Sometimes, just sometimes, the stakes we have in life are actually small and yet we have huge emotional reactions.
My wife often says that kids in Middle School have it rough (yes, she’s talking about Middle School and this film is about transitioning to High School which is probably mistake number one). You see when you are in Sixth Grade the world is at your feet. You’ve finally mastered your emotional states, for the most part, and you are the oldest and most together people on campus. Then along come puberty and Middle School, requiring the making of new friends and meeting Anxiety in new ways, and it’s back to square one. You go from being rulers of the world with super powers to being controlled by hormones and without your prior support groups. That’s good fodder for a story. That’s enough. As screenwriter Zak Stentz often argues, the stakes don’t always have to be the end of the world, sometimes finding love and friendship are sufficient.
The world never ends in About Time, but it is one of my absolute favorite films. The “stakes” of Ladyhawke are whether the protagonists will have faith and find love or whether they will give into despair and die. The world will go on. The story is deeply personal. The film completely lacks tragedy, as the tragedy has already happened, and yet it is moving. I recently watched it with my wife and daughters and I wept and the pivotal moment, as I always do. My daughters, who loved the film in general, laughed because Rutger Hauer’s contacts were weird and the Alan Parsons Project music was less than timeless.
The point here is that I think I might like to watch a film about a teen dealing with anxiety that doesn’t have high stakes, that isn’t taking a side in the culture wars, and is just trying to tell the story of an anxious kid. I loved the Diary of a Wimpy Kid books and it dealt with many of the same conflicts. I think I might just like Inside Out 2.
Courtney Howard’s View from the Center Seat
Courtney Howard liked Inside Out 2 more than Luke did, she gave it a B in her review for FreshFiction.tv, but she wishes it had higher stakes. I won’t go too much into her reasoning, as I didn’t with Luke’s either, because I want you to read her review, but I will say that some of the things she wished were in the film are things I am glad are not there.
Combined with Luke’s review of the film, Courntey’s review makes me want to give Disney another chance with this franchise. There have been other film franchises where the sequels were better than the original. I never really liked the first Shrek, ask me about its connection to the Wife of Bath’s Tale and how that shapes my dislike for the film some time, but I’m a big fan of the franchise as a whole and an even bigger fan of the spinoffs. The same goes for Kung Fu Panda. I’m not big on the “I will train you in the martial arts, just so you can murder my son” arc as the foundation for a kids movie, but the rest of the franchise manages to balance the jiang hu stories with child appropriate arcs. So too might Inside Out 2.
Glimpses from the Substackosphere and Bloggerverse
The B/X (Basic and Expert) rules set for Dungeons & Dragons edited by Tom Moldvay and Dave Cook has always been my favorite edition of the game and my early experiences with Keep on the Borderlands (Module B2) are a big reason why. If you want a glimpse of how challenging and interesting that adventure can be, Castle Grief gives us a glimpse of a real life home game that is well worth the read.
I was not prepared for Alec Worley’s most recent Newsletter entry over atAgent of Weird: Exploring the Write Fantastic which asks the question “Is this the End for Sword & Sorcery?” It’s a very good piece with a lot to say. So much so that I’ll be writing a longer response to it in the coming weeks. This is the kind of conversation that gets the geek mind racing with new ideas. I will say that Sword & Sorcery has always been at risk of being past its sell by date when it falls into the Thud & Blunder pits, but it is at its best when it surprises us and it frequently surprises us. My favorite Sword & Sorcery duo, and S&S is filled with duos, are Hereward and Mr. Fitz and they are a far cry from Thud & Blunder.
In an era where fandom conventions are BIG business, it’s wonderful to see an event that is entirely for and by the fans with no attempts at celebrity draw to bring in the masses. Instead, the focus is on the source of the fandom and that is why Howard Days are about. I’ve yet to attend, even though I am a Foundation member, but it is definitely on my bucket list. Mark Finn does a wonderful job of showing how and why this is such an important event for Howard fans in his most recent entry to his regular Substack newsletterThe North Texas Apocalypse Bunker Weekly Report. Definitely in my future plans.
Role Playing Game Recommendation
Since the two film reviews I shared this week were both for an animated film, I thought I’d recommend the best Animated Film Roleplaying Game ever written. That’s right, I’m recommending Toon. Written by Warren Spector and Greg Costikyan, this game accomplishes the near impossible. It provides a rules set robust enough to capture any cartoon experience, while being an easy to play game in a way that makes it a perfect introductory role playing game. I adore this game and you will too. Check it out and don’t get bonked!
Music Recommendation
Music recommendations are going to be quick and easy this week with minimal commentary. I wrote too much in my intro to wax poetic here, but I’ll start with KMFDM’s industrial classic More & Faster. After all, I referenced it in the general discussion bit.
As a part of my Fathers’ Day movie marathon I watched John Wick with my wife and kids. The song Think by Kaleida is featured in one of my favorite moments of the film and is a great example of how music and image can combine for great effect.
Speaking of songs and action flicks, I’ve always thought that Portugal. The Man’s Feel it Still would make for a great song to play in the background during a massive John Woo-esque gunfight. I might just add it to my Feng Shui RPG play list.
Classic Film Recommendation
For all of its flaws, and there are abundant flaws from costuming to score, I adore Ladyhawke. I think it is an almost perfect fairy tale. It combines so many Arthurian tropes with folklore and werewolf tales and weaves them together masterfully to create a truly original tale. The root conflict echoes The Wife of Bath’s Tale in that there is a transformation curse that can only be broken by an impossible action. In the case of The Wife of Bath’s tale, it is Gawain’s embodiment of chivalric courtesy that breaks the spell, here it is giving into faith that wins out. What makes that surrender to faith all the more impressive is that the curse that is at the root of the tale was imposed on the protagonists by the Bishop, the representative of the faith.
It is a truly great movie.
Cheers for the shoutout, Christian!
Appreciate the shoutout here!!