#david altheide

[quotesfrommyreading]

The last moral panic centered on widespread physical dangers to America’s children began in the early 1980s. Several high-profile and disturbing stories became media spectacles, including the 1981 murder (and then beheading) of 6-year-old Adam Walsh, who was abducted from a Sears department store in Hollywood, Florida. The Adam Walsh story was made into a TV movie that aired on NBC in October 1983, the same year that the 1979 disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz was fictionalized in the theatrically released movie Without a Trace.

Adam’s father, John Walsh, who later spent more than two decades as the host of America’s Most Wanted, claimed that 50,000 children were abducted “for reasons of foul play” in the United States every year. He warned a Senate subcommittee in 1983: “This country is littered with mutilated, decapitated, raped, strangled children.” In response, Congress passed two laws—establishing a nationwide hotline and creating the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The panic prompted the building of shopping-mall kiosks where parents could fingerprint or videotape their children to make them easier for police to identify. According to the sociologist David Altheide, it also led to the advertising of dental-identification implants for people who did not yet have their permanent teeth, as well as the creation of a cottage industry of missing-child insurance to cover the cost of private detectives in the event of an abduction. As a 1986 story in The Atlantic recounted, the nonprofit National Child Safety Council printed photos of missing children on 3 billion milk cartons; a person would have had to be paying close attention to notice that all the photos were of the same 106 faces. (The photos also appeared on grocery bags, Coca-Cola bottles, thruway toll tickets, and pizza boxes.) “Ordinary citizens may have encountered explicit reminders of missing children more often than for any other social problem,” the sociologist Joel Best wrote in 1987.

The fear of stranger abduction was partly a product of the cultural environment at the time. “Family values” political rhetoric drove paranoia about the drug trade, pornography, and crime. Second-wave feminism had encouraged more women to enter the workforce, though not without societal pressure to feel guilt and anxiety about leaving their children at home alone, or in the care of strangers. The divorce rate was rising, and custody battles were becoming more common, leading to the complicated legal situation of “family abduction,” or “child snatching.”

Yet there was still a backstop, a way for the panic to end. The Denver Post won a Pulitzer Prize for its 1985 story laboriously debunking the statistics that had caused such widespread alarm. The actual number of children kidnapped by strangers, according to FBI documentation, turned out to be 67 in 1983, up from 49 in 1982. A two-part PBS special explained the statistics and addressed the role that made-for-TV movies and media coverage had played in stoking the fire; a study conducted in 1987 by Altheide and the crime analyst Noah Fritz found that three-quarters of viewers who had previously considered “missing children” a serious problem changed their minds immediately after watching it. With the arrival of better information, the missing-children panic faded.

But decades later, fears have flared again. “You know how they used to have the kids on the milk cartons way back in the day?” Jaesie Hansen, a Utah-based mother of four who sells Operation Underground Railroad and #SaveOurChildren decals on Etsy, asked me in July. “That wouldn’t even be a possibility now, because there’s so many kids. There’s not enough milk cartons to put them on.”

  —  The Great (Fake) Child-Sex-Trafficking Epidemic

[garudabluffs]

David Altheide, Gonzo Governance: The Media Logic of Donald Trump

"Donald Trump arose from a fantasy—aka Reality TV—then transmuted real democratic institutions through what I call Gonzo Governance."

In a prescient awareness of the future impact of Media Logic on journalism and politics, Hunter Thompson quipped, “Yesterday’s weirdness is tomorrow’s reason why.” 

June 30, 2021 Gonzo Governance by David Altheide

READ MORE https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/30/gonzo-governance/

David L. Altheide is Regents’ Professor Emeritus at Arizona State University. His most recent book is Gonzo Governance: The Media Logic of Donald Trump (2023).

[bellavaughan]

(Download PDF) Gonzo Governance: The Media Logic of Donald Trump - David Altheide

Download Or Read PDF Gonzo Governance: The Media Logic of Donald Trump - David Altheide Free Full Pages Online With Audiobook.

  [*] Download PDF Here => Gonzo Governance: The Media Logic of Donald Trump

[*] Read PDF Here => Gonzo Governance: The Media Logic of Donald Trump

 Drawing on social science and communications theory, Gonzo Governance offers a new interpretation of Presidential power that shifts focus to the media dynamics that surrounded Donald Trump. The former President's unhinged behavior and skilled media and digital manipulations changed the nature and process of significant governance at the federal and state levels, including denying election results and restricting voting opportunities. He went 'Gonzo' - promoting himself without regard for conventional norms and practices - and blasted ideological fault lines into explosive political fragments, resulting in so much dissensus that numerous legislators would not recognize the newly elected President Biden, nor would they agree to take a potential life-saving vaccine because it had been associated with a politicized virus, Covid-19.Nurtured by media logic and a communications ecology that has wedded people to digital technologies and formats that govern the structure, grammar, form,

[sociolologist]

Trolling or not this is still propaganda and still further proves my point because (for example) with FOX news and CNN, people do fall for fake news like this in the U.S.

If interested, see articles by David Altheide on the politics of fear for more examples and research on this subject.

You can even take current events such like the Coronavoris pandemic and see how news outlets are relating information, how they word it and it's impact on the general population.

Are people overreacting? Why? How are institutions handling it? What are people at the top telling the rest of us folks?

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

[oleggaevoy-blog]

Media platforms and its algorithm

Since the beginning of the twenty first century, social media platforms are widely spread into all mechanism of our life, and in turn, influence the actions of individuals, institutional regulation and professional routine. Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, mass media and broadcast companies picked up power and control by cementing their rules and regulation as well as creating discourse which move away from public areas. According to Altheide,  mass media logic is a set of principles  or common sense  rationality cultivated  in and by media  institutions  that penetrates every public domain  and dominates its organizing structures: “ In contemporary society, every institution has become  part of a media culture: changes have occurred in every major institution that are a result of media logic  in presenting and interrupting activity in those institution". (Altheide, 1979). Proclaiming neutrality and independence, Mass Media still has the ability to frame and create reality for their consumers. In fact, they act as thin filters through which some people, events or opinion get more exposure then others. R. Williams suggest that broadcast media creates a programmed flow, which captures the attention of audience and glues them to the screen. (Williams, 1974)

The rise of computers and interaction through the Web has changed the world of media in the end of twentieth century. The number of technological and socio-cultural trends in computer development, which is linked to the skyrocketing development of social media platforms and Web2.0 development.  This in turn rapidly transforms numerous social domains including media and communication. According to Kaplan and Haenlein social media can be referred to as a “group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of the Web 2.0 and that allow the creation and exchange of user generated content. (Kaplan, 2011) Social networking platforms such a Facebook and Twitter together with platforms based on user-generated content, such a YouTube and Flickr are constantly expanding to fit the new ecosystem of connective media. (Van Dijck, 2013) Traditional one-way traffic became two-way traffic between consumers of information and its creator or programmer. Certain algorithms, such as “people you may know” in LinkedIn was put forward for the consideration of social relations based on concluded data. David Beer suggest that the power of the algorithm lies in their programmability: programmers steer user experiences, content and user relationship via platforms. (Beer, 2009)

There is no doubt that every institution of modern human life can hardly avoid the vital importance of social media platforms. All kinds of players in education, politics, arts, entertainments and so forth, every acting part of our life – is confronted with the basic algorithms of social media platforms. The constant analyses of elements of Social media logic will assist in the understanding of reality in communication and information processes in networked conditions of social life.

    References

Altheide DL, S. R., 1979. Media Logic. International Jornal of Social Science, 28(2), pp. 597-599.

Beer, D., 2009. Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconsciousness.. New Media & Society, 11(6), pp. 985-1002.

Kaplan A.M, H. M., 2011. Two hearts in three-quarter time: How to waltz the social media/viral marketing dance.. Business Horizons, 54(3), pp. 253-263.

Van Dijck, J., 2013. The Culture of Connectivity. A critical history of social media. New York: Oxford Univercity Press.

Williams, R., 1974. Television: Technology and cultural form. first ed. London: Fontana.

[masterofminion-blog]

War On Teror

Oleh : Beggy Rizkiyansyah (Pegiat Jejak Islam Bangsa)

Peristiwa 11 September di Amerika Serikat sudah berlalu 17 tahun. Kejadian menggemparkan tersebut mengubah peta politik dunia. Menghancurkan kemudian setidaknya dua negeri, Irak dan Afghanistan hingga luluh lantak. 11 September ternyata mengubah dunia.

Pemerintahan George Bush menunggangi peristiwa tersebut untuk memenuhi ambisi imperialisme minyaknya. Serbuan ke Irak atas nama “War on Terror” menjadi satu dalih perebutan sumber daya minyak, yang bukan saja menjadikan jutaan rakyat Irak dalam kesengsaraan, tetapi juga penghancuran peninggalan sejarah selama ribuan tahun.

Bush dengan licik mengobarkan patriotisme semu dan menggalang rasa takut rakyat Amerika Serikat untuk memulai petualangan imperialisnya ke Irak. Politik rasa takut menjadi landasan rezim bush untuk mengelabui rakyatnya sendiri, mendapatkan mandat atas nama kecemasan akan teror, untuk berangkat dengan dalih perang atas nama teror.

Kajian propaganda menunjukkan bahwa para pengambil keputusan dalam satu pemerintahan menjadi kunci bagi sumber berita yang dapat membentuk persepsi dari pembaca atau pemirsa (mass audience), mempromosikan dan mendapatkan persetujuan untuk mengontrol negara. (David Altheide: 2006)

Rasa takut publik AS dieksploitasi oleh rezim Bush dengan mengobarkan propaganda perang atas nama teror meski itu menginjak-injak supremasi hukum, hak asasi manusia dan kebenaran informasi.  Meski AS mempromosikan dirinya sebagai negara demokratis, namun demokrasi dapat dikangkangi dengan mengelola rasa takut publik AS. Rasa takut akan teror(isme) dimanfaatkan Bush dengan menciptakan ilusi musuh AS.

Dampak terbesar dari wacana rasa takut adalah mempromosikan rasa ketidakteraturan (disorder) dan kepercayaan bahwa ‘segalanya di luar kendali.’ Kehidupan sosial menjadi lebih berbahaya ketika aktor sosial mendefinisikan situasi sebagai ‘menakutkan’ dan terlibat dalam komunitas (masyarakat) lewat wacana rasa takut. Rasa takut menjadi mekanisme pengendali untuk mempertahankan ketertiban sosial dan elemen apapun yang tidak sejalan akan dianggap sebagai ancaman. (David Altheide: 2006)

Para politisi dan lembaga kontrol negara bekerja dengan media untuk mengkapitalisasi dan mempromosikan rasa tidak aman sehingga mengandalkan lembaga negara untuk melakukan kontrol sosial. Hasilnya adalah pengawasan, perlindungan, dendam dan hukuman untuk menyelamatkan mereka (warga AS). Perspektif keamanan ini menjadi dominan dan mengabaikan hukum.

Menurut Magnus Hornqvist dalam The Birth of Public Order Policy (2004) menyebutkan bahwa mentalitas keamanan berarti beberapa hal. Pertama, faktor utamanya bukan lagi aksi individual apa yang telah dilakukan, tetapi kelompok apa mereka? Pengungsi, Muslim, Arab? Kedua, dengan logika keamanan, bukan lagi perilaku atau perbuatan yang menjadi intinya, tetapi apakah individu itu akan berbahaya? Akhirnya, tahap ketiga, intervensi atas individu atau sekelompok orang dilakukan tanpa mengindahkan proses peradilan.

Studi David Altheide dalam Terrorism and the Politics of Fear (2006) menyebutkan bahwa serangan 9/11 membuat aktor politik (pemerintahan Bush) meluaskan definisi hingga semua orang Amerika adalah korban. Lebih lanjut, mereka yang berjuang melindungi korban aktual dan potensial harus diizinkan meneruskan kegiatan mereka, tanpa dibatasi persoalan kemerdekaan sipil, atau mempersoalkan konteks dan kerumitan, menjadi satu hal yang sederhana: Orang jahat menyerang orang baik, dan kejahatan harus dihancurkan.(David Altheide: 2006). Bukankah Bush sendiri yang dengan gampangnya mengatakan, “You either with Us or against Us in the war of terror.”

Kutipan George Bush “Kau bersama kami atau melawan kami dalam perang terhadap teror”

Pernyataan bahwa semua orang Amerika adalah korban adalah satu cara untuk meluaskan definisi korban (indirect victim). Dengan cerdiknya Bush kemudian merancukan makna terorisme dan kejahatan. Bush menyebut Al-Qaeda sebagai mafia. “Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime,” demikian Bush menyebutnya.

Penyebutan ini bukan tanpa maksud, Bush mengatakan demikian, menurut David Altheide mengutip D. Garland (2001) bahwa pendengar akan mengasumsikan bahwa terorisme, seperti kejahatan – terutama “kejahatan mafia” – adalah tangan hitam jahat yang tak terlihat, dimana-mana, sangat kuat, dan hanya bisa dihentikan dengan kekuatan yang lebih kuat, jika warga Amerika mau selamat. Di sinilah menurut Altheide, peran dari “identitas korban” yang telah diluaskan, sehingga para “korban tak langsung” diharapkan melakukan aktivitas tertentu, bahasa tertentu dan mengikuti tindakan tertentu, merasa tak berdaya, sehingga bergantung pada institusi negara utuk menyelamatkan dan mendukung mereka.

 Bush sengaja memakai istilah-istilah rancu dan absurd seperti “Al-Qaeda dan Mafia” atau bahkan Bush menyebutkan bahwa “pemakai narkoba adalah pendukung teroris.” Tentu saja itu adalah pernyataan yang tak logis. Namun bagi Bush, semua memiliki tujuan. Yaitu mewabahkan wacana rasa takut. Politik rasa takut yang dibentuk oleh para penguasa memanipulasi kepercayaan masyarakat sehingga masyarakat berasumsi tentang sebuah bahaya, resiko dan ancaman, untuk mencapai tujuan tertentu. (David Altheide: 2006)

 Penyerangan ke Irak, Afghanistan, Penjara Guantanamo, dan penyiksaan di Abu Ghuraib menjadi bukti betapa politik rasa takut dalam kemasan “War on Terror” rezim Bush mampu mengangkangi hukum dan hak asasi manusia

Pertanyaan kritis yang diajukan kepada tindak-tanduk rezim Bush, dapat dianggap satu serangan terhadap patriotisme Amerika Serikat. Hal ini terjadi pada Senator Ted Kennedy ketika rezim Bush berusaha menjual isu memerangi teror di Irak. Saat itu Kennedy mengatakan,

“The Administration capitalized on the fear created by 9/11 and put spin on the intelligence and a spin on the truth to justify a war that could well be one of the worst blunders in more than two centuries of American Policy.” (Lance W. Bennet dkk: 2007)

Kennedy pun diserang oleh politisi Partai Republik. Kennedy dituding telah menghina patriotisme presiden Bush. Tentu saja politik rasa takut dengan kemasan “War on terror” rezim Bush tak akan dapat berdiri tanpa ditopang pers partisan yang turut menyerang setiap kritik yang dialamatkan pada Bush.

 Lance W. Bennet, professor Komunikasi dan Ilmu Politik dari University of Washington menyebutkan bahwa;

“The public front in the Bush administration’s battle for the hearts and minds of Americans was a ceaseless barrage of fear and patriotism. Those images were amplified by conservstive media networks that echoed searing denunciations of any opponent…” (Lance W. Bennet dkk: 2007)

Namun bukan pers partisan saja yang bermasalah. Kajian Lance W. Bennet dkk (2007) menunjukkan bahwa pers kredibel seperti New York Times dan Washington Post pun kehilangan taji dalam persoalan “War on Terror.” Di antara penyebabnya adalah kedua media tersebut selalu mengandalkan pemerintah sebagai sumber informasi tanpa daya kritik dan pembanding yang memadai.

Di negara yang terbuka dan pers yang liberal seperti AS, penguasa dapat mengeksploitasi ketakutan dan memanipulasi rakyatnya dengan jargon “War on terror.” “War on terror” menjadi semacam waralaba yang berkembang kemana-mana. Daya sihirnya yang memakai politik rasa takut disambut berbagai rezim. Di Mesir, rezim As-Sisi melakukan perang melawan teror untuk melumpuhkan kelompok Ikhwanul Muslimin.

Di Cina, rezim komunis Cina menyambut “War on terror” untuk membungkan perjuangan kelompok oposisi di Turkistan Timur (Xinjiang). Perjuangan muslim Uighur di Turkistan Timur dihantam dengan perlakuan represif pemerintah Cina. Tak lama setelah September 2001, pemerintah Cina segera menyebut kaum oposisi di Xinjiang terkait terorisme internasional. (Human Rights Watch: 2005)

Di bulan Oktober 2001, jubir Menteri Luar Negeri Cina menyebut diri mereka sebagai “korban dari terorisme internasional.” Sebulan kemudian, mereka mengatakan pada Dewan Keamanan PBB, bahwa gerakan anti negara di Uighur terkait dengan Taliban di Afghanistan dan didukung oleh organisasi Islam radikal dari luar negeri. (Human Rights Watch: 2005)

Pemerintah Cina secara aktif memakai istilah “Pasukan Teroris Turkistan Timur.” Pemakaian label ini berarti menganggap semua orang Uighur yang mereka anggap separatis sebagai teroris. Nasib orang-orang Uighur yang sudah diujung tanduk semakin terdesak dengan label teroris yang berarti kemungkinan negara memakai tindakan-tindakan mengangkangi hokum dan Hak asasi Manusia semakin nyata. (Human Rights Watch: 2005)

17 tahun setelah peristiwa 11 September 2001, “War on terror” menjadi salah satu ekspor mematikan Amerika Serikat. Tidak perlu politik yang sejalan. Cina adalah salah satu contoh negara pesaing AS yang ikut gelombang “War on terror.” Politik rasa takut menjadi jualan yang efektif baik di negeri terbuka seperti AS, apalagi di negeri-negeri otoriter seperti Cina atau Mesir dan negara lainnya.

[ongames]

Why We 'Freeze' In Uncomfortable Situations

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible);

How could former FBI Director James Comey, a 6-foot-8 onetime prosecutor known to stand up to power — feel “stunned” and lapse into an “awkward” silence during a conversation with President Donald Trump?

That’s how Comey described his silent response to Trump’s demand for loyalty in a private conversation that the fired FBI chief illuminated during a U.S. Senate hearing yesterday (June 8).

Comey may tower over the president, but it turns out he succumbed to a human behavior that is not uncommon in which people temporarily freeze, especially when something shocking is said and there’s an unequal power dynamic at play, said Samuel Wang, a professor of neuroscience at Princeton University. [5 Ways Your Emotions Influence Your World (and Vice Versa)]

“In such a situation, we don’t have the tools to respond appropriately,” Wang told Live Science. “And so, a fairly natural response is to pause. When you add to that the fact that the president of the United States is a powerful person, then the power dynamic makes it even more of a fear or shock response.”

Wang noted that Comey likely froze because he’s used to following procedure, and “for him to be with an authority figure who goes far outside the bounds of normal behavior and starts demanding loyalty and [seems to be] attempting to obstruct justice, this is just beyond shocking,” Wang said.

Likewise, people in inferior positions might be stunned into silence, and might worry about offending a superior or saying something “wrong” following a socially unacceptable exchange, largely because of the repercussions that might follow, said David Altheide, a regents’ professor emeritus of sociology at Arizona State University.

It’s not uncommon for people to step beyond the range of socially acceptable behavior, whether it’s between friends, a parent and a child or an employee and an employer, Altheide said. Moreover, these moments of unacceptable behavior tend to happen more frequently with minorities and women, Altheide told Live Science.

How to respond

There are several ways Comey could have responded, and many women may be familiar with these.

“Women, in general, are extremely good at dealing with intimidation because they experience it a lot and so they are often more prepared to be intimidated, to be in awkward situations,” Altheide said. “They develop a number of defense interaction styles.”

For instance, people on the receiving end of intimidation might use humor to diffuse the situation, change the subject or, like Comey, wait a moment before answering, Altheide said. Other tactics that can buy time include repeating the question or going off on a tangent, such as by saying, “Boy, that reminds me of the time when…,” Altheide said. Many people resort to nervous laughter, he added.

Sometimes people think of the perfect thing or zinger to say hours or even days after the conversation took place. In most cases, it’s probably best to let it be, and instead learn from the experience, Altheide said.

“It doesn’t make sense to drive back to the bar where you were two hours later and say, ‘What I meant to say is…,’” Altheide said. Rather, you can review your newfound response and then think of tactics that will give you time to collect your thoughts the next time you’re unsure of what to say.

However, if you think of something important that you left out of a key conversation, it might be worth your while to follow up. Let’s say you flubbed an unexpected question during a job interview: “You could send an email, you could call them up,” Altheide said. “You could say, ‘I just want to make clear how I would handle that situation,’ or ‘I just want to make clear this point about my background and experience.’” [Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors]

Had Comey anticipated Trump’s question, he could have said something along the lines of, “As I suggested before, what I meant and what I conveyed to you is X,” Altheide said.

Rather, Comey’s experience shows that people in all walks of life can encounter a situation that stuns them into silence. When asked today by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., why he didn’t tell the president “that is not an appropriate request,” or alert the White House counsel, Comey explained what his state of mind was like at the time.

“I don’t know,” Comey said at the hearing. “As I said earlier, I think the circumstances were such that it was — I was a bit stunned and didn’t have the presence of mind.”

Original article on Live Science.

Editor’s Recommendations

The 6 Strangest Presidential Elections in US History

6 Politicians Who Got the Science Wrong

Top 10 Mysteries of the Mind

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Why We 'Freeze' In Uncomfortable Situations published first on http://ift.tt/2lnpciY

[yes-dal456]

Why We 'Freeze' In Uncomfortable Situations

//<![CDATA[ function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); //]]>

How could former FBI Director James Comey, a 6-foot-8 onetime prosecutor known to stand up to power — feel “stunned” and lapse into an “awkward” silence during a conversation with President Donald Trump?

That’s how Comey described his silent response to Trump’s demand for loyalty in a private conversation that the fired FBI chief illuminated during a U.S. Senate hearing yesterday (June 8).

Comey may tower over the president, but it turns out he succumbed to a human behavior that is not uncommon in which people temporarily freeze, especially when something shocking is said and there’s an unequal power dynamic at play, said Samuel Wang, a professor of neuroscience at Princeton University. [5 Ways Your Emotions Influence Your World (and Vice Versa)]

“In such a situation, we don’t have the tools to respond appropriately,” Wang told Live Science. “And so, a fairly natural response is to pause. When you add to that the fact that the president of the United States is a powerful person, then the power dynamic makes it even more of a fear or shock response.”

Wang noted that Comey likely froze because he’s used to following procedure, and “for him to be with an authority figure who goes far outside the bounds of normal behavior and starts demanding loyalty and [seems to be] attempting to obstruct justice, this is just beyond shocking,” Wang said.

Likewise, people in inferior positions might be stunned into silence, and might worry about offending a superior or saying something “wrong” following a socially unacceptable exchange, largely because of the repercussions that might follow, said David Altheide, a regents’ professor emeritus of sociology at Arizona State University.

It’s not uncommon for people to step beyond the range of socially acceptable behavior, whether it’s between friends, a parent and a child or an employee and an employer, Altheide said. Moreover, these moments of unacceptable behavior tend to happen more frequently with minorities and women, Altheide told Live Science.

How to respond

There are several ways Comey could have responded, and many women may be familiar with these.

“Women, in general, are extremely good at dealing with intimidation because they experience it a lot and so they are often more prepared to be intimidated, to be in awkward situations,” Altheide said. “They develop a number of defense interaction styles.”

For instance, people on the receiving end of intimidation might use humor to diffuse the situation, change the subject or, like Comey, wait a moment before answering, Altheide said. Other tactics that can buy time include repeating the question or going off on a tangent, such as by saying, “Boy, that reminds me of the time when…,” Altheide said. Many people resort to nervous laughter, he added.

Sometimes people think of the perfect thing or zinger to say hours or even days after the conversation took place. In most cases, it’s probably best to let it be, and instead learn from the experience, Altheide said.

“It doesn’t make sense to drive back to the bar where you were two hours later and say, ‘What I meant to say is…,’” Altheide said. Rather, you can review your newfound response and then think of tactics that will give you time to collect your thoughts the next time you’re unsure of what to say.

However, if you think of something important that you left out of a key conversation, it might be worth your while to follow up. Let’s say you flubbed an unexpected question during a job interview: “You could send an email, you could call them up,” Altheide said. “You could say, ‘I just want to make clear how I would handle that situation,’ or ‘I just want to make clear this point about my background and experience.’” [Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors]

Had Comey anticipated Trump’s question, he could have said something along the lines of, “As I suggested before, what I meant and what I conveyed to you is X,” Altheide said.

Rather, Comey’s experience shows that people in all walks of life can encounter a situation that stuns them into silence. When asked today by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., why he didn’t tell the president “that is not an appropriate request,” or alert the White House counsel, Comey explained what his state of mind was like at the time.

“I don’t know,” Comey said at the hearing. “As I said earlier, I think the circumstances were such that it was — I was a bit stunned and didn’t have the presence of mind.”

Original article on Live Science.

Editor’s Recommendations

The 6 Strangest Presidential Elections in US History

6 Politicians Who Got the Science Wrong

Top 10 Mysteries of the Mind

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from http://ift.tt/2ti68H9 from Blogger http://ift.tt/2tiKmTx

[imreviewblog]

Why We 'Freeze' In Uncomfortable Situations

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible);

How could former FBI Director James Comey, a 6-foot-8 onetime prosecutor known to stand up to power — feel “stunned” and lapse into an “awkward” silence during a conversation with President Donald Trump?

That’s how Comey described his silent response to Trump’s demand for loyalty in a private conversation that the fired FBI chief illuminated during a U.S. Senate hearing yesterday (June 8).

Comey may tower over the president, but it turns out he succumbed to a human behavior that is not uncommon in which people temporarily freeze, especially when something shocking is said and there’s an unequal power dynamic at play, said Samuel Wang, a professor of neuroscience at Princeton University. [5 Ways Your Emotions Influence Your World (and Vice Versa)]

“In such a situation, we don’t have the tools to respond appropriately,” Wang told Live Science. “And so, a fairly natural response is to pause. When you add to that the fact that the president of the United States is a powerful person, then the power dynamic makes it even more of a fear or shock response.”

Wang noted that Comey likely froze because he’s used to following procedure, and “for him to be with an authority figure who goes far outside the bounds of normal behavior and starts demanding loyalty and [seems to be] attempting to obstruct justice, this is just beyond shocking,” Wang said.

Likewise, people in inferior positions might be stunned into silence, and might worry about offending a superior or saying something “wrong” following a socially unacceptable exchange, largely because of the repercussions that might follow, said David Altheide, a regents’ professor emeritus of sociology at Arizona State University.

It’s not uncommon for people to step beyond the range of socially acceptable behavior, whether it’s between friends, a parent and a child or an employee and an employer, Altheide said. Moreover, these moments of unacceptable behavior tend to happen more frequently with minorities and women, Altheide told Live Science.

How to respond

There are several ways Comey could have responded, and many women may be familiar with these.

“Women, in general, are extremely good at dealing with intimidation because they experience it a lot and so they are often more prepared to be intimidated, to be in awkward situations,” Altheide said. “They develop a number of defense interaction styles.”

For instance, people on the receiving end of intimidation might use humor to diffuse the situation, change the subject or, like Comey, wait a moment before answering, Altheide said. Other tactics that can buy time include repeating the question or going off on a tangent, such as by saying, “Boy, that reminds me of the time when…,” Altheide said. Many people resort to nervous laughter, he added.

Sometimes people think of the perfect thing or zinger to say hours or even days after the conversation took place. In most cases, it’s probably best to let it be, and instead learn from the experience, Altheide said.

“It doesn’t make sense to drive back to the bar where you were two hours later and say, ‘What I meant to say is…,’” Altheide said. Rather, you can review your newfound response and then think of tactics that will give you time to collect your thoughts the next time you’re unsure of what to say.

However, if you think of something important that you left out of a key conversation, it might be worth your while to follow up. Let’s say you flubbed an unexpected question during a job interview: “You could send an email, you could call them up,” Altheide said. “You could say, ‘I just want to make clear how I would handle that situation,’ or ‘I just want to make clear this point about my background and experience.’” [Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors]

Had Comey anticipated Trump’s question, he could have said something along the lines of, “As I suggested before, what I meant and what I conveyed to you is X,” Altheide said.

Rather, Comey’s experience shows that people in all walks of life can encounter a situation that stuns them into silence. When asked today by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., why he didn’t tell the president “that is not an appropriate request,” or alert the White House counsel, Comey explained what his state of mind was like at the time.

“I don’t know,” Comey said at the hearing. “As I said earlier, I think the circumstances were such that it was — I was a bit stunned and didn’t have the presence of mind.”

Original article on Live Science.

Editor’s Recommendations

The 6 Strangest Presidential Elections in US History

6 Politicians Who Got the Science Wrong

Top 10 Mysteries of the Mind

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from Healthy Living - The Huffington Post http://bit.ly/2sxpiMo

[taknaib]

[garudabluffs]

Who and what is Donald Trump? 

"The short answer is that he is a meme."

"Recovering from Gonzo Governance": Media scholar on how journalism can get over "Trump, the meme"

Professor David L. Altheide on "Gonzo Governance" and "the media logic of Donald Trump"

"A meme is a cultural element, meaning, or ideological identification that is widely shared. Memes are similar to an urban legend with an emotional or bizarre appeal, but they tend to be shared via electronic technology and digital formats, often including a visual or graphic along with a few words or a phrase. Memes stir emotional responses and can create meanings and framings of issues and events.  The precise meaning of a specific post is less salient than the supportive interpretation of an audience member.

The Gonzo Trump spectacle became objectified as a meme. The evocative character of memes takes on added significance for President Trump. A large percentage of his tweets are in opposition or a reaction to a statement or action by others. The Twitter routine and the response are communicative independently of the specific content; it is Trump again! The postings may be considered as Donald Trump, the meme."

"I believe that digital media were key for Trump's impact and election. He is not just a populist demagogue but is a meme that resonates the politics of fear and vengeful emotions against institutions that have denied him legitimacy. His future success depends on weakening major social institutions."

stop the steal! make glamerica grate again!

READ MORE "Recovering from Gonzo Governance": Media scholar on how journalism can get over "Trump, the meme" | Salon.com

Donald Trump and His Adult Sons Are Planning a Dinner Party From Hell to Raise Money for His Alleged Coconspirators:

The candlelit Mar-a-Lago dinner is expected to raise up to $1 million to pay his codefendants’ legal bills.