| |
Discussion: PT article: "Glee" and Psychology
Member Since: 3/4/2009
Posts: 5,549
|
PT article: "Glee" and Psychology
Interesting analysis of the popular show "Glee" on Psychology Today:
Glee & Psychology
Glee v. Gloom: The Strange Power of Negativity
Published on November 19, 2010
Quote:
It's truly amazing. Only a brilliant business mind could invent the two-headed, cross-pollinating tele-musical monster that is Glee. I bet "glee" also describes the emotional experience of the show's executives when they're cashing their ginormous checks each week. Jumping for joy may be more like it. Exhibits A, B, and C: The ratings for the TV series are outstanding (per episode, season 1 had about 9.77 million viewers), the merchandise is flying off the shelves (you'll soon be able to purchase a Glee karaoke game for the Nintendo Wii), and the music has been a stunning commercial success (the Glee cast had 25 of Billboard's top-100 singles in 2009).
There is at least one evil cloud on the horizon, however. Is Glee anti-Christian? According to Wikipedia, the Parents Television Council had a few choice words for Glee, naming it "The Worst Show of the Week." Why? Well, they probably don't love the licentious and profligate behavior of the characters, or something. Y'know, it "crosses the line." Is lacing bake-sale brownies with Assassin of Youth really that bad? C'mon!
To be honest, I don't really get it. Glee seems so positive. For the members of New Directions, it's all about working together to pursue worthy, prosocial goals. What could be more Christian than that?
Glee also reminds me of something similar to Christianity: the struggle between good and evil. Will Schuester and the rest of the New Directions ensemble represent good (though not very frequently Christian) values (hmmm..., maybe that's where the Christians are getting hung up). But they're constantly threatened by malevolent forces, embodied most poignantly (and hilariously) in Sue Sylvester, head coach of Cheerios. She's one bad girl: selfish, corrupt, deceitful, cruel, vindictive...
And as if that's not enough, in addition to Sue and her Cheerios, New Directions has a whole additional raft of detractors, a foul phalanx as it were, of evil forces working to undermine it. Just think of Will's wife Terri, who is unrelenting in her quest to force him to quit the fun stuff and become an accountant in order to feed her outrageous and insatiable acquisitiveness. By contrast, the good guys on Glee seem like a feeble, pathetic, weak lot, or at best quaint and nonthreatening. We get the sense immediately that there be a storm a'brewin' with which the motley crew of social rejects comprising New Directions isn't exactly equipped to deal. (And this theme is by no means new, it's been echoed in movies (from Star Wars to Dodgeball), sports (The Yankees), etc.)
How well do these good v. gloom themes fit the psychological reality? Is "bad" stronger than "good"? Incredibly, we can answer this question, at least from a subjective standpoint. Here's some food for thought: What is it that we pay attention to more and remember better: good (assets and gains) or bad (threats and losses)? Are good occurrences (say, winning $5), as satisfying as negative occurrences of objectively equal impact (say, losing $5) are disconcerting?
Bad and no. Losses are more salient than gains by a long shot. Bad is indeed "stronger" (more noteworthy, memorable) than good. This tendency to process adverse events more fully than favorable ones is called the negativity bias. We don't weigh positive and negative aspects of an object equally in forming an overall impression of it. We heavily favor the negative. In other words, we care more that something is not bad than that it is good. Get it?
As an example, think about romantic relationships. If you want to make your partner happy, it is more important that you don't do destructive (bad) acts than that you do perform constructive (good) acts. It takes at least five constructive acts (compliments, flowers, etc.) to undo the effects of one destructive act (insult, forgotten anniversary), and a tenable long-term ratio of constructive to destructive acts for relationships that don't end in divorce is about 20:1 (Gottman, 1993). Bad is insidious, good isn't. As the old Russian saying goes, "A spoonful of tar can spoil a barrel of honey, but a spoonful of honey does nothing for a barrel of tar."
So, bad generally triumphs over good in the majority of situations for the majority of people. But that's not the end of the story. It turns out that the negativity bias may not be so bad after all. Sometimes negativity brings benefits that positivity doesn't. In three words: safety and survival.
Let me explain. Unless you think God has you covered in a force shield, then you know you have to look out for yourself. It only takes one bad accident (falling off a bridge, stepping in front of a bus, etc.) to royally screw yourself over. From a survival standpoint, it's more important that we avoid dangerous, life-threatening things than it is for us to pursue positive opportunities (like food, sex, etc.). If we fail to notice the positive opportunity, we will at least live to have similar opportunities in the future. If we ignore threats like predators, then it will quickly be game over. This is the power of negativity and the logical basis for the negativity bias.
So, where does that leave Glee? As we saw in the pilot episode, "By its very definition glee is about opening yourself up to joy." This process of opening up can be risky, however, because if you fail to notice threats, you may suffer a great deal and you might even get killed. But, the world is not nearly as threatening as it was for our ancestors. Becoming a well-adjusted person requires us to form realistic impressions of the dangers we actually face from one situation to the next. Despite our propensity to key in on the negative, reality is usually pretty benign. The take-home message: more and more, we should feel free to take the measured risks that are often necessary in order to experience glee.
|
source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...lee-psychology
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/26/2009
Posts: 2,238
|
Except their covers of great songs, this show is nothing, the story is boring.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2008
Posts: 4,165
|
Even if the show is bad, it's extremely popular with teenagers, even the most macho jocks watch it which is good because the show is promoting gay rights/equality.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/18/2009
Posts: 1,295
|
The show isn't bad though, it takes deeper looking into the show to see what the recurring themes and lessons are. It certainly has a positive impact on society, which was showcased in the news recently with what is being called the "Glee effect." It's restoring interest in music and musical programs at schools. It's not just popular with teens. If it was it wouldn't be as big a force as it is. Glee has a lot of benefit for those who are willing to take the time to look into it. The psychology of the show is definitely interesting, but Glee isn't about the negative. It's about the positive. It's an underdog story, and we love those kinds of stories.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/5/2009
Posts: 137,162
|
The show is epic.
The songs are epic.
The characters are epic.
The stories are epic.
GLEE. is. EPIC.
No questions need to be made, no speculations or opinions need to be said.. it's just the truth. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
