From: tmark@cognet.ucla.edu (Terence Mark)
Subject: Re: Are you serious
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:48:05 GMT

In article <1gjgm3INN6jd@athena.sdsu.edu> larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel) writes:
>
>Matthew S. 'Opie' Warren (warren-matthew@cs.yale.edu) wrote:
>> larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel) writes:
>> >Kuz I (ikuz@cs.vu.nl) wrote:
>> I would say that at least part of the appeal of the show lies in
>> its very unreality.
>
>I'm assuming that by reality we are talking about the subjective reality
>of human perception rather than a fixed absolute reality, since it's
>impossible to discuss that.
>
>To the extent that I cannot empathize with someone's life, I won't
>perceive that person's life as real, because that's the nature
>of empathy (as I'm using the term at least).  Different people develop
>the ability to empathize with others to varying degrees, depending
>on their desire to do so, and of course on their own experience.  If a
>fictional work contains characters and relationships with whom some of
>the readers/viewers can empathize, then that work is realistic to that
>extent.
>
>Poorly written, produced, directed and acted shows will not have
>characters with whom normal people can empathize to an appreciable
>level.  Some people DO empathize to a high degree with the characters
>and relationships on 90210, and that empathy makes the show "realistic"
>to us.

>>                                         It's well-nigh impossible to
>> maintain willing suspension of disbelief in this kind of environment,
>> and the fact that we can't means that we can watch the show more
>> casually, and with less emotional damage, than we could otherwise.
>
>So yes, if we can't empathize with something, we will perceive it as
>"unrealistic," and that gives us the freedom to have attitudes towards
>it that we wouldn't feel comfortable with if we could relate it to
>our reality.  Unfortunately, this attitude applies as much to
>non-fictional as to fictional reality (viz 90210).
>
>Inability to empathize with the characters or the relationships on 90210
>does not make them "unreal."
>

I once knew a person (and I know there are many more) who honestly
believed that the wrestling and story lines depicted in the
World Wrestling Federation shows were 'real'. He could get into
quite animated and heated discussions about whether or not the wrestlers
were really hurting each other, whether Hulk Hogan was "really" fooling
around with Elizabeth, mate of Randy Macho Man Savage, etc. He was
*not* kidding, either. He was *very* funny to talk to, but the experience
was also somewhat disturbing.

It is thus with the same kind of amusement I read comments like the above.
I *assume* that most of us would agree that professional wrestling
is *not* realistic (maybe not a safe assumption in this group), just
like I *assume* most of us here would agree that the situations portrayed
in,say, Gilligan's Island are not realistic. If one was, however, to find 
someone who *did* think these shows were realistic, would that then
render them any *less* UN-realistic ? Or might we better conclude that  
there was something off-center about that person's judgement ?