False Sense of Reality in "True Enough"

Farhad Manjoo’s True Enough exposes the American public’s inability to think objectively, and how biases are subconsciously formed as individuals are fed information from different forms of media.  Now more than ever, Americans are forced to question reality, as theories that seemingly have no factual evidence are accepted.  Individuals with prestigious credentials speak persuasively and others believe them, even though they may be speaking “gobbledygook”.  Manjoo does not provide us with a solution for overcoming the false sense of reality that the media has created; he simply exposes us to the dangers of technology and globalization.  He describes how “no longer are we merely holding opinions different from one another; we’re also holding different facts” (2).  The most that we can do is recognize that this false sense of reality is tearing society apart.  By recognizing how information is constantly mangled to appeal to the biases of certain individuals, we can strive towards living in a society that eliminates making decisions based upon a false sense of reality.

The false sense of reality that is present in American society is heightened by “the burrowing underground of propaganda, the transformation of salesmanship from a flashy, street-corner affair to a quiet, dressed-up sport of cunning and deceit” (201).  Subconsciously, individuals are fed information that they process without even recognizing it.  VNR’s are implanted into newscasts, as advertisers have discovered that people are more likely to remember a product in this medium than in an actual commercial.  This creates an emotional response that appeals to the senses.  We suddenly feel like we need to buy Snickers, for example, as a Halloween snack. 

          Manjoo further exposes us to our vulnerability in accessing reliable sources of information through the Dr. Fox experiment.  In this experiment a comedian said “a whole lot in a style that suggested something of great import but that was actually complete nonsense” (113).  Someone who knew absolutely nothing about a subject could convince listeners that he was an expert on the subject, based on pure humor and personal style.  He managed to fool actual experts in a field, just by talking persuasively.  In fact, “students who were shown lectures that were high in both content and expressiveness reported the most satisfaction with their professor” (116).  As a society, America seemingly appreciates “style over substance” (116).  This certainly highlights our inability to perceive information correctly, and how a false sense of reality affects our ability to make decisions.  

Bias in "True Enough"

From reading the first half of "True Enough", Manjoo has showed me how biased we all are.  Nearly everything that is presented to us is formulated by a biased opinion, and then we formulate our own biased opinions.  Statistics are analyzed in a biased manner, in order to present facts that seem to support a certain view.  The major news networks, such as Fox and CNN, only present biased viewpoints to us now.  

Reporters like Anderson Cooper have made it big by voicing their opinions.  Cooper went after government officials during Hurricane Katrina because of their slow response time and urgency to aid disaster victims.  As viewers, we like to listen to the viewpoints of those who agree with us, as they reinforce our already existing biases.  

The way in which a person presents information is often more influential than what they are actually saying.  The Dr. Fox experiments show us that we are more tuned in to accepting peripheral cues than actually processing information and forming our own opinions.  Because Dr. Fox lectured students in a very expressive manner, they rated him very highly, even though there was no relevant content within his speech.  Just because he appeared to be knowledgeable, and he presented his argument in a persuasive manner, everybody loved him.  This is similar to how patients took incorrect advice on cold treatment because the doctor seemed warm and trustworthy, whereas they ignored a doctor's proper advice because he seemed careless and boring.  Our biases affect our decisions everyday. 

"True Enough" Reaction

          "True Enough" by Farhad Manjoo has been an eye-opening read so far.  Over the last few years, I have become aware of some of the conspiracy theories around the world.  Manjoo further examines these conspiracies when he describes how these theories actually gain momentum.  He describes a movement during World War II in which a shortage of protein would occur unless housewives began serving organ meats for their families.  The government persuaded housewives to serve this meat by changing what was acceptable for them.  This revealed that "what we understand to be the "truth" around us-is defined through our interactions with other people" (52).  Just because the housewives engaged in "organ-meat discussion groups", they were able to change their habits because they mutually agreed to serve organ meat. 
          Additionally, with the constant evolution of technology, it's becoming harder to understand what actually is real.  Manjoo describes this perfectly when he states "To light, the real danger of living in the age of Photoshop isn't the proliferation of fake photos.  Rather, it's that true photos will be ignored as phonies" (82).  Will photots someday lose all of their credibility?  Someone could easily photoshop an entire gallery of fake photos, in which they boast achievements that they never actually achieved.  At what point will we have to question how real our own photos are?  And when will every photo out there be suspect to investigation?  It's amazing how much technology can help us, yet at the same time hurt us.  How much of what we see in the media is true, and how much is false? And how much is technology separating what we perceive to be the truth, and what actually is the truth? 

"True Enough" First Glance

After reading the first 25 pages of "True Enough" by Farhad Manjoo, I am excited to see how the book will play out.  Manjoo brings up some very interesting points, such as how we are no longer "holding opinions different from one another; we're also holding different facts."  How can we deny scientific fact and take a position that isn't backed by empirical evidence?  And how are so many people drawn towards some opinions that seem so foolish?
Though Manjoo gave mention to many examples throughout the introduction, the one that struck me most was about the three-and-a-half-year-old girl, Eliza Jane Scovill, who died from the AIDS virus because her mother "had come to accept the unconventional views of a set of activists who argue that HIV does not cause AIDS."  Her mother refused to give her treatment because she saw validity in some bogus views of other activists.  I saw a Law and Order SVU episode exactly like this where the mother refused treatment for her daughter.  What's worst is that the mother is the one passing on the HIV virus, but she feels as if her daughter should not receive treatment.  Manjoo's stance, that now more than ever we are holding different facts, is a little bit scary.

Reebok Sneakers

          I found an article on The New York Times website about how Reebok needs to pay $25 million dollars over health claims, because they falsely advertised their toning shoes.  The argument is that even though Reebok guaranteed "sneakers that promise better legs and a better behind with every step", the shoes are practically like every other sneaker, with not enough evidence to suggest muscle toning or calorie burning. Reebok has decided to avoid a legal battle as well, setting with the F.T.C. “In order to avoid a protracted legal battle, Reebok has chosen to settle with the F.T.C.,” said Daniel Sarro, a company spokesman, in an e-mail.  Still, Reebok is standing by its EasyTone technology, and they claim to have gained tons of positive feedback from buyers.  However, there have also been reports of injuries, such as snapped ankles.  

            These reebok shoes were developed based on an idea that came from Bill McInnis, a former Nasa engineer, who thought of implementing the same technology that balance-balls use.  It seems like a good idea to me, and apparently to the people who purchased these shoes in stores.  Yet,  regardless of all of these claims that the shoes don't actually tone your legs, the customers still enjoy wearing them.  If they're comfy, why not buy them?  Just don't expect to have an advantage whenever you're going to the gym. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/business/reebok-to-pay-in-settlement-over-health-claims.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=health

Michael Vick

            In the Philadelphia Eagles' most recent game versus the New York Giants, the Giants defeated the Eagles 29-16.  Michael Vick left the game with a bruised right hand (his non-throwing hand).  The week before, he left the game with a head injury.  After Sunday's tilt versus the Giants, Vick was pretty banged up, and he had some words to say to the media about it...

            "I just think more precautions should be taken when I'm inside the pocket. If you look at all the replays, I'm on the ground every time and it's unfortunate for myself and it's unfortunate for my team and I'll be lying if I said I wasn't, if I were to sit here and say I wasn't frustrated right now because of that."

            These comments left many people outraged.  For him to publicly say that he has been unfairly treated, and unfairly tackled by opposing teams, has only made him an even bigger target.  In one article, Mike Pereira, who is the former NFL vice president of officiating, called Vick's comments "ridiculous", and said that he has put officials in an uncomfortable position because they may feel pressure to call penalties a certain way.  If a ref calls a defensive player for roughing the passer, then it appears that he has given in to Vick's rants.  However, if he doesn't make any calls on penalties that concern Vick, then he is seen as just another ref who Vick can rant and complain about. 

            Because Michael Vick is a constant running threat on the field, he is bound to be hit more often by opposing defenses.  For this reason, many analysts believe that he will continue to be hit hard.  It is amazing how comments made in the public sphere resonate into the people's minds so quickly.  Vick obviously made these comments out of frustration, but because they were made publicly, they were that much worse.  Though most analysts say that he was making a direct dig at the officiating crew, I think that he was just frustrated about losing to the Giants, and getting knocked out of the game for the second straight week.  Still, he made the comments, and all he can do now is move on. 

1984 Post 2

           1984 by George Orwell was an exciting read, as the plot turned in completely new directions on several occasions.  At first, I was convinced that Winston would somehow lead the proles and his fellow citizens towards independence by breaking them free of the rule of the Party.  Orwell did an excellent job by showing us Winston’s transformation from a confused and lonely man, into an emotional and loving one who discovers the reality of the Party’s terrorism and the reality of human nature, “The terrible thing that the Party had done was to persuade you that mere impulses, mere feelings, were of no account, while at the same time robbing you of all power over the material world… What mattered were individual relationships, and a completely helpless gesture, an embrace, a tear, a word spoken to a dying man, could have value in itself” (p. 169). 

            So, after convincing me that Winston would somehow find justice and defeat the Party, and live a happy life with Julia and show us a happy ending to the story, Orwell soon shows us that Winston will not be able to lead his fellow citizens toward freedom, because even the strongest of humans, like Winston, crumble under pressure.  He shows us that humans only care about themselves.  Even as a young boy, Winston betrayed his mother and his sister by taking their food ration, leading them to starve because he was too ignorant to realize that they were starving too.  “He knew that he was starving the other two, but he could not help it; he even felt that he had a right to do it. The clamorous hunger in his belly seemed to justify him” (p. 166).  Even O’Brien, who seems to be on Winston’s side from the beginning of the book, turns against Winston and reveals to him the truth of human nature, and Winston realizes that “You think there’s no way of saving yourself, and you’re quite ready to save yourself that way. You want it to happen to the other person. You don’t give a damn what they suffer. All you care about is yourself” (p. 303).  I couldn’t believe that Winston even betrayed Julia, who he undoubtedly loved more than anything in the world.  He seemed so happy, almost like a teenager falling in love for the first time, disobeying whatever rules the Party threw at him.  Julia showed him how to find pleasure in life’s simplest activities, and it disappointed me that as soon as he was in danger, he tried everything he could just to save himself.  All of his morals went right out the window.

            Orwell reveals this sense of betrayal and selfishness in the human race in the novel, and in reality.  In the afterword on p. 326, Orwell describes the First World War (the real war) how “This war, in which millions died for the territorial ambitions of the European powers, although under the illusion of fighting for peace and democracy, was the beginning of that development which tended in a relatively short time to destroy a two-thousand-year-old Western tradition of hope and to transform it into a mood of despair.”  1984 was an interesting read that made me think about our race and the issues Orwell predicted.  Are we all really driven by selfish motives that come out when our greatest fears are staring us in the face?