i dont think i need to wax poetic/philosophical about this. although i think theres a lot to be said about beauty and art and such. watch both.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
These two examples make alot of sense to me. There are a couple of different possible explanations for this effect:
1)the settings/contexts/environments acted as 'abolishing operations' which reduced the effectiveness of the antecedents(the 'high quality' music/painting)in eliciting sustained attention from the audiences
2)the music/art simply did not possess the reinforcing qualities needed to attract the overwhelming majority of the public
3)the competing demands of train schedules, work expectations, deadlines, etc. (i.e. competing reinforcer quality and schedules)outweighed the art across both cases for the viewing public
Personally I would attribute the results of the two cases to the 1rst and 3rd hypothesizes, where the second is much more population-specific. Further study is required using stronger research designs.
The Kingston Behaviourist
kingston behaviourist,
i think you are totally right. people are stupid. great insight.
yourse always
beanpoutine
Post a Comment