Living Car Free - TV and the auto industry

Again, I assume you measure others' "intelligence" by how closely they share your beliefs and/or your lifestyle choices. Or maybe by the inverse amount of TV they watch. If not those measures of intelligence, than what?
And of course you always have a fair and balanced viewpoint.

I think intelligence is measured by IQ tests (which are arguably flawed) but still give you a general idea. So, why is it so hard to believe that people with higher IQs don't watch TV? Although correlation does not prove causation it still is an interesting point. Besides, People who bike frequently have bigger quads.

Again, I assume you measure others' "intelligence" by how closely they share your beliefs and/or your lifestyle choices. Or maybe by the inverse amount of TV they watch. If not those measures of intelligence, than what?

The Australians have a saying that "Assumptions are the mother of all sc***ups". And I'm afraid that's your situation my friend. You have made a seriously flawed assumption. Since when is a sharing of beliefs and lifestyle a measure of intelligence? Homeless junkies may share beliefs and lifestyle but few would call it an intelligent choice.

I do not measure a person's intelligence by how they share my beliefs and lifestyle choices. I usually use problem solving skills, rate of learning, and bredth of interests and accomplishments as indicators of intelligence.

I guess I have to get to specifics. One acquaintance who does not watch TV is Bruce Clayton, Phd. We met at as co-workers in the late 1970s where I could see his intelligence in a workplace situation. I am left-wing, he is very conservative. I live in a capitol city in the Mid South; he in a tiny town in California Sierras. I go car free; he drives an SUV. I am Unitarian/Taoist; he is a Christian. I do not fight; he is a Martial Artist. I'm not a parent; he is. I am a peace activist; he is a survivalist and author of Life After Doomsday.

Not exactly twins. But one thing that we do share is a desire to be in control of the information stream coming into our home. That's what I find many people who have chosen to not watch TV seem to have in common.

Of course, I have regressed. After 6-7 years happily without TV, I was ordered by my boss to watch TV so as to be on top of what TV advertising graphics look like. But that doesn't mean that I use TV as my source for information.

Remember also that you are not the customer when you watch TV. You are the product. Your attention is being sold to the advertiser, who is the customer. The advertiser pays, the networks sell... you.

This point bears repeating. Basically from the very beginning, the point of broadcast television was (and remains) advertising. It is not entertainment... not providing information in the form of news or documentaries... it is advertising.

And, as also noted above already, advertising is no longer limited to or even primarily focused on intervals between the pablum of all qualities designed to keep us watching the ads, ad placement directly in the pablum makes television more insidious than ever as a means of shaping morality, values, dreams and desires of all kinds...

Even if advertising has found its way into books, there is virtually no relationship between writing, which was first and foremost a means of communicating ideas, and broadcast television, which has always been an advertising medium.

BTW, it takes very little effort to guess that people who choose to minimize the influence of TV in their lives are likely of higher intelligence on average. That is not the same as suggesting that only people of lower intelligence watch TV or that there are not people of higher intelligence watching TV.

TV is omnipresent and seductive... watching is easy... not watching is difficult. Questioning or rejecting the status quo almost always requires an analytical effort, an affirmative choice and a commitment to that choice... usually these are a mark of intelligence.

BTW, it takes very little effort to guess that people who choose to minimize the influence of TV in their lives are likely of higher intelligence on average. That is not the same as suggesting that only people of lower intelligence watch TV or that there are not people of higher intelligence watching TV.
Its exactly like any other lame guess made to fit the guesser's preconceived notions. A guess based on very little effort and far more on idle speculation and gross generalization and stereotyping, with more than a hint of self righteousness. Probably with about the same little intellectual effort as others' guesses (that fit preconceived notions) about adult bicyclists or maybe even guesses about those who voluntarily live car free.

I think intelligence is measured by IQ tests (which are arguably flawed) but still give you a general idea. So, why is it so hard to believe that people with higher IQs don't watch TV? Although correlation does not prove causation it still is an interesting point.
Oh I agree, it is easy to believe anything that would confirm in one's own mind his/her superiority over others. That's what negative stereotyping and prejudicial generalizations are all about.

And of course you always have a fair and balanced viewpoint.
That is correct. Thank you.

Well... I will agree that I should have taken a mittle more time to arrive at a more accurate verb than guess.

So... Bike... or more precisely, I-Like-To-Bike. Do you actually have empirical data upon which you base this implied claim that you like to bike? Or are you simply assuming?

Science has it's based in observation of the physical world. The modern scientific method is, effectively, a combination of observation of the physical world and experimentation to "prove" or "disprove" hypotheses that are the result of observation.

I am not at all clear why you are so hostile to observation as a basic tool of knowing. Is it infallible, of course, not. But surely, you are not suggesting that we wait for empirical evidence before we make observations of the world around us. How would we ever generate empirical evidence without the first step -- observing the world around us thru our sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing and intuition?

Well... I will agree that I should have taken a mittle more time to arrive at a more accurate verb than guess.
"Guess" is a quite accurate verb for the observation-to-conclusion process being discussed on this thread. What verb/phrase could possibly be more accurate? WAG perhaps?

"Guess" is a quite accurate verb for the observation-to-conclusion process being discussed on this thread. What verb/phrase could possibly be more accurate? WAG perhaps?
WTF is WAG?

Wild A**ed Guess?

i think commercial TV and amercian's car addiction goes hand-in-hand. it's all about doing the easiest thing and avoiding physical\mental work.

why read a book when you can watch TV instead? it's easier to zone out and watch a few hours of TV then it is to flip through and read hundreds of pages of a book.

why walk or bike when you can drive instead? it's physcially easier to sit down, press a pedal and steer a wheel, then it is to jog or pedal a bicycle over any distance.

both markets appeal to a nearly universal human trait - lazyness. that's why they're both so successful.

WTF is WAG?

Wild A**ed Guess?
You guessed correctly; though the "ed" is superfluous. Sometimes even WAG's turn out to be correct. But who is going to listen or pay serious attention to anything from "experts" (or ranters) who don't/can't differentiate between WAG's and facts?

i think commercial TV and amercian's car addiction goes hand-in-hand. it's all about doing the easiest thing and avoiding physical\mental work.

why read a book when you can watch TV instead? it's easier to zone out and watch a few hours of TV then it is to flip through and read hundreds of pages of a book.

why walk or bike when you can drive instead? it's physcially easier to sit down, press a pedal and steer a wheel, then it is to jog or pedal a bicycle over any distance.

both markets appeal to a nearly universal human trait - lazyness. that's why they're both so successful.

hey, thanks for getting the discussion back on track...as it was suggested earlier, the auto industry really needs the tv...due to what your saying that people watch television too much...but tv doesn't necessarily need the car industry apart from the revenue tv gets from them...

now the car makers are putting tv's in the car...this begins to complete the circle so to speak...drive a car and watch tv simultaneously...america's two favorite pastimes...an insidious and diabolically clever idea on the part of the auto industry

now the car makers are putting tv's in the car...this begins to complete the circle so to speak...drive a car and watch tv simultaneously...america's two favorite pastimes...an insidious and diabolically clever idea on the part of the auto industry
...strawman...

Again, I assume you measure others' "intelligence" by how closely they share your beliefs and/or your lifestyle choices. Or maybe by the inverse amount of TV they watch. If not those measures of intelligence, than what?


Most everyone can easily identify an intelligent person - regardless of that persons personal beliefs. Why do you question this posters ability to do so?

now the car makers are putting tv's in the car...this begins to complete the circle so to speak...drive a car and watch tv simultaneously...america's two favorite pastimes...an insidious and diabolically clever idea on the part of the auto industry

TV in cars is not new. It was attempted almost as soon as TV was commercially viable. Custom cars and concept cars from the '50s and '60s had them. California had laws against the driver being able to see TV while driving. But the ubiquity of TVs in cars is new.

I don't think it originated with the auto industry though. Rather it grew out of monitor makers searching for new markets. 8-9 years ago, such monitors appeared at SEMA as aftermarket installations for custom cars. These were snapped up by import tuners for DVDs and Gameboys. A few years later, the big auto companies started offering them.

The saddest part is that now, with TV and tinted windows, the passengers are less likely to learn about the world as they drive through it.

But who is going to listen or pay serious attention to anything from "experts" (or ranters) who don't/can't differentiate between WAG's and facts?
People who voted for Bush? (WMDs were WAGs.)

...strawman...

True.

But the universality of TVs in cars is new.
Universality of TVs in cars? Must be real new; did it happen Today?

Universality of TVs in cars? Must be real new; did it happen Today?

Yes, I said a magic spell that caused a TV to appear in every frigging car in the Universe! But I made it so that YOU cannot see most of them.:p And I guess to avoid further confusing you, many of these TV receivers are not TVs but rather LCDs and other video monitors.

Universal LCD Car monitors (http://www.qualitymobilevideo.com/universalmonitors.html)

And I guess to avoid further confusing you, many of these TV receivers are not TVs but rather LCDs and other video monitors.

Universal LCD Car monitors (http://www.qualitymobilevideo.com/universalmonitors.html)
Monitor, schmonitor. Carrying on about drivers watching TV while driving is a strawman argument whatever you call the technology. And if you have issues, as a car-free person or cyclist, with the kiddies in the back seat being pacified with DVD movies that is your problem, but it is neither a safety nor a bicycle issue.

Monitor, schmonitor. Carrying on about drivers watching TV while driving is a strawman argument whatever you call the technology. And if you have issues, as a car-free person or cyclist, with the kiddies in the back seat being pacified with DVD movies that is your problem, but it is neither a safety nor a bicycle issue.
Apparently you have never observed the number of portable DVD player placed on the dashboard of moving vehicles? As well as the newer in dash units that pop out and are with in view of the driver? These are not placating the kiddies in the back seat, they are an additional distraction for the driver of the vehicle. In fact there was a proposal a while back at the state level to outlaw pornographic videos in motor vehicles...seems someone was stuck in traffic next to someone watching one and was offended...placating the kiddies with porno are we?:D And yes I have observed this phenomenon.

Aaron:)

Apparently you have never observed the number of portable DVD player placed on the dashboard of moving vehicles? As well as the newer in dash units that pop out and are with in view of the driver? These are not placating the kiddies in the back seat, they are an additional distraction for the driver of the vehicle. In fact there was a proposal a while back at the state level to outlaw pornographic videos in motor vehicles...seems someone was stuck in traffic next to someone watching one and was offended...placating the kiddies with porno are we?:D And yes I have observed this phenomenon.

Aaron:)
No I never heard about this being a common problem anywhere. Couls you have seen an isolated problem that could hardly be legislated out of existence? If you say so.

Pornographic films being a distraction for driving? How 'bout the real thing? Do you think legislation will have any effect? Why not worry about problems that are either real or that you could possibly have any effect upon, instead of wailing about phantom/isolated problems?

What TV's/TV viewing have to do with either cycling or car free life remains a mystery. Perhaps someone in the know can tie it all together. Perhaps the relationship is something that only those of superior intelligence :rolleyes: can recognize, eh?

No I never heard about this being a common problem anywhere. Couls you have seen an isolated problem that could hardly be legislated out of existence? If you say so.

Pornographic films being a distraction for driving? How 'bout the real thing? Do you think legislation will have any effect? Why not worry about problems that are either real or that you could possibly have any effect upon, instead of wailing about phantom/isolated problems?

What TV's/TV viewing have to do with either cycling or car free life remains a mystery. Perhaps someone in the know can tie it all together. Perhaps the relationship is something that only those of superior intelligence :rolleyes: can recognize, eh?

man, who is this frickin' guru. if you have all the answers to everything then why bother posting up here, just kill yourself to spare the pain...jeez, the original post was just an open ended question about the relationship of tv and automobiles (which may have something to do with the fact that people believe they can't live at all car free)

anyway

My favorite are these Lexus commercials that feature the two preening and quipping housewives who each think the Lexus with a bow on it is for them. What a hellish, shallow existence.

It's a lot of fun to ride around the rich neighborhoods on summer weekends and see how many aging men are out in their driveways polishing and re-polishing the fetish instrument on four wheels.

The ignore list is a wonderful thing for I-Like-To-Spew



man, who is this frickin' guru. if you have all the answers to everything then why bother posting up here, just kill yourself to spare the pain...jeez, the original post was just an open ended question about the relationship of tv and automobiles (which may have something to do with the fact that people believe they can't live at all car free)

anyway

My favorite are these Lexus commercials that feature the two preening and quipping housewives who each think the Lexus with a bow on it is for them. What a hellish, shallow existence.

It's a lot of fun to ride around the rich neighborhoods on summer weekends and see how many aging men are out in their driveways polishing and re-polishing the fetish instrument on four wheels.
Yeah, almost as shallow (and intelligent) as observing strangers and making up a story line about them to fit your own prejudice.

now the car makers are putting tv's in the car...this begins to complete the circle so to speak...drive a car and watch tv simultaneously...america's two favorite pastimes...an insidious and diabolically clever idea on the part of the auto industry
What's a matta? You don't like anyone shooting down goofy speculation and strawman arguments? Don't like to think sacred cows aren't sacred; even worse subjected to goring by by skepticism?
Well then, you should take a fellow poster's advice; ignore criticism (justified or not) and continue to babble on with an unvarnished (by reality) version of the truth.

My one pet peeve about forums in the ignore button, I do not activate it on anyone. My second dislike is private messaging, it's great if used to convey personal information, such as email addresses and phone numbers, etc., but most times it's used to "clique" someone out.(pun intended)
Here's my take on such users:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8748/untitlediz6.png


We'll return to our regularly scheduled program after a word from our sponsor.

Here's my take on such users:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8748/untitlediz6.png

They must be pretty intelligent fellows since they don't watch much TV. Not watching TV and being under the undue sway of commercials would also explain why chimps don't buy or drive cars.:rolleyes:

They must be pretty intelligent fellows since they don't watch much TV. Not watching TV and being under the undue sway of commercials would also explain why chimps don't buy or drive cars.:rolleyes:
Most chimps that I know are too busy posting on internet forums to drive their cars.

But I have heard that they are mounting keyboards on dashboards so you can now drive and post at the same time. Civilization marches on. . . . .

They must be pretty intelligent fellows since they don't watch much TV. Not watching TV and being under the undue sway of commercials would also explain why chimps don't buy or drive cars.:rolleyes:

Well, I will agree that the fellow in the center doesn't watch much TV. But the other two might. After all, Cheetah, the film star, now retired and living in Palm Springs appears to enjoy TV. I read it in articles and when I lived there, friends who knew him and his human companion confirmed it.

But we have to admit that few commercials are aimed at Chimpanzees. Probably because the number of Chimps actually watching TV is pretty low.

Though I have seen a chimpanzee driving an Austin Healey. He lived down in Florida. Shortly after I saw him he was busted by the cops while driving down Highway 41. His person was asleep in the passenger's seat. After that Florida passed a law specifically forbidding animals from driving on public highways.

Yeah, almost as shallow (and intelligent) as observing strangers and making up a story line about them to fit your own prejudice.

Yes, you're good at that, aren't you.

BTW, it takes very little effort to guess that people who choose to minimize the influence of TV in their lives are likely of higher intelligence on average. That is not the same as suggesting that only people of lower intelligence watch TV or that there are not people of higher intelligence watching TV.

TV is omnipresent and seductive... watching is easy... not watching is difficult. Questioning or rejecting the status quo almost always requires an analytical effort, an affirmative choice and a commitment to that choice... usually these are a mark of intelligence.

Guess is the wrong word. It isn't a matter of watching is easy, according to neuroscientists watcing TV is bad for your brain. Maybe people who don't watch aren't naturally smarter than TV people, its just that their cognitive abilities aren't degraded by the TV watching. I don't think the TV apologists posting in this thread know what they're talking about when they accuse these TV critics of making up stories about strangers. Check out these articles:

The main article and the abstract:

Wang, J Y.J. MD, PhD; Zhou, D H.D. MD, PhD; Li, J MD; Zhang, M MD; Deng, J MD; Tang, M MD; Gao, C MD; Li, J MD; Lian, Y BSc; Chen, M MD
Institution From the Department of Neurology, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Title Leisure activity and risk of cognitive impairment: The Chongqing aging study.[Miscellaneous]
Source Neurology. 66(6):911-913, March 28, 2006.

The authors followed 5,437 people aged 55 years and older with normal
baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score annually for 5 years. The mean
incidence of cognitive impairment was 2.3% per year. Cognitive activities in
both the individual item (playing board games and reading) and the composite
measure were associated with the reduced risk of cognitive impairment,
while watching television was associated with an increased risk of cognitive
impairment.

Some quotes from an editorial in the same issue:

Rundek, Tatjana MD; Bennett, David A. MD

Institution From the Division of Stroke and Critical Care (T.R.),
Department of Neurology, Columbia University in the City of New York, NY;
and Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center (D.A.B.), Rush University Medical Center,
Chicago, IL.
Title Cognitive leisure activities, but not watching TV, for future brain
benefits.[Editorial]
Source Neurology. 66(6):794-795, March 28, 2006.

"Interestingly, watching television was associated with approximately a 20%
increased risk of developing cognitive impairment. "

"...it seems prudent to encourage persons of all ages, not just older persons,
to engage in an active lifestyle that includes frequent participation in a
wide range of cognitively, physically, and socially challenging activities,
but to turn the TV off."

A meta analysis letter accusing the editorial writers of being too pessimistic
about the benefits of turning the TV off and engaging in reading or other
mentally stimulating activities:

Valenzuela, Michael J.; Sachdev, Perminder
Institution Sydney, Australia
Title Cognitive leisure activities, but not watching TV, for future brain
benefits.[Letter]
Source Neurology. 67(4):729, August 22, 2006.

"...they are unconvinced that such a trial would be conclusive since observed
benefits may be due to participation in activities over the entire lifetime,
entailing an intervention over many years and considerable resources.

Our recent systematic review of this field [4] suggests that their prediction
may be overly pessimistic."


So, TV apologists, can you cite peer reviewed studies that convincingly contradict these researchers results?

The problem we car free people have with the Car culture TV people is that we have to educate them and we're fighting the original poster's observation they TV people are saturated with false ideas about cars and they are apparently cognitively impaired by their TV watching.

I watch TV. I like Lost, Prison Break, and CSI. Actually I get a lot of TV shows on Netflix (like Arrested Development). But one thing I'm adamament about in my house is controlling the noise and audio clutter that accompanies TV. In high school we had Channel 1, a barely passable 10 minute "news" show that was nothing more than promotions and advertising. My teacher despised it, and hit the MUTE button every time a commercial came on. For 12 years I've been doing that same thing. I enjoy certain shows, but when the commercials come on I instinctively mute the audio. What baffles me is families that have their TV on from the time they get home to the time they go to bed. They simply turn it one, and it becomes a noisy obnoxious stoned whiny person in the room yelling at them for six hours a night. Who the hell would tolerate that? It's one thing to gather together and watch Amazing Race, but to let the TV prattle on with screaming court TV shows and bombastic car commericals while overriding normal conversation definitely seems like a way to strain the brain.

So my take: Be SELECTIVE and CONTROLLING about TV

I like the commercials better than most of the shows. But I love Craig Ferguson.

So my take: Be SELECTIVE and CONTROLLING about TV
It reads like you are saying that there is a mentally salubrious amount of TV watching that a person can achieve by selecting content. I gave up TV many years ago because of the poor content. Years after that when I picked up Jerry Mander's book, I dismissed some of his arguments. After reviewing some of the research, like in my previous post, I'm beginning to think the deleterious mental effects are due to the medium itself.

I notice among the people at work that the ones who talk about TV are also the ones who don't get car free . The ones who talk about ideas and books around the lunch table are also car free or talk to me about bike transportation in an intelligent manner. Maybe its just my workplace or my listening bias but it sure seems like car free accepting people don't watch or think much about TV shows. The bad thing is that TV people also vote and when they vote on urban planning issues they can vote for car dependance.

PS. I like the "My Commute" link on Jamesdenver's post. My city commute would look very different. I'd have to photograph it from the sidewalks and then the photos wouldn't capture the feeling of freedom you get when you ride in city traffic.

The bad thing is that TV people also vote...
What would the "good thing" be?

What would the "good thing" be?

ILTB: you haven't responded to gwd's post regarding the Chinese doctors' study. Funny that. You curiously also haven't responded _intelligently_ to any posts in _quite_ a while.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the net effects of television watching, and car-driving.

ILTB: you haven't responded to gwd's post regarding the Chinese doctors' study. Funny that. You curiously also haven't responded _intelligently_ to any posts in _quite_ a while.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the net effects of television watching, and car-driving.
You haven't sent me the money you promised either. How quickly you forget.

It reads like you are saying that there is a mentally salubrious amount of TV watching that a person can achieve by selecting content. I gave up TV many years ago because of the poor content. Years after that when I picked up Jerry Mander's book, I dismissed some of his arguments. After reviewing some of the research, like in my previous post, I'm beginning to think the deleterious mental effects are due to the medium itself.

PS. I like the "My Commute" link on Jamesdenver's post. My city commute would look very different. I'd have to photograph it from the sidewalks and then the photos wouldn't capture the feeling of freedom you get when you ride in city traffic.

Thanks! I think I took most of the pics from the street, but I ride mostly on some nice long straight side streets.

My complaint with television in general isn't content, it's the intrusion factor. This article by columnist Froma Harrop (http://www.futuregringo.com/index.php/2006/10/12/held-captive-by-television/) I clipped last year says it much more succintly than I'm capable of.

Thanks! I think I took most of the pics from the street, but I ride mostly on some nice long straight side streets.

My complaint with television in general isn't content, it's the intrusion factor. This article by columnist Froma Harrop (http://www.futuregringo.com/index.php/2006/10/12/held-captive-by-television/) I clipped last year says it much more succintly than I'm capable of.
Wow. That is right. I thought it was me. In 1999 I got in a bike accident and spent several hours in pain in an emergency room. I don't recall the main waiting area having a TV but I was with a friend. After X-ray they put me in a small space. A doctor came in and said that the policy was not to give pain medication until after X-ray so since the X-ray showed so much damage I got the "good stuff", an injection of demerol I think. Then the doctor pushed a TV in front of my face and I saw a show called "Jerry Springer" for the first time in my life. I was strapped on a table drugged up with this "Jerry Springer" show as my primary sensory input. Why is this standard emergency room procedure? Why did a doctor think that I needed to see and hear a lesbian dwarf rant about her ill treatment by a lover as part of my treatment for a broken clavical? This was more bizarre than what I recall from the novel "1984". I could close my eyes of course but couldn't turn the sound off. No, I couldn't close my eyes, the images were so weird, I was captivated. Physically I could have closed my eyes but the odd characters and their mannerisms coupled with the effects of the narcotic kept me glued to the tube. Doctors must be subjecting their patients to this scenario thousands of times per day. Why?

Then the doctor pushed a TV in front of my face and I saw a show called "Jerry Springer" for the first time in my life. I was strapped on a table drugged up with this "Jerry Springer" show as my primary sensory input. This was more bizarre than what I recall from the novel "1984". I couldn't close my eyes, the images were so weird, I was captivated.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/theater/images/clockwork_big.jpg