3 ms·
A tangentially related thought: Actors attempt to imitate humans. “Good acting” is convincing; the audience believes the actor is giving a reasonable response
by r3trohack3r 4y ago
A tangentially related thought:
Actors attempt to imitate humans. “Good acting” is convincing; the audience believes the actor is giving a reasonable response to the portrayed situation.
But the audience is also trying to imitate the actors to some degree. Like you point out, humans imitate. For some subset of the population, I’d imagine the majority of social situations they are exposed to, and the responses to situations they observe, are portrayed by actors.
At what point are actors defining the social responses that they then try to imitate? In other words, at what point does acting beget acting and how much of our daily social interactions actually are driven by actors? And is this world of actors creating artificial social responses substantially different than bots doing the same?
- jdsully 4y agoThis is a common phenomena where the fake is more believable than the real thing due to over exposure of the imitation. Famously the bald eagle sounds nothing like it does in tv and the movies and explosions are rarely massive fireballs. For human interaction it’s much harder to pin down cause and effect but if it happens in other cases it would be very surprising to not happen there.
- dougmwne 4y agoThis is famously theorized by postmodernism. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation
- dvirsky 4y agoSomeone wrote once about how Wall Street people started behaving like the slick image projected of them in movies in the 80s, namely of Michael Douglas; before that they were more like the "boring accountant" type.