Viral Videos Play on Emotions

Jonah Lehrer’s article “Why Do Viral Videos Go Viral?” tells the audience about the popularity of videos on the internet, and why they are so popular, along with the reasons why people watch them. It explains the social psychology of why this happens through the viral video of “Charlie Bit my Finger…Again.” This video shows a little boy sitting with his little brother Charlie, and Charlie bites his brothers finger. At first the boy screams, but then starts an uncontrollable laughter. Now we as the viewers are witnessing this and we also experience a cycle of emotions. We start out watching with excitement, and then that excitement turns into concern when the child appears hurt, and once he begins to laugh it becomes contagious and you can’t help but laugh along as well.

Now with all of this being said, the question on the mind is, why do we watch things like this and how does it become so popular? Well, according to Lehrer’s article, a man named Jonah Berger says a video goes viral because “it has to do with the visceral emotions it arouses in viewers.” He explains that the “popularity of such videos is rooted in the way they excite the body, inducing a spectrum of physiological changes.” He also explains that when people are in certain states of arousal, they are more likely to share information. Examples of studies are explained and with that the same result kept coming. “He discovered instead that the most popular stories were those that triggered the most arousing emotions, such as awe and anger. We don’t want to share facts—we want to share feelings.”

Now the next question in our minds is, why do people want to do this? Well, its been found “that people often share strong emotions as a means of fostering connection and solidarity.” And that the whole point of this article is that, “because people have a deep need to share their emotions, there will always be an insatiable demand for funny baby videos, angry political rants and Justin Bieber songs. Such content can often seem frivolous and superficial. But the content isn’t the point. The viral clip is merely a means to an end, an efficient way to tell someone else that, for a few moments at least, we’d like to feel the same thing.”

Now comes the next question, why is this article so important? Well, it serves as an example of something that may serve as a misrepresentation of discourse. As factual as everything in this article appears, I am not fully convinced that we are getting all of the information we need. Through examples of stases, I would classify this piece as a section of higher stases. It connects with the reader and the outside world by using a familiar example to get its point across. Although the article gives examples of some studies that were given on the popularity of articles and videos based on emotion, I think that it could be completely heresay. For example, it depends on who your audience is. If you are someone who enjoys funny baby videos and comical videos, then this article would be factual and completely relevant to you, but if you don’t then that would disprove the entire concept of the article. I think this article is more of the idea of human interest than it is news related, because this wouldn’t be something that would be put on the news. It’s an article of interest for those who enjoy youtube videos and for those who watch so many of the “viral” videos.

I think that this article could be legitimate or illegitimate, because of the fact that a lot of it, although backed up by some evidence, is persuasive, especially to those who are more emotional and can relate more personally to this. I also believe that age and gender plays a large role. Someone younger may just find humor in a video like “Charlie bit my finger” whereas a mother would instantly react with concern to a child in pain and may not find it funny that this was posted on the internet.

In the end, I believe this article is overall good, but we cannot take every piece of information in it as accurate because a lot of other outside factors haven’t been explained and I think it has been particularly focused on one specific audience.


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/why-do-viral-videos-go-viral/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM

The Downward Spiral of Literacy

The overall message one should gather from reading “The Future of reading” is that due to technological advances, people are becoming lazy and are not using their brains to their fullest potential. So why does this matter? It matters because there is nothing like opening up a book and putting the brain to work. E-texts are turning our reading literacy into mush and causing readers everywhere to become lazy.

The rhetorical situation is represented in this article through exigence, audience, and constraints. The exigence of this piece is showing the downward spiral of literacy. It brings forth the flaws and laziness of reading for digital print. The excessive increase in technology is causing this downfall. The intended audience for this article is really for anyone who reads. It relates to the tech savvy readers with their IPads and e-readers, as well as those people who enjoy sitting down to read the newspaper or cracking open a copy of their favorite book. It plays on the pros and cons of each type of reader and highlights the author’s opinion on reading in today’s technological society.  Another type of audience that can be focused on with this article is those whom are borderline with the idea of transitioning from print to digital. It’s a warning to say, “Hey your literacy level will decrease.” The constraints of this piece I feel are that it draws mainly to the print readers. E-readers are more likely to overlook this article and the message that it is giving because they are content with their style of reading. These people would rather walk around with a Nook or IPad, then a hard copy of a book. They are probably satisfied with the simplicity technology brings to the life of reading.

This text functions as an intertext by many means. If we take the piece at face value, we are getting the author’s perspective on reading in the world today. He uses real life examples to relate to the readers of the passage in order to create a sense of credibility for his statements. By mentioning the rapid decrease in print books and the increase of internet and digital sources, he plays on the emotions of the old fashioned and boosts the trends of the present.

The author mentions Stanislas Dehaene, who explains the neural anatomy of reading. The intertext of indirect quotes and the mentioning of a person with established credibility are being portrayed in this section by explaining his ideas on the differences in reading with the ventral route and the dorsal stream. With the ventral route, the reading is very familiar and routine. The reading comes across as simple and easy and it causes the readers to not have to really think. This differs from the dorsal stream because the dorsal stream causes you to use and exercise your brain to understand. By using this brain path a person is more conscious of what they are reading on the page. This would occur in printed texts rather than in digital forms. With the dorsal stream, the activity equals literacy. While reading this passage, I experienced the use of the ventral route. By looking at a screen I was subjected to larger, clearly written words. My eyes didn’t need to adjust and I didn’t have to look too in depth.

The article also references an explicit social drama. This drama is surfaced when discussing the ideas of the different types of reading. It creates a sense of drama for those hooked on digital reading, because they may rethink their methods. He mentions an example of someone reading their work on a screen where it looks polished and then once it’s printed mistakes and flaws become more visible. This shows yet another flaw in digital print. 

Overall from this article, one will recognize the changes in reading and the changes in literacy that come of the advancement of technology through the uses of rhetoric and intertext.