The Threat of Comprehensive Overstimulation in Modern Societies Essay

The main argument of Gregory Robson's paper, "the threat of comprehensive overstimulation in modern societies" is that the presence of a wide range of stimulating items, for example, social media and advertisements, in the modern societies poses a threat to the welfare of the societies and that even though stimulating items tend to improve the well-being of the members, measuring welfare should take into account of the cumulative effect of the individual sources of the stimulation. Robson, however, does not call for the absolute elimination of the stimulating items, instead, reducing the level of stimulation without reducing the overall benefits derived from the stimulating items. In light of the argument, the essay will focus on Robson's argument that premodern individuals had fewer stimulations compared to people in the modern society because currently, following the Saver's point of view, there is increased clutter due to an increasing plethora of diverse stimuli, including adverts in TV news, the internet, as well as billboards. In effect, it has led to increased blooming and buzzing confusion, which warrants the need to address the issue as the costs of overstimulation outweigh the benefits. This is mainly through adequate research and documentation by psychologists and social scientists on the impact of overstimulation and creating awareness on the same based on the research findings. For this reason. Robson is optimistic that overstimulation can be mitigated.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Overstimulation is a significant concern, which is mainly caused by information overload. Robson articulates that in our modern "digital societies, one might say that widespread ''informational overload'' is now an entrenched feature of our ''attention economy'' (Robson 73). There are many advertisements on the internet, TV news as well as in the billboards located in the streets, which implies that there is just too much information that we can process, and this can hamper our happiness. In essence, compared to a person who lives in the agrarian era of premodern society, they are less likely to be affected by adverse information that adds no value to our psychological well-being. Robson provides an example of John in the premodern society and postulates that, "John is not exposed to news that frequently consists of gossip and aims to make one sad, scared, or worried: sad, scared, or worried enough to be attentive" (Robson 75). This information with mixed emotions of sadness, being scared, and filled with worry contributes to people becoming psychologically unhealthy. According to Robson, "it seems rather psychologically unhealthy to be hearing depressing news to which one usually can do or does, nothing in response" (76). For this reason, overstimulation is adverse our healthy well-being, and thus, this proves that Robson's arguments are worth considering to address the threat.

Robson highlights that progress can be made against the threat of overstimulation. Essentially, since overstimulation is adverse to our health and induces unnecessary psychological torment to things that we have no control over, everyone in the modern society can have a role to play. This includes individual endeavours, as well as social endeavours. It is evident that one can reduce the extent to which he or she uses social media or watches news. However, it is difficult to avoid the neon lights in billboard advertising. For this reason, while it may be easy to avoid using social media and TV news, it is almost impossible to avoid looking at billboards while one is moving them in streets. The concern is that switching on TVs, as well as checking on posts or comments on social media, as well as checking on billboards is also important to gain a gist of what is going on. Besides, social media is advantageous as it helps us connect with friends and family. This presents an individual restriction dilemma, as well as a moral dilemma to companies that advertise. However, it does not imply that progress cannot be made. In fact, it is very possible and is inevitable since it affects hundreds of millions of people, and thus, "a great deal of happiness or misery, flourishing or languishing, hangs in the balance" (Robson 77). For instance, Robson argues that one strategy that an individual can undertake is, simply avoiding, "overly stimulating websites, television shows, other stimulating electronic media, and other sources of stimulation" (Robson 76), but this would not be viable since it is almost impossible to switch off our phones. In light of this view, his argument that individuals should reduce their overall contact to stimulating items is worth the try, as well as, "decrease our exposure to individual items apt to overstimulate" (Robson 76). This owes to the fact that human attention is a trainable resource, and thus, training on the reduction of adverse behaviour on additive access to social media or TV news can yield positive results. On the other hand, social progress can be made mainly via developing social norms that can disapprove the legitimacy of certain sources that provide negative stimuli. This includes "speaking out against such sources of overstimulation may be an appropriate strategy" (Robson 77). Besides, exploiting the moral dimension is paramount since the producers of content that is overstimulating items have a moral responsibility if they harm people. Robson asserts that, "any moral duty firms might have to lower their stimulus contributions will, it seems, depend on the moral duties that firms face more generally" (78). This shows that producers of content should adopt moral standards, and the society has an obligation to voice concerns of hyperstimulating content.

Therefore, to address the issue, Robson calls for research by psychologists and social scientists that details overstimulation from innovations and relationships mediated electronically and their impact on individual happiness (Robson 80). Based on the results, private groups, psychological associations, as well as policy analysis should consider informational awareness that the modern digital society has disvalue for members of modern societies (Robson 80). In congruence to Robson's assertions, it is necessary that people know of the adverse impact of information overload and overstimulation, while also voicing the need for both individual and social progress. Addition, the impact of overstimulation on the happiness of individuals should be well documented. From this point of view, articulating the adverse effect of overstimulation is vital, as well as the methods that can be used to control the threat is vital. These steps are justifiable since controlling the threat of overstimulation is essential for the better psychological health of individuals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the argument presented by Robson about the mitigation of the threat of overstimulation is strong since overstimulation can hamper our psychological health, diminish our interactions, potentially lead to depression and sensory overload, and negatively affect our social lives. However, controlling content in a way that we can still enjoy the information without overloading our senses. Robson articulates that the mitigation process should be in such a manner that we can enjoy the benefits of the information without being overstimulated. This is a valid argument since we will not do away with the benefits of advertising, watching TV news, and accessing social media. As such, the validity, credibility, and reliability of arguments presented in the paper are strong, which justifies the adherence to the recommendations postulated in the article.

Work Cited

Robson, Gregory J. "The threat of comprehensive overstimulation in modern societies." Ethics and Information Technology 19.1 (2017): 69-80.