http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Lifestyle/Story/STIStory_430645.html
I had such a hard time trying to find a less provocative image of Megan Fox. But I guess that’s who she is – a sex symbol in the movie industry. That said, I thought this would be the opportune moment to apply some Communication principle of ‘perception’ on her. Oh yes, it can be done.
My Com101 class taught me that communication and behaviour are based on our perception rather than on reality. That is interesting, because Megan Fox’s Transformers crew mocked her as ‘dumb’ and ‘ungracious’ (Link’s above). How did they come to that?
According to Seiler and Beall, ‘perception’ is the process of selecting, organising, and interpreting information. Let us examine these aspects individually and come to a reason why the crews thought of her as ‘dumb’ and ‘ungracious’.
First, selection. It is a cognitive process that is based on the contrast and intensity of the stimuli. Need I say more? Megan Fox was a strikingly
pretty dame in a mundane studio. Of course the crew would take notice of her. Even if you place her in a room of models, she’ll probably stick out like a sore thumb. To substantiate, look at the picture to the right. Yup, that’s what I thought.
Secondly, organisation. This, I reckon, was where the crews become thwarted in thought. Cognitive schemata influence a person’s organisation of information. It is the mental framework. Prototypes, which are idealised representations of people, are formed in the cognitive schemata. Perhaps, the crew stereotyped that pretty ladies like Fox are all looks and no smarts, or a bimbo if you will. Their prototype of a pretty woman therefore, is that pretty equates to dumb. Thus Fox falls into their ‘bimbo’ category.
Finally, interpretation. This is simple. The crew saw pretty Fox, organised her into the ‘bimbo’ category, and interpreted that whatever she does or says would be utter dumbness. Do note that one’s interpretation is heavily subjected to personal experience too, so maybe previous ‘diva’/bimbo experiences from other celebrities caused the crew to have such bias interpretations of Fox.
So there you go! In merging the 3 aforementioned processes, we now have the crew’s perception. We thus gain a probable insight as to how the crew came to perceive Fox as ‘dumb’. So far, we only reasoned out the ‘dumb’ part. What about ‘ungracious’? Could you figure out a reason for that? That said, hopefully we can learn to better appreciate that perception is, indeed, a very complex thing after all.
When the crew organised her into the ‘all beauty but no brains’ group, part of their attribution error comes in. They seek in confirmation bias to further consolidate their percerption and then ignore her other good points. Hence, we always should be conscious on how we jugde people. After all, our perception may be incomplete, bias or even wrong.
Yeah! You got that right eh? I liked how you mentioned the ‘confirmation bias’ especially. Good mix of psychology there friend
Could it be that people are jealous and hence every beautiful lady should not have brains that could equally match up in the looks department? Every pretty lady will always be labelled as a bimbo initially just as how every plain jane who dresses down and wears her spectacles be identified as a geek. HOw cognitive schemata comes into the picture is when it is based on physical construct in her instance> I also feel that at certain times, the flaws of a person are being brought out or “invented” as a form of attracting more attention from the media as gossips sells out better than compliments isnt it?
Well yes, certainly the media sensationalised this a little. Of course. But are you implying there is a natural tendency of humans to correlate intelligence to the way you wear? But yes you were spot-on to mention the ‘labelling’ some people are prone to.
My take is that the crew probably has a better “picture” of her because they interact with her more directly than us, who can only form our impressions of her based on her outward appearance (read: external beauty) from afar. We often judge a book by its cover, and can be proven quite wrong in what we think we know when reality knocks home
oh ho ho! So you’re saying she really is a bimbo? Or, as the crew described, ‘dumb’? Well, whatever the case, you were correct in pointing out that the crew would know about her more so than us because they interact more directly with her. Very good.
Since I do not know Megan Fox personally, I can give an accurate ‘totally mine’ perception of her. I think she looks really beautiful and cunning (maybe due to her last name). Not at all how her crew members depicted her to be dumb. But if they had spent time working with her, I suppose their opinion of her holds some weight? Sometimes, beauties are stereotyped to be all beauty and no brains, and it could be that her crew members placed higher expectations of iq levels on her just because she was pretty.
I would have thought that the crew members would demand less IQ because she was pretty (because of stereotype). Oh well, thanks anyway.
I think we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. Perhaps the crews were correct since they did work with her, and so know more about her. Anyway, the entertainment industry is very complicated and backstabbing always happen. Therefore, we shouldn’t jump into any conclusion and believe what the media said since they may be biased or not even credible.
That’s right. A lot of media sources aren’t very credible at all. Thanks!
I AGREE. who is going to define credibility anyway!
I don’t get how people are calling her dumb and ungracious! She’s quite smart to know how to hold herself in interviews. Like the interview where she was called the next Angelina Jolie, to which she replied that she could never hold a candle to Jolie. I would’ve thought that she breaks the bimbo mould set by Lindsay Lohan and Vanessa Hudgens and all.
You think so? Maybe Lindsay portrays herself as such to maintain her ‘diva’ persona. Maybe Megan Fox wanted a ‘girl-next-door’ persona eh? haha