A supernormal stimulus or superstimulus is an exaggerated version of a stimulus to which there is an existing response tendency, or any stimulus that elicits a response more strongly than the stimulus for which it evolved.
For example, when it comes to bird eggs, they can evolve to prefer the artificial versions to their own, particularly evident in brood parasitism, and humans can be similarly exploited by junk food and pornography. Organisms tend to show a preference for the stimulus properties (i.e. size, colour, etc.) that have evolved in nature; but when offered an artificial exaggerated stimulus, animals will show behaviour in favour of the artificial stimulus, over the naturally occurring stimulus. A variety of organisms that display or are susceptible to supernormal stimuli include insects, birds, and humans.
Supernormal stimuli are present in areas of biology and psychology, but are also studied within other fields like sociology and art.
British academic Nigel Spivey demonstrates the effect in the first episode of the 2005 BBCdocumentary series How Art Made the World to illustrate neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran's speculation that this might be the reason for the exaggerated body image demonstrated in works of art from the Venus of Willendorf right up to the present day…
Maladaptive Behavior
Maladaptive behaviors are shown by organisms that display a preference for supernormal stimuli over naturally occurring stimuli. This is often based on instinct to gather as many resources as possible in a resource-sparse environment. It can also be instinctual for certain species to select the supernormal stimuli that will suggest the best energy investment of the individual, often parental investment. The selection of the supernormal stimuli must also simultaneously outweigh the cost of the behavior in order for it to evolve. This is shown in the cuckoo chick and the effects on host reed warblers. These parasitic chicks exhibit irresistible begging calls toward the parental host. This occurs as a result of selective pressures. The reed warbler increases foraging efforts to feed the parasitic chick and its own offspring. As a result, this shows a maladaptive behaviour of the host reed warbler as it is investing into a chick that is not biologically related, which does not provide reproductive fitness gain…
In Psychology
Harvard psychologist Deirdre Barrett argues that supernormal stimulation governs the behavior of humans as powerfully as that of other animals. In her 2010 book, Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose, she examines the impact of supernormal stimuli on the diversion of impulses for nurturing, sexuality, romance, territoriality, defense, and the entertainment industry's hijacking of our social instincts. In her earlier book Waistland, she explains junk food as an exaggerated stimulus to cravings for salt, sugar, and fats and television as an exaggeration of social cues of laughter, smiling faces and attention-grabbing action. Modern artifacts may activate instinctive responses which evolved prior to the modern world, where breast development was a sign of health and fertility in a prospective mate, and fat was a rare and vital nutrient.
In a cross-cultural study, Doyle and Pazhoohi showed that surgically augmented breasts are supernormal stimuli, and they are more attractive than natural breasts, regardless of their size. Also in a theoretical paper, Doyle proposed that how women walk creates supernormal stimuli through continuously alternating motion of the waist and hips causing peak shifts in perceptions of physical attractiveness involving women's waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). Furthermore, Pazhoohi et al. (2019) using eye tracking confirmed that lower than optimal WHRs are supernormal stimuli and they may generate peak shifts in responding.
Pascal Boyer has suggested that music is a superstimulus targeting human affinity for speech, and that symmetrical textile and building patterns are superstimuli targeted to the visual cortex.
In Art
Costa and Corazza (2006), examining 776 artistic portraits covering the whole history of art, showed that eye roundness, lip roundness, eye height, eye width, and lip height were significantly enhanced in artistic portraits compared to photographic ones matched for sex and age. In a second study, forty-two art academy students were requested to draw two self-portraits, one with a mirror and one without (from memory). Eye and lip size and roundness were greater in artistic self-portraits. These results show that the exaggeration and "supernormalization" of key features linked to attractiveness, such as eye and lip size, are frequently found in art. Pazhoohi et al. (2019) showed that classic contrapposto pose is considered more attractive and provided evidence and insight as to why, in artistic presentation, goddesses of beauty and love are often depicted in contrapposto pose.
Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose - Cover Interview of July 18, 2010
In a Nutshell
evolved for life on the savannahs 10,000
years ago—not today’s world of densely
populated cities, technological
innovations, and pollution.
Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Niko Tinbergen biologists coined the term “supernormal stimuli” in the 1940s to describe imitations that appeal to primitive instincts and exert a stronger pull than the real thing. In his experiments, song birds abandon their pale blue eggs dappled with gray to hop on black polka-dot Day-Glo blue plaster eggs so large they constantly slide off and have to hop back on.
Tinbergen and his students eventually constructed supernormal stimuli for all basic animal instincts—comically unrealistic dummies which an animal will try to mate with or fight with in preference to a real individual if color, shape or markings push their buttons.
These behaviors look funny to us… or sad—the reflexive instincts of “dumb” animals. But then there’s a jolt of recognition: just how different are they from our behavior? In Supernormal Stimuli, I apply this concept to explain most areas of modern human woe.
Animals encounter supernormal stimuli mostly when an experimenter builds them. We make our own, from candy to pornography, from stuffed animals to atomic bombs. We’ve reversed the relationship between instinct and object to manufacture a glut of things which gratify our basic desires with often-dangerous results.
The “good news” in this is that the concept of supernormal stimuli itself—this image of the bird on the day-glo blue egg—can help us realize where we’re going wrong and help our huge brains to kick in and exercise self-control.
We need to “trust our instincts” less and trust our intellect more. Recognizing a supernormal stimulus when we see one is the most important step.
The Wide Angle
Niko Tinbergen clearly thought ethological principles applied to man. But while waxing eloquently for pages about bee-wasps and sticklebacks, he devoted the occasional sentence or two to man.
The major push to incorporate Darwin into psychology has come under the term “evolutionary psychology.” In their primer, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby are fond of saying that “our modern skulls house a stone age mind.”
Evolutionary psychologists view the brain as a biological computer with circuits which evolved to solve problems faced by humans and pre-human ancestors. Cosmides and Tooby point out that consciousness is a small portion of the contents and processes of the mind. They describe how conscious experience can mislead individuals to believe that that their thoughts are simpler than they actually are. Most problems experienced as easy to solve are actually very complex and are driven and supported by elaborate brain circuitry.
Evolutionary psychologists argue that this is *not* just another swing of the nature/nurture pendulum. They are not stating as baldly as Tinbergen did in his landmark talk that “Nature is Stronger than Nurture.” Their position instead is that nature/nurture is a false dichotomy: *more nature allows more nurture*.
In evolutionary psychology, “learning” is not an explanation—it is a phenomenon that requires explanation. Cosmides and Tooby use the example of a larger brained elephant not being able to learn English, not because its brain is less complicated nor even less learning-disposed: elephants have many aspects of memory better than ours. Rather we have evolved specific neural circuits that enable certain types of communication that the elephant has not evolved.
Though sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists have incorporated many of Niko Tinbergen’s ideas, they have not used the concept of Supernormal Stimuli.
I believe that the concept of Supernormal Stimuli is the single most valuable contribution of ethology for helping us understand many issues of modern civilization. So my book examines a range of human dilemmas from the standpoint of Supernormal Stimuli, interweaving other relevant concepts from all of these evolutionary disciplines.
A Close-Up
Most people don’t try to parse cuteness. Like pornography, we know it when we see it. With a bit of examination, however, cuteness has easily quantifiable aesthetics. Take a moment to picture whatever you find cute—puppies, kittens, cartoon characters or your own children. Cuteness is the type of attractiveness associated with youth; your “cute” objects no doubt have many youthful traits.
Infants of most species have a small body with a disproportionately large head, big eyes, small nose, chubby limbs and clumsy coordination. Youthful behavior includes playfulness, affection, helplessness, and a need to be nurtured. A few characteristics such as dimples and baby-talk are unique to humans, but most are common across species.
Evolutionary biologists view “cuteness” as simply the mechanism by which infantile features trigger nurturing in adults—a crucial adaptation for survival. Scientific studies find that definitions of cuteness are similar across cultures. So are our responses.
Anyone disheartened by research demonstrating that attractive adults are better liked and better paid than their homelier peers will be further dismayed at studies on infant cuteness. Articles such as “The Infant’s Physical Attractiveness: Its Effect on Bonding and Attachment” document that stereotypically cute babies receive the most attention from both strangers and their own parents. They run less risk of abuse or neglect. Cute children proceed to get better treatment from teachers. Fortunately, most babies are cute enough to attract sufficient nurturing from parents and the world around them. The decline of cuteness normally coincides with the child’s diminished need for caretaking, which gradually shifts toward younger siblings.
Toy manufacturers are well aware of what’s cute. Dolls have grown progressively cuter: first they looked like people, then like children, then like supernormal exaggerations of children. In the 1990s, the Journal of Animal Behavior published a series of articles on a creature not of the wilderness but of the marketplace.
“The Evolution of the Teddy Bear” traced the origin to 1900 when President Theodore Roosevelt was photographed in the Rockies, after a hunt, with a brown bear in the background. The early teddies looked like bears—with a low forehead and a long snout. Over the years, the teddy “evolved” to become the cute popular creature of now, laden with infantile features, including a larger forehead and a shorter snout. “It is obvious that the morphological changes that have occurred in teddies in the short span of a little over 100 years have contributed greatly to their reproductive fitness,” observed the authors. “There seem to be teddies all over the place.”
With tongue in cheek, but metaphor firmly in mind, animal behaviorists continued publishing on the evolution of the teddy. They pointed out that the changes might be likened to mutation, but are actually closer to “intelligent design,” diverting human resources to enable teddies to reproduce at a phenomenal rate.
Since a teddy bear is often a child’s first toy, one hypothesis that teddy specialists wanted to test was that they evolved to please infants or young children. Researchers offered 4- to 8-year-old children their choice of teddies with adult features or ones with infantile features. The four-year-olds chose the adult-featured bear almost two and a half times more often than the baby-featured bear. Among the older children, 6 to 8 years of age, the babyish teddies were three times more likely to be chosen.
This makes perfect sense. Very young children are the only beings immune to cuteness. What good would it do a baby to attach to other babies? It is clearly in the babies’ interest to attach to adults.
The function of the evolved teddy is to please adults—and older children who are already playing at nurturing. These are the purchasers of toys supposedly bought for infants. And teddies are increasingly bought overtly for adults. Dressed in theme clothing, they are a phenomenon on college campuses.
Babies will hold the standard babyish teddy when they’re not offered the choice of an adult bear. They attach to anything soft and warm, but it’s the tactile resemblance to their mother that draws a very young child to the teddy.
Lastly
We need to begin to engineer our environment back to something more like what we were designed for and also to notice and resist whatever Supernormal Stimuli inevitably remain around us. Collectively we can decide to make our environment more walkable, to tax or even ban junk food, to reduce televisions blaring around us. We can broadcast the opinions, similarity, humanity of people across world, train people to be automatically wary of leaders asking us to fight another group of humans pretty much like ourselves.
Individually, just identifying the supernormal stimuli out there is a crucial first step. We don’t have to just “listen to our instincts,” we can exercise will power—almost a dirty word in these days, but a trainable skill shown to help habitual problems. That’s what our giant brains were designed for—overriding reflexive instincts when they start to lead us astray.
In a world increasingly designed to stimulate hunger, sexual arousal, and acquisitiveness, chasing the supernormal is a losing game. It’s not anti-hedonistic to rein in, or redirect, instincts.
Our pleasure system is robust and very flexible. Scientific studies show that people experience similar levels of happiness long-term regardless of external events. Winning millions in a lottery, or getting paralyzed in an accident—these make a modest difference for six months or less. People in the poorest nations are a couple percentage points less happy than in the most affluent. People who drink, don’t drink, watch TV, don’t watch TV, eat natural vegetables, eat junk food—all experience similar levels of life satisfaction. In fact, the only thing that makes a difference is chronic pain or consistent health crises—things our modern pursuit of supernormal stimuli tend to produce.
The pleasure mechanism can be shaped as to what it responds to—it doesn’t have to be other way around. We understand this more readily when we’re thinking about the evanescent highs of a drug-addicted life vs. pleasure of normal life interactions. But the same is true for diet or social activities or what you find cute.
People get pleasure from what they have gotten used to getting pleasure from. Reward circuits in our brain will respond to the sugar in a handful of tart berries or from the whole cake, to the earned rest after exercise or the whole day on the couch, to real friends dropping by or the simulated laugh-track of a sitcom—all depending on what habits we get accustomed to.
We are the one animal that can notice sitting on a polka-dotted plaster egg—and climb off.
© 2010 Deirdre Barrett
Editor’s Note
Originally, this interview ran on the Rorotoko cover page under the headline “We need to ‘trust our instincts’ less and trust our intellect more.”
We highlighted two quotes: On the first page: “The concept of Supernormal Stimuli is the single most valuable contribution of ethology for helping us understand many issues of modern civilization.” On the second: “That’s what our giant brains were designed for—overriding reflexive instincts when they start to lead us astray.”
The Seductive Pull of Screens That You Might Not Know About
One reason screens have a strange power over us might be new to you.
Dutch biologist Niko Tinbergen is credited with discovering and describing supernormal stimuli. Tinbergen noticed how animals, such as the male stickleback fish, would react to certain stimuli, such as the color red, with instinctive, behavioral responses. In the case of the male stickleback fish, they would strongly defend their territory from other male sticklebacks. Tinbergen wondered what caused the male stickleback to defend its territory. Through his observations and experiments, he discovered it was the red underbelly of the fish.
Then Tinbergen created other stimuli with the color red. For instance, he carved a piece of wood and painted it vaguely fish-like, colored the bottom part a deep red, and placed it in the water. He observed that the male stickleback would aggressively attack the block of wood. Interestingly, by presenting the stickleback with an exaggerated version of the stimulus that provoked the aggressive, territorial response, Tinbergen was able to get the male in question to respond more strongly and preferentially to the exaggerated version of the stimulus than to another male stickleback! He found that creating exaggeration versions of other stimuli (e.g., plaster bird eggs with more extreme features) would also elicit stronger, and preferential, responses in other animals (e.g., the mother bird would sit on the plaster eggs instead of her own eggs). Thus, "supernormal stimuli" are so named because the intensified stimuli can elicit stronger, and often preferential, responses in animals over the natural stimuli.
Animals, including humans, are hardwired (i.e., genetically programmed) to respond to certain stimuli because they have a survival value in evolutionary terms. Supernormal stimuli, in essence, hijack the natural response tendency and cause animals to respond more strongly, and often preferentially, to the exaggerated stimuli. Importantly, supernormal stimuli tend to activate some of the same reward systems in the brain that are involved in addiction.
Prefer a digital doughnut?
Source: Anete Lusina/Pexels
Humans and Supernormal Stimuli
Humans are so much more evolved than most animals, but does this protect us from the seductive lure of supernormal stimuli? In short, NO. Let's take junk food as an example. You might wonder why we are often drawn to junk food, such as potato chips and doughnuts, over natural foods like carrot sticks, raw broccoli, apples, and plain, raw nuts. Why do foods like doughnuts, pizza, and french fries taste so darn good? In evolutionary terms, shouldn't we prefer natural, healthier foods over fried, processed, fatty, sugary junk foods?
Let's set things like advertising, cost, and easy access to healthy foods aside for a moment (because those do play some part in all of this). Still, we all know the powerful draw of unhealthy foods. Why? The answer lies in part with supernormal stimuli. We are naturally drawn to salt, sugar, and fat. In the state of nature, these are in short supply but are important to our survival. Sugar in foods like fruit provides a wonderful source of calories, nutrients, fiber, and energy. But now we can purchase processed, high caloric foods that contain insane amounts of salt, sugar, and fat virtually anytime and anywhere.
Food manufacturers have learned to capitalize on this natural tendency to be drawn to these foods. That's why so many restaurants and grocery stores provide us with foods that are so high in salt, sugar, and fat. We are drawn to them, so we buy them. The companies get rich, and we get fat. Most of us would agree that Krispy Kreme doughnuts, deep dish pizza, and venti frappucinos taste great. But we also know that they aren't good for us. Yet, we consume them anyway.
What's the aggregate effect of food manufacturers capitalizing on supernormal stimuli within their products? More than two-thirds of Americans are overweight and over one-third are obese. According to one published study, 18 percent of Americans die each year because of obesity. In a way, it's very odd that we are so drawn to foods that are extremely unhealthy for us. One might think, from an evolutionary standpoint, we'd prefer carrots over potato chips. But clearly, as a society, we do not.
Supernormal stimuli are the reason why we generally prefer the taste of unhealthy foods to healthy foods. Supernormal stimuli "hijack" our brain's natural reward system so that we feel compelled to pursue and obtain them. In one study involving rats, intense sweetness surpassed cocaine as a reward. Over time, this leads to our obesity epidemic. Interestingly, supernormal stimuli don't really exist in nature; they are man-made. Krispy Kreme donuts don't grow on trees.
Technology as Supernormal Stimuli
So what do technologies such as email, Facebook, texting, gaming, and, yes, even Internet pornography have to do with supernormal stimuli? We know that they can have a grip on us such that we are constantly checking our phones, social media, texting, emailing, gaming, and so on. Well, many of the technologies that we are most drawn to are because they represent supernormal stimuli. They are exaggerated versions of stimuli to which we are evolutionarily drawn.
Let's take social media as an example. In evolutionary terms, communicating with others and maintaining strong relationships are critically important for our survival. We are social creatures, and our very survival depends upon establishing and maintaining healthy relationships with others. But our evolutionary heritage did not prepare us to be interacting at all hours on our social network whose members are not physically present, can number in the thousands (or more), and are scattered throughout the globe. Social media can be viewed as an exaggerated version of our biological need to establish and maintain social relationships.
The Takeaway?
Our technological world is filled with supernormal stimuli. Our cell phone in our purse or pocket is the digital equivalent of having a fresh, warm Krispy Kreme doughnut on hand that we can nibble on whenever we desire. When we wonder why technology can have such a grip on us, we need to keep in mind that technologies such as social media, texting, news feeds, pornography, and gaming are supernormal stimuli. They are exaggerated versions of stimuli to which, evolutionarily, we are drawn. It's no wonder why we have such a hard time putting our phones down.
Supernormal Stimuli: Your Brain On Porn, Junk Food, and the Internet
Given the rapid pace of technology, one has to wonder whether our brains (and bodies) have been able to keep up with all the new stimulation that is available. What happens when sources of "super" stimulation like junk food and porn are everywhere?
Some research suggests that a few of the things we enjoy today would be classified as supernormal stimuli, a term evolutionary biologists use to describe any stimulus that elicits a response stronger than the stimulus for which it evolved, even if it is artificial. Are sources of "super" stimulation like junk food and porn more likely to hook us into bad habits?
It is certainly a very muddy topic, but it's a question that I believe deserves investigating. After all, we've become increasingly surrounded by stimulation that wasn't available even a few years ago. Are my mind and body really ready for Flavor Blasted Goldfish™ and never ending social media updates?
Before we get into the research, let's summarize the concept a bit more clearly: what exactly is a supernormal stimulus? Comic artist Stuart McMillen has a great comic to explain the concept. You should definitely read it first to get a good understanding of what a supernormal stimulus is.
When "Super" Stimulation Goes Wrong
Nikolaas Tinbergen, a Nobel Prize winning ethologist, is the father of the term supernormal stimuli. As noted in Stuart's comic, Tinbergen found in his experiments that he could create "artificial" stimuli that were stronger than the original instinct, including the following examples:
- He constructed plaster eggs to see which one a bird preferred to sit on, finding that they would select those that were larger, had more defined markings, or more saturated color—a dayglo-bright egg with black polka dots would be selected over the bird's own pale, dappled eggs.
- He found that territorial male stickleback fish would attack a wooden fish modelmore vigorously than a real male if its underside was redder.
- He constructed cardboard dummy butterflies with more defined markings that male butterflies would try to mate with in preference to real females.
In a very quick span of time, Tinbergen was able to influence the behavior of these animals with a new "super" stimulus that exaggerated traits of their real counterparts, which they preferred over the real thing.
Instinct took over, and now the animals' behavioral instincts were a detriment to their livelihood because they simply couldn't say no to the fake stimulus.
Much of Tinbergen's work is beautifully captured by Harvard psychologist Deirdre Barret in the book Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose. One has to wonder if the leap from these findings to human behavior is near or far.
Dr. Barret seems to think that the link is closer then we believe, arguing that supernormal stimulation govern the behavior of humans as powerfully as that of animals.
The hypothesis is that just like Tinbergen's introductions of abnormal stimulation to animals, rapidly advancing technology may have created a similar situation for humans. Can we really be "prepared" for some of our modern, highly stimulating experiences, given the amount of time we've had to adapt?
Note that it's very hard to say—you'll find excellent arguments from both camps.
Following are a few common examples that are often brought into question. I'm notsaying that you should never engage with them, or that the examples below are conclusive, or that they are the "norm," not at all in fact! They are merely brought up out of curiosity.
Junk Food
The highly addictive nature of junk food is one of our generation's great concerns—food is being engineered specifically to be more appealing than its natural counterparts. Is it any wonder then that when fast food is more thoroughly introduced to other countries, people start consuming it more often than their native cuisine?
It could be argued that for a large span of time humans had a relatively stable palette. Now a new food "concoction" comes out every week. How might this be affecting us? Some studies have suggested that foods like processed grain came about far too quickly and are doing quite a number on your mind and body.
Food is one of the toughest things to struggle with because it's an absolute necessity—the problem with junk food is due to the fact that it is a "super stimulating" version of a natural reward we are supposed to pursue. Food addiction is the real deal, and a tough habit to break because the triggers are ever present.
TV and Video Games
A quick peek in my home office would show a still functioning Super Nintendo hooked up with Chrono Trigger ready to go. I don't think that video games cause excessively violent behavior (research agrees), but I do have to admit that it seems video games may be addictive for some people, and in particular, for certain personalities.
Television addiction may cause some users to elicit the signs of a behavioral addiction—people often watch TV to change their mood, but the relief that's received is only temporary, and often brings them back for more.
You're likely not surprised to hear that computer games have also been linked to escapism, but what you may not know is that some studies have found symptoms of withdrawal in a very small subset of subjects; they became moody, agitated, and even demonstrated the physical symptoms of withdrawal.
Pornography
Probably the most controversial of all modern stimuli, pornography has been described by some as insidious in nature because it might skew the otherwise normal activity of sex. Porn has been linked to changing sexual tastes, and some argue that porn can become a "never-ending" supply of dopamine (though there are few conclusive studies done on porn and the mind).
There's a passage from a Kurt Vonnegut novel where a man shows another man a photograph of a woman in a bikini and asks, "Like that Harry? That girl there." The man's response is, "That's not a girl. That's a piece of paper." Those who warn of porn's addictive nature always emphasize that it is not a sexual addiction, it's a technological one. Could porn impact the way you view the real thing?
It's been suggested that pornography messes up the "reward circuitry" in human sexuality—why bother trying to pursue and impress a potential mate if you can just go home and look at porn? This has been argued as the beginning of porn addiction, as novelty is always a click a way, and novelty is closely tied to the highly addictive nature of dopamine.
As psychologist Susan Weinschenk explained in a 2009 article, the hormone and neurotransmitter dopamine does not cause people to experience pleasure, but rather causes a seeking behavior. "Dopamine causes us to want, desire, seek out, and search," she wrote.
It is the opioid system that causes one to feel pleasure. Yet, "the dopamine system is stronger than the opioid system," she explained. "We seek more than we are satisfied."
The Internet
Unsurprisingly, psychologists are now giving serious consideration to the web, recognizing that it may be a very addictive outlet. It allows unfettered control to engage in nearly anything, and some countries like Japan and South Korea have had serious problems with reclusive, socially inept individuals who have a very unhealthy internet obsession—one story I read detailed a man who hadn't left his apartment in 6 months.
Social media has been shown to make many people feel depressed—they see the highlight reel of others, and may feel worse about their own life. These pruned and often misleading looks into others lives was never available before the web. In spite of this, people can't stop checking them, thinking that they might be missing out on something.
Internet overuse, for some people, may be hurting their ability to focus. The quick bursts of entertainment that the internet provides, and the fact that information is always a click away, may (through overuse) cause a decrease in conceptual and critical thinking. Some have argued that the internet can become "chronic distraction"' that slowly eats away at your patience and ability to think and work on things for extended periods of time.
What Should You Do?
Before you panic, freak out, throw away all of your Oreos, and cancel your internet subscription, consider that you should do everything in moderation. Even the way you react to the information in this article.
There is a lot of research that counters what we've looked at above. Explore books like The 10,000 Year Explosion for more from that perspective. In addition, consider that resources are all in how you use them.
Take the internet: sure, the Internet might become a distraction when you need to be focused on something, but think about its contributions. The web is the bestsource in the world for information and knowledge, so how it affects you depends on how make use of it.
We are all perfectly capable of using and engaging with supernormal stimuli—the only reason I chose to highlight the extreme examples above was to show how things can go wrong with overuse, or misuse.
That's right folks, you can put away your torches and pitchforks! I'm not the enemy of junk food, the internet, and everything awesome. My one and only goal for this article was simply exploration of the topic.
In fact, the comic above had similar intentions. The artist, Stuart McMillen, articulately describes why you shouldn't be afraid of information like this. In many ways, it should be comforting:
In both cases, the main change is awareness. Awareness that the reason we are drawn to sickly desserts is because they are sweeter than any naturally-occurring fruit.
Awareness that watching television activates the primitive 'orienting response', keeping our eyes drawn to the moving pictures as if it were predator or prey. Awareness that liking 'cute' characters comes from a biological urge to protect and nurture our young.
I have not removed supernormal stimuli from my life, nor do I intend to do so fully. The key is spotting the stimuli as they appear, and engaging the mind to regulate or override temptation.
I echo Deirdre Barrett's conclusion that sometimes it can feel more rewarding to say no to the supernormal, than to cave into impulse. Only awareness will help stop the supernormal from becoming what is 'normal' in our lives.
You Decide What's Normal
The "solution," so it seems to me, is to simply avoid habituation. The real enemy here is complacency—allowing yourself to become a victim of your habits, instead of the person in the driver's seat.
C.S. Lewis has some insightful thoughts on this:
Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is.
After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of the wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down.
A man who gives into temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later.
It's my personal opinion that mini-sabbaticals are a great way to test small dependencies on anything. The ability to go without something that is normally a regular habit is important because it puts you back in control.
Giving something up for just a small period of time can help you understand its place in your life, especially when it's an optional activity. If you try to stay away from something for just a few days, and you find yourself becoming anxious and agitated, that could be your body telling you something important. If you can give it up "cold turkey" with no problem, that's important information too!
So no, don't panic and freak out. Just recognize that your brain can get hooked by the many sources of "super" stimulation we have today, and it's your job to make sure you are always in control.
Those who do not move do not notice their chains.
—Rosa Luxemburg
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to wasting time on the Internet.
