Understanding invisible threads that change how actions are judged.

[alcea rosea]

I did, but I wasn't sure what you meant

I say it gets even more complicated than that, because "popularity" and "being well-liked" are not universal things. What will make you well-liked in one setting might make you not liked at all in another.

Also, "popularity" depends on, well, *people* expressing their likings and dislikings. But not everyone expresses such opinions as loudly as everyone else. So some people might be very popular with a small but vocal group, while some others might be quite popular with a larger but more silent group, and it's not clear who will appear to be most popular to the general population.

That's especially important where sanctions are concerned, and people voice their opinions about them...

Somebody noticed my post!



I studied some social psychology and there they use some kind of chart where statuses of people in groups can be defined just by marking down the interactions between people. So same could be done here. So everybody who gets the most answers to their posts or blogs or threads could have one point + or - point for each (depending on the comment). So roughly the person who gets the biggest number of + is the most popular kid on the block. It's very simple and linear thinking but I think it mostly works also.

I don't really mean that I would start counting but just based reading quite many threads a person could name the most popular people in MBTIc quickly. That is social interaction.

 

[Tigerlily]

^Yea! You're not invisible! I am, but it's okay.

 

[alcea rosea]

^
No you're not!

I'm much more invicible than you.

 

[Tigerlily]

No, we're invincible. heehee

 

[alcea rosea]

I agree.

Let's just disappear!

 

[Totenkindly]

Nobody here takes my comments seriousy

Oh, fine, here you go.

Doesn't social pressure play it's part in all social interaction even online? So let's say person A is well liked and breaks rules. Person B is not well liked and breaks the same rules. -> B gets more severe punishment than A because B is less liked. People demand less punishment for nice people. What you say of this?

It's partly because they're nice. But I think there's also a sense of what's needed and not needed.

More specifically, if someone's nice and responsive to criticism, you don't need to slap them down or try to control them when they stray. You know they are responsible enough to pay attention and then change themselves to accommodate the rules.

But if someone's difficult and/or causes lots of problems (and is thus unresponsive to monitoring their OWN behavior), then people are far more prone to whacking them with a big stick and letting them catch the full brunt of punishment.

So people who are self-responsible receive more mercy than those who wave their middle fingers at the rules.

No, we're invincible. heehee

I agree.
Let's just disappear!

Though nothing, will keep us together
We could steal time, just for one day
We can be Heroes, for ever and ever
What d'you say?

 

[Tigerlily]

*poof* we're gone!

 

[Ivy]

So true, Jennifer. It's all intertwined- what looks like favoritism could just be a product of vastly different responses to being asked to knock it off.

 

[alcea rosea]

A second answer!

So people who are self-responsible receive more mercy than those who wave their middle fingers at the rules.

I agree. That I was trying to suggest with the social pressure post.

*poof* we're gone!

Yes!
We got a poem!

 

[Wandering]

I studied some social psychology and there they use some kind of chart where statuses of people in groups can be defined just by marking down the interactions between people. So same could be done here. So everybody who gets the most answers to their posts or blogs or threads could have one point + or - point for each (depending on the comment). So roughly the person who gets the biggest number of + is the most popular kid on the block. It's very simple and linear thinking but I think it mostly works also.

I'm not sure it would work. I can see several problems with such a technique:

1- What about the PMs and the rep system? The rep system, in particular, has made it so that many people will just rep someone to express approval with a post, instead of publicly posting a one-liner agreement post. So the rep system would definitely have to be taken into account, which would be highly problematic since rep comments are private.

2- What people post doesn't necessarily reflect what people think, and there can be *many* reasons for that. Some people are too shy to post disagreeing posts, some people don't see the point of saying "I agree with what X said", some people act differently depending on whether they like a poster or not, and so on. So assuming that what people post is an accurate reflection of what they think and/or feel might not be a reasonable thing to do.

3- What about fluff? Fluff is almost anathema to some people, and yet it's also almost the main way of expressing personal liking for some other people. So it would be deeply unfair to one or more significant portions of the forum population to use OR not use fluff posts - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So no, I don't think that *true* popularity could be easily estimated just by looking at people's posts. But it's just my opinion, obviously

***

^Yea! You're not invisible! I am, but it's okay.

*Snorts* The day you become invisible on this board, Jen, is the day the Earth stops rotating

 

[alcea rosea]

^
I'll find out that theory for you and the we can continue the discussion.

Good night everybody! :zzz:
Especially Jen!

 

[Tigerlily]

Night night!

xoxo

Wandering don't jinx the Earth!

 

[Wandering]

I'll find out that theory for you and the we can continue the discussion.

Sure !

Good night everybody! :zzz:

Yeah, I should be going too

 

[nightning]

*waves to Rose* I see you

I think social pressure would be stronger for higher self-monitors...

I studied some social psychology and there they use some kind of chart where statuses of people in groups can be defined just by marking down the interactions between people.

Or we can go by the "messy" approach. Go ask people who they think are popular and who isn't... and look at tendencies of responses. I think that's easiest to do.

 

[JAVO]

Let's just disappear!

*poof* we're gone!

*wonders why Alcea and Jen haven't replied to this thread yet*

Do you mean threads that are deleted when you say "invisible threads"?

I think athenian was referring to behind-the scenes discussions... PM's, etc.

Doesn't social pressure play it's part in all social interaction even online? So let's say person A is well liked and breaks rules. Person B is not well liked and breaks the same rules. -> B gets more severe punishment than A because B is less liked. People demand less punishment for nice people. What you say of this?

Good point. I think it's an example of the least conforming of a group getting the most pressure to conform. Those who already mostly conform don't threaten the group's integrity.

I studied some social psychology and there they use some kind of chart where statuses of people in groups can be defined just by marking down the interactions between people. So same could be done here. So everybody who gets the most answers to their posts or blogs or threads could have one point + or - point for each (depending on the comment). So roughly the person who gets the biggest number of + is the most popular kid on the block. It's very simple and linear thinking but I think it mostly works also.

I don't really mean that I would start counting but just based reading quite many threads a person could name the most popular people in MBTIc quickly. That is social interaction.

So are you advocating bringing back a variant of the old rep system?

(Just teasing. )

 

[disregard]

I don't think she was referring to tangible threads (i.e. posts, PMs, threads)... I thought she was just referring to abstract influences on one's judgment of another.

Could be wrong.

 

[Tigerlily]

*wonders why Alcea and Jen haven't replied to this thread yet*

Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in. :smiley_violin:

 

[heart]

I don't think she was referring to tangible threads (i.e. posts, PMs, threads)... I thought she was just referring to abstract influences on one's judgment of another.

Could be wrong.

That's how I took it too. What goes on inside a person's mind as well.

Edit: In my opinion, the only way to look beneath what a person choses to share with the external world is to use emapthy or intutition to try and get a feel for what they are feeling/thinking.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

As to the OP, Athenian, I'm pretty sure I know what situation you are speaking about, and I'll try to explain how people can justify different approaches to the same thing.

Jennifer's police example was the best; strict enforcement of stated laws without exception would likely lead to logistical nightmares and chaos. I think the "invisible thread" that you are failing to see in others' decision making process is common sense. I understand that common sense is vague and somewhat indefinable, and that is probably why you have trouble taking it into account. It's the sense of what is prudent and beneficial as opposed to what is strictly laid out. I know from previous posts of yours that you take a hard "letter of the law" line when it comes to rules of any kind. I think it's because you think without slavish adherence to the rules that anarchy would result. But I think common sense is the glue that holds things together and allows deviance from slavish adherence.

As an example, let me give you the following scenario. Let's say that you have patronized the same dry cleaner for 10 years and your clothes have always been perfectly cleaned every time, except that the last time you went, they damaged one of your shirts. Let's also say that you go to a dry cleaner for the first time, and they damage one of your shirts. These two cleaners have committed the exact same offense. But my guess is that you would continue to go to the cleaner that has served you well for 10 years, while you would probably never go to the second dry cleaner ever again. The consistently good service from the first cleaner allows you to see that his mistake is not characteristic of him; he is not likely to repeat it. But the second cleaner has ruined your only experience with him. You are not likely to give him another chance. I think you can see how this applies to what appears to you to be inconsistent discipline.

Nobody here takes my comments seriousy

Doesn't social pressure play it's part in all social interaction even online? So let's say person A is well liked and breaks rules. Person B is not well liked and breaks the same rules. -> B gets more severe punishment than A because B is less liked. People demand less punishment for nice people. What you say of this?

This is a chicken/egg scenario. Are Persons A and B subject to punishment based on how well they're liked, or are they liked according to how much their behavior warrants punishment? I would say that there is probably a good reason that Person A is liked and Person B is not liked. Person A has probably been courteous and a good poster. Person B has probably been offensive in some way. When they commit the same infraction, Person A, being well liked, has probably displayed enough character to infer that their infraction is an isolated incident. Person B, being disliked, has probably had it coming for some time.

 

[CzeCze]

Hi Athenian, first I just wanna say that I admire the fact you consistently put yourself out there with your opinions especially when they are in the minority. You are plainly spoken and don't hedge your opinions with 'i don't mean to offend or' or 'long fluffy intro seguing into my point with but' (two things which you can say I'm guilty of! hahahaha)

I'm gonna say that my answer is to your question is this -- personal preference. Period.

I think if 'the argument' you are referring to is recent drama on the forum, just chalk it up to personal idiosyncracy and people justyfing their personal set of values and standards. It's not necessarily wrong or right in itself, it's just a matter of competing POVs and who wins in that particular fight.

Regardless of whether you use Ne or Fi or Te or Se or whatever to formulate your world view, everyone's gonna use whatever arguments at hand to justify their POV. That can be appeals to 'logic', appeals to tradition, appeals to mercy, whatevs.

I'm saying this because honestly I think you are a bit intractable and you are also still young (and therefore naive, I think being pummeled out in the world will give you the perspective you are asking people for in your thread -- unfortunately we cannot provide it for you, it's something you will discover for yourself) so it's not going to do you any good IMHO to wildly second-guess yourself and assume other people are following a 'truth' that you can't see. You're going to end up totally lost and I don't think that's gonna do anyone any good. Again, I think the answers you seek will be found in the real world, more over, your real life, and with time.

I personally believe in my personal truth and my personal POV -- however -- if you are talking again about recent drama and disagreement over how rules should be applied, it again will boil down to how much people personally like and feel in the situation.