psychobabble ahoy!

[reenka]

I found a cute(??!) psychology article about The Online Disinhibition Effect, basically going in depth on why/how people act differently online & say things they wouldn't otherwise say (though in the end the author/s acknowledge that some people actually get more paranoid). It later notes that this is modified by 'personality variables' (ie, how much of an effect or change there is in the first place), and that's certainly my experience. I think, also, the dissociative behavior is a lot less prominent in female-centric communities like lj fandom than it is in more impersonal/anonymous male-centric geek forums-- I mean, here, we're still anonymous but most form attachments that are nonetheless 'real' enough to function like normal social bonds. It also helps that dissociative/disruptive behavior often gets censure from one's peers as being wank, drama or trolling. Or at least, fandom seems more able to deal with or control trolling without blunt use of administrative force. (But that's just a tangent.)

Regardless, to me it's sort of disconcerting to realize just how much I depend on not seeing people's reactions to my posts (boredom, I'm sure, hahah), in order to allow me to just keep blabbering on. It's the 'averted eyes' effect the article mentioned, definitely. It's interesting that the medium may allow me this while other shy/introverted people can never really get away from a constant and intense sense of their audience-- like, for every exhibitionist, there are 10 more people locking their ljs, aren't there? It seems for some people, not seeing/hearing isn't as important 'cause the reactions/people are there in their imaginations. Though the part where the article talks about entirely internalizing text to the point where people can imagine they're talking to themselves online... man. That sort of scares me. One step too close to insanity D:

I like this part, though:
    The concept of disinhibition may mistakenly lead us into thinking that what is disinhibited is more real or true than the part of us that inhibits. If we can just peel away repression, suppression, and other defense mechanisms, we will discover the "real" self that lies below.
    I like the idea of 'clusters' or 'constellations' of personality traits rather than layers where one is 'truer' than another based on which is revealed. It articulates something I've always felt-- that as long as the mask serves a real purpose & is under conscious control, there's nothing necessarily 'false' about it. "Neither is more true than the other." For once, the pluralistic approach seems more satisfying :D (I know, I'm as startled as anyone when that happens, hehe... no, I lie, I see the pluralistic approach all the time. Somehow arguing online I set more boundaries 'cause other arguments, the way they're made just seems wrong, more than anything....)
    Also, I think it's interesting to realize that by disinhibiting some aspects of oneself, one necessarily inhibits/hides others (the ones that aren't anonymous or that make up their day-to-day 'self', whatever that may mean). Really, we're always veiled by something or other, so the search for a 'real' self is a lot like chasing one's own tail unless you spend a lot of time with a person under all these different contexts. Well, if a person is complex enough, it may take a -really- long time. Though I personally like that sort of thing :>

I also like the idea that both online & offline behavior form pieces of the same puzzle-- or "reflect important aspects of his personality that surface under different conditions", but moreso the idea that the puzzle is really like a mini-cosmos with varying levels of connectedness between clusters (or 'galaxies'), and tying that in with "identity experimentation" & role-playing online... hmmm.... The thing about 'self boundaries' and how we'd often give out intimate details on ourselves but not our phone numbers also seems telling. I'm not sure of -what-, but.... *drifts off to sleep* :P

Comments

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

That was cool! It's funny what you said about the exhibitionists, though, because I thought yeah, for every drama queen there's people f'locking their ljs--but at the same time it made me think that isn't all Internet conversation kind of anonymous so appealing to the *not* drama queens? Does that make sense? Like I wonder if the kind of people who like attention in real life are commonly found here. Probably some of them are--some people might also adapt to this kind of communication. But maybe some others are people who aren't seemingly attention-seeking in real life but get something out of doing it online.

The whole clusters thing totally fascinates me--in the beginning I was sometimes hyper-aware of how I was "different" online, but at the same time I never felt different. It was more that run-away factor, that because I was online I could psych myself up to actually argue with someone and then go back when I was ready to do that. I used to feel like I was consciously training myself to be more assertive by practicing online.

So a lot of times I feel like I'm being really honest online (I'm all about the benign whatsis he mentioned), but for some that too is supposed to be a "mask" or fake. There is, unfortunately, a sort of commonly held myth especially in HP-fandom that a "true" self is the one that's a bitch.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think more and more, with the advent of webcams and places like MySpace and dating sites and so on, you get more people who like attention in real life, but yeah. Some people just like attention -here-, which makes it interesting that some people don't -even- here or even -especially- here (that paranoia effect). I definitely know people who're active online & off and like attention a lot offline but are paranoid here :> That's pretty fascinating.

I also think people who like a certain kind of attention flourish online-- the NF types who like telling stories and gathering people together based around enthusiasms rather than physical activities. Some types probably go for the role-playing, but I think 'real' actors probably wouldn't really role-play 'cause the similarity is pretty flimsy. Yeah, really seriously active/outgoing people are probably bored with online communication, but there are always the depressed/repressed/super-geeky extraverts :>

I don't think I find you're that different in the different contexts, possibly with/to me (meaning, we don't really argue/come into conflict, etc), though-- it's somewhat more fun 'cause you seem more relaxed offline, but. :> I never really 'feel' different either. But I too felt myself confronting people in ways I otherwise wouldn't (benignly), and I've sort of seen that trickle down! Heh. I think the part in the article about 'time out' and coming back when you're ready is really such a huge factor allowing this. In real life, everything seems to happen 'too fast' and I get flustered if put into a corner with someone more aggressive-- but online I have that essential time to gather myself after I cooled off and avoided for awhile. Heh.

It depends why you're being nice; if you're 'just polite', I dunno, are manners hardwired? I guess it depends how far one is inhibited, but I think for a lot of people the manners/social gestures they make, especially online, aren't that sincere, so... I can see where the 'you're really a bitch' comes from. Although I think people go too far with it so the bitchiness is exaggerated 'cause the of the disinhibition effect. Most people aren't genuinely... benign, heh, y'know, not the way you (...or I...) am -.-;;;; I mean, not that they're not kind/decent people but the really decent people don't make a point of being 'really decent'; so a lot of people, if they're really fixated on being nice, are actually projecting something cultural rather than personal. Does that make sense? That's just my knee-jerk reaction to the people generally protesting loudest about manners online. Not that cultural isn't 'real' but neither is it a personality trait.