By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Am writing an article on this topic right now, with specific reference to social media platforms, and specifically football message boards.
The phenomenon refers to how people’s reactions, judgments, or acceptance of information vary depending on who delivers the message rather than just what is said. Factors include the speaker’s perceived authority, trustworthiness, likability, social status, or group membership.
Sometimes it’s also discussed in terms of:
(i) Message source bias
(ii) In-group/out-group effects (including online scapegoating)
(iii) Halo effect (where a person’s overall impression influences judgment of specific statements).
It's something I've noticed time and again on LfW, though i get the feeling that the perpetrators are totally unaware of it. I'm also interested in how it works the other way to, i.e. those individuals who consider themselves more qualified/professionalised/having higher 'status' etc. operate accordingly.
Would appreciate any thoughts, on or off board, from those who have an interest in the topic and/or expertise etc.
Not quite comparable with your post, butrelative in context, I’ve recently looked at something like this for research withing my own business and there definitely seems to be a direct link between social media platforms and narcissistic behaviour.
Social media platforms are a breeding ground - with users often engaging in self-promotion, validation-seeking, and curated online personas – often taking on various multiple identities. Narcissistic traits, such as grandiosity and a need for admiration, are amplified by the constant feedback and attention available on platforms like Instagram and twitter, which can be replicated and intensified on other platforms which I believe includes football platforms and other mediums with high engagement. I believe there is huge correlation between social media use and increased narcissism - it's important to note it’s complex with reciprocal effects, which often include self presentation and validation seeking. This type of narcissism tends to use social media to craft an idealised online self - posting multiple threads and updates to gain admiration and validation from others – often enjoying the attention being gathered and garnered regardless of being construed either positively or negatively. I’ve found that Individuals displaying narcissism tend to post more frequently, posting contrary thoughts and attention seeking engagement, rewarded with comments, shares and divisive content. Anything that provokes attention or validation of their insecurity and sensitivity to criticism tends to be a coping mechanism for negative emotions and external validation. I believe that this excessive use for self enhancement definitely leads to problematic behaviour – which in itself reinforces narcissistic traits – especially if it becomes the primary way of replicating emotions and self esteem. It manifests as a method of maintaining a positive self view and any feedback – particularly engagement – further solidifies their narcissistic tendencies. This in turn provides constant stimulation and validation, which is very appealing to narcissistic individuals and is potentially addictive. It’s important to point out that not all social media usage is narcissistic – but the frequency and addictive nature of constant engagement has a potential for long term consequences.
1
Source (credibility) effect on 08:56 - Jun 29 with 5104 views
Source (credibility) effect on 08:18 - Jun 29 by 100percent
Not quite comparable with your post, butrelative in context, I’ve recently looked at something like this for research withing my own business and there definitely seems to be a direct link between social media platforms and narcissistic behaviour.
Social media platforms are a breeding ground - with users often engaging in self-promotion, validation-seeking, and curated online personas – often taking on various multiple identities. Narcissistic traits, such as grandiosity and a need for admiration, are amplified by the constant feedback and attention available on platforms like Instagram and twitter, which can be replicated and intensified on other platforms which I believe includes football platforms and other mediums with high engagement. I believe there is huge correlation between social media use and increased narcissism - it's important to note it’s complex with reciprocal effects, which often include self presentation and validation seeking. This type of narcissism tends to use social media to craft an idealised online self - posting multiple threads and updates to gain admiration and validation from others – often enjoying the attention being gathered and garnered regardless of being construed either positively or negatively. I’ve found that Individuals displaying narcissism tend to post more frequently, posting contrary thoughts and attention seeking engagement, rewarded with comments, shares and divisive content. Anything that provokes attention or validation of their insecurity and sensitivity to criticism tends to be a coping mechanism for negative emotions and external validation. I believe that this excessive use for self enhancement definitely leads to problematic behaviour – which in itself reinforces narcissistic traits – especially if it becomes the primary way of replicating emotions and self esteem. It manifests as a method of maintaining a positive self view and any feedback – particularly engagement – further solidifies their narcissistic tendencies. This in turn provides constant stimulation and validation, which is very appealing to narcissistic individuals and is potentially addictive. It’s important to point out that not all social media usage is narcissistic – but the frequency and addictive nature of constant engagement has a potential for long term consequences.
Spot on
Back in the 50’s60’s you had a 10 minute tv programme can’t remember what it was called and Barbara woodhouse was campaigning against long haired layabouts and a kissing on the tv
Barbara wood house was dogs it was another old dog who I can’t recall her name
Source (credibility) effect on 08:18 - Jun 29 by 100percent
Not quite comparable with your post, butrelative in context, I’ve recently looked at something like this for research withing my own business and there definitely seems to be a direct link between social media platforms and narcissistic behaviour.
Social media platforms are a breeding ground - with users often engaging in self-promotion, validation-seeking, and curated online personas – often taking on various multiple identities. Narcissistic traits, such as grandiosity and a need for admiration, are amplified by the constant feedback and attention available on platforms like Instagram and twitter, which can be replicated and intensified on other platforms which I believe includes football platforms and other mediums with high engagement. I believe there is huge correlation between social media use and increased narcissism - it's important to note it’s complex with reciprocal effects, which often include self presentation and validation seeking. This type of narcissism tends to use social media to craft an idealised online self - posting multiple threads and updates to gain admiration and validation from others – often enjoying the attention being gathered and garnered regardless of being construed either positively or negatively. I’ve found that Individuals displaying narcissism tend to post more frequently, posting contrary thoughts and attention seeking engagement, rewarded with comments, shares and divisive content. Anything that provokes attention or validation of their insecurity and sensitivity to criticism tends to be a coping mechanism for negative emotions and external validation. I believe that this excessive use for self enhancement definitely leads to problematic behaviour – which in itself reinforces narcissistic traits – especially if it becomes the primary way of replicating emotions and self esteem. It manifests as a method of maintaining a positive self view and any feedback – particularly engagement – further solidifies their narcissistic tendencies. This in turn provides constant stimulation and validation, which is very appealing to narcissistic individuals and is potentially addictive. It’s important to point out that not all social media usage is narcissistic – but the frequency and addictive nature of constant engagement has a potential for long term consequences.
Fascinating reply. I think it's also important to recognise that, like most psychological traits/behaviours, nariccisism has both positive and negative correlates. Essentially, for instance, the reflexive verb 'to enjoy oneself' is impossible to apply without a degree of narcissism (the self as something that enjoys itself enjoying itself, as it were). If narcissism wasn't a thing, there would be no mirrors.
Re posting on football platforms and social media etc., there's also a distinction to be drawn (though the line can feel like a fine one) between stirring things up to get attention for oneself, and doing so because one enjoys debate, controversy etc. Thge one is personal; the other is culturally enriching. Many people, in my experience, who aren't really comfortable with the latter mistake it for the former (playing the man not the ball), and turn debate into resentment.
As most people are snobs, they will also often take different views of the same thing depending on who says it, as may those authors themselves who consider they have more 'authority' (justifiably or not) than those they're speaking to. Life is not a level playing field, wearyingly, and critical thinking only turns into self-criticism for the rarest of souls.
I worked for Reuters for over 30 years - one of the challenges a news source of that type had was to be seen to be providing news independent of bias to a global audience (Terrorist / Freedom Fighter). Social media has obviously done a lot to disintermediate the usual information providers, for good and bad. On the good side, relying on newspapers owned by owners with an agenda as the only source of the truth is now less of an issue. On the minus side, anyone now has an opportunity to spew garbage. I think the adage of “trust but verify’ still holds true as credibility is an earned currency. Bias is interesting as it works in so many ways - reality is that people often believe what they want to believe despite all available evidence. Social Media doesn’t hold many admissions of mistakes Incidentally, one of the things that we all had the opportunity to do, irrespective of job role was attend the journalists’ writing course. Concise use of language was seen as being key to communication. Catering to your audience and avoiding language posturing / grandstanding is a good way of establishing rapport.
[Post edited 30 Jun 13:16]
3
Source (credibility) effect on 12:06 - Jun 30 with 4568 views
Source (credibility) effect on 08:56 - Jun 29 by enfieldargh
Spot on
Back in the 50’s60’s you had a 10 minute tv programme can’t remember what it was called and Barbara woodhouse was campaigning against long haired layabouts and a kissing on the tv
Barbara wood house was dogs it was another old dog who I can’t recall her name
Mary whitehouse?
favourite cheese mature Cheddar. FFS there is no such thing as the EPL
Source (credibility) effect on 08:18 - Jun 29 by 100percent
Not quite comparable with your post, butrelative in context, I’ve recently looked at something like this for research withing my own business and there definitely seems to be a direct link between social media platforms and narcissistic behaviour.
Social media platforms are a breeding ground - with users often engaging in self-promotion, validation-seeking, and curated online personas – often taking on various multiple identities. Narcissistic traits, such as grandiosity and a need for admiration, are amplified by the constant feedback and attention available on platforms like Instagram and twitter, which can be replicated and intensified on other platforms which I believe includes football platforms and other mediums with high engagement. I believe there is huge correlation between social media use and increased narcissism - it's important to note it’s complex with reciprocal effects, which often include self presentation and validation seeking. This type of narcissism tends to use social media to craft an idealised online self - posting multiple threads and updates to gain admiration and validation from others – often enjoying the attention being gathered and garnered regardless of being construed either positively or negatively. I’ve found that Individuals displaying narcissism tend to post more frequently, posting contrary thoughts and attention seeking engagement, rewarded with comments, shares and divisive content. Anything that provokes attention or validation of their insecurity and sensitivity to criticism tends to be a coping mechanism for negative emotions and external validation. I believe that this excessive use for self enhancement definitely leads to problematic behaviour – which in itself reinforces narcissistic traits – especially if it becomes the primary way of replicating emotions and self esteem. It manifests as a method of maintaining a positive self view and any feedback – particularly engagement – further solidifies their narcissistic tendencies. This in turn provides constant stimulation and validation, which is very appealing to narcissistic individuals and is potentially addictive. It’s important to point out that not all social media usage is narcissistic – but the frequency and addictive nature of constant engagement has a potential for long term consequences.
I would say this has been going on for centuries.... down the pub, in the work place, maybe even starting in school (i.e. bullying in the the playground etc).
Technology has just accelerated & amplified it IMO and given the person a much bigger platform and audience to reach out to, the behaviour has always been there.
0
Source (credibility) effect on 16:35 - Jun 30 with 4248 views
In terms of acceptance of information depending on source, I'm not sure how this is a social media or online message board issue. We all have mates who are known as a bit of a bs'er and when they tell you something you take it with a pinch of salt and others who are more detail orientated and are always pretty much on the nose with what they're saying.
I think the difference is that when you're with your mates you can give them a bit of grief if they have a reputation for bs-ing and it's taken in good humor whereas online the same can potentially be taken as massively disrespectful even if not intended that way.
0
Source (credibility) effect on 16:49 - Jun 30 with 4210 views
Source (credibility) effect on 16:49 - Jun 30 by stainrods_elbow
But that's the whole point - they're not, or not only.
I would say they are. How people are seen by others is created by the person themselves.
I would like to think I behave on here as I am. I don't have any agenda's etc, I try to be true to character, for better or worse. How people see me is probably an accurate assessment.
So if I decided to behave like a cnt then I couldn't (or rather shouldn't) complain if people thought I behaved like a cnt even if I say something that's identical to an angelic person. Only one person is responsible for that and that's me. I think it's too simplistic to say that a cnt and an angel saying the same thing should be treated the same. We're humans, not robots, so character assessment will come in to it so if the bloke down the pub who acts like a cnt suddenly comes out with something profound and sensible, it'll probably get ignored or treated differently to the person next to them who is not a cnt but says the same thing.
IMO it's for this reason that Politicians in particular use this to manipulate. They actively create a public persona that probably belies their true character/intentions.
1
Source (credibility) effect on 19:50 - Jun 30 with 4069 views
Source (credibility) effect on 17:36 - Jun 30 by Juzzie
I would say they are. How people are seen by others is created by the person themselves.
I would like to think I behave on here as I am. I don't have any agenda's etc, I try to be true to character, for better or worse. How people see me is probably an accurate assessment.
So if I decided to behave like a cnt then I couldn't (or rather shouldn't) complain if people thought I behaved like a cnt even if I say something that's identical to an angelic person. Only one person is responsible for that and that's me. I think it's too simplistic to say that a cnt and an angel saying the same thing should be treated the same. We're humans, not robots, so character assessment will come in to it so if the bloke down the pub who acts like a cnt suddenly comes out with something profound and sensible, it'll probably get ignored or treated differently to the person next to them who is not a cnt but says the same thing.
IMO it's for this reason that Politicians in particular use this to manipulate. They actively create a public persona that probably belies their true character/intentions.
You're completely missing the point of the thread, and what prompted it. Have you never heard of systems theory or twigged the systemic factors that position/protect people? It's absoutely clear that a person's popularity, position and perceived credibility mediates how what they say is received. People are held in the position they are, for better or worse, by a conspiracy of factors and forces - think about Jimmy Savile for a recent example. We don't just live in a world of individuals. If that were the case, the concept of, say, institutional racism would have no purchase - it would just be put down to 'bad apples'. To take another topic, toxic/coercive control, as I was discussing at a cultural event this weekend, would merely be a matter of individual behaviour, rather than held in place by a relational network, i.e sponsored by passivity, need, masochism etc.
These patterns, in my experience, are replicated in families, companies, cults and message boards. Some people are more equal than others, and always will be, as Orwell foresaw. Try reading Animal Farm!
I get the feeling a pissed up Keith Allen is going to join this conversation at any stage. It’s got that late night BBC 2 80s feel to it . I’m royally entertained by it , mind.
2
Source (credibility) effect on 21:49 - Jun 30 with 3887 views
Source (credibility) effect on 20:49 - Jun 30 by stainrods_elbow
You're completely missing the point of the thread, and what prompted it. Have you never heard of systems theory or twigged the systemic factors that position/protect people? It's absoutely clear that a person's popularity, position and perceived credibility mediates how what they say is received. People are held in the position they are, for better or worse, by a conspiracy of factors and forces - think about Jimmy Savile for a recent example. We don't just live in a world of individuals. If that were the case, the concept of, say, institutional racism would have no purchase - it would just be put down to 'bad apples'. To take another topic, toxic/coercive control, as I was discussing at a cultural event this weekend, would merely be a matter of individual behaviour, rather than held in place by a relational network, i.e sponsored by passivity, need, masochism etc.
These patterns, in my experience, are replicated in families, companies, cults and message boards. Some people are more equal than others, and always will be, as Orwell foresaw. Try reading Animal Farm!
[Post edited 30 Jun 20:51]
Not really in agreement with this. As in the narcissistic behaviour theory, when persons are enjoying the comfort of anonymity online on social media or message boards, it's easy to manipulate the narrative so that a person with various identities can push the conversations in which ever direction they choose. Multiple personalities can be created to represent various contrary opinions - often creating the bias for attention and validation, regardless of whether they believe the theories or not. There is never any expectation to reveal their selves in real life, so the various identities remain anonymous, but still fulfil the thrill for the narcissist. The difference in families and companies of course are that the characters are known and their personality traits are open and in plain site. People in real life tend to have a level of predictability that they maintain within certain parameters through out their life time. This is further exposed and exploited by the likes of instagram and twitter because their algorithms recognise the 'likes' and support of various behavioural traits, Cambridge Analytica, amongst others, have made a massive business of this manipulation and data collection.
2
Source (credibility) effect on 22:27 - Jun 30 with 3819 views
Source (credibility) effect on 21:49 - Jun 30 by 100percent
Not really in agreement with this. As in the narcissistic behaviour theory, when persons are enjoying the comfort of anonymity online on social media or message boards, it's easy to manipulate the narrative so that a person with various identities can push the conversations in which ever direction they choose. Multiple personalities can be created to represent various contrary opinions - often creating the bias for attention and validation, regardless of whether they believe the theories or not. There is never any expectation to reveal their selves in real life, so the various identities remain anonymous, but still fulfil the thrill for the narcissist. The difference in families and companies of course are that the characters are known and their personality traits are open and in plain site. People in real life tend to have a level of predictability that they maintain within certain parameters through out their life time. This is further exposed and exploited by the likes of instagram and twitter because their algorithms recognise the 'likes' and support of various behavioural traits, Cambridge Analytica, amongst others, have made a massive business of this manipulation and data collection.
Some really good points there about anonymity and using multiple accounts to drive a narrative.
Another factor to be considered in the virtual realm is the preponderance of bots.
Apparently bots now outnumber humans on the internet:
Source (credibility) effect on 09:04 - Jun 29 by stainrods_elbow
Fascinating reply. I think it's also important to recognise that, like most psychological traits/behaviours, nariccisism has both positive and negative correlates. Essentially, for instance, the reflexive verb 'to enjoy oneself' is impossible to apply without a degree of narcissism (the self as something that enjoys itself enjoying itself, as it were). If narcissism wasn't a thing, there would be no mirrors.
Re posting on football platforms and social media etc., there's also a distinction to be drawn (though the line can feel like a fine one) between stirring things up to get attention for oneself, and doing so because one enjoys debate, controversy etc. Thge one is personal; the other is culturally enriching. Many people, in my experience, who aren't really comfortable with the latter mistake it for the former (playing the man not the ball), and turn debate into resentment.
As most people are snobs, they will also often take different views of the same thing depending on who says it, as may those authors themselves who consider they have more 'authority' (justifiably or not) than those they're speaking to. Life is not a level playing field, wearyingly, and critical thinking only turns into self-criticism for the rarest of souls.
To save me starting a new thread, I shall also be submitting a thesis on why bald 40-year-olds from Grimsby make the best lovers, and would welcome input either on here or DMs are open. Thanks lads.
14
Source (credibility) effect on 23:09 - Jun 30 with 3697 views
Source (credibility) effect on 22:55 - Jun 30 by Northernr
To save me starting a new thread, I shall also be submitting a thesis on why bald 40-year-olds from Grimsby make the best lovers, and would welcome input either on here or DMs are open. Thanks lads.
Mark Strong is definitely older than 40!
1
Source (credibility) effect on 23:13 - Jun 30 with 3684 views
Source (credibility) effect on 22:42 - Jun 30 by kensalriser
Unusual definition of narcissism.
Agreed. IMHO, it's difficult to form any type of positive traits of narcissism. Enjoying one's self can only be construed as narcissism if it is at the expense of someone else. It's also very possible to own a mirror without being narcissistic - in fact the synonym reflection is often considered to be comparable to being thoughtful, considerate, meditative and contemplative - not words generally associated with narcissism. Cultural enrichment and debate IMHO are also not subjects that should be forced on people by token one up man ship - growth and development thrive with acceptance and the ability to appreciate and understand the opposite opinion.
0
Source (credibility) effect on 23:22 - Jun 30 with 3659 views
Source (credibility) effect on 22:55 - Jun 30 by Northernr
To save me starting a new thread, I shall also be submitting a thesis on why bald 40-year-olds from Grimsby make the best lovers, and would welcome input either on here or DMs are open. Thanks lads.
Because you practiced on the fish.
0
Source (credibility) effect on 23:26 - Jun 30 with 3651 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
