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.
Source (credibility) effect on 15:58 - Jul 4 by hubble
I'm following this thread with mild interest, because right now, there's Foucault else to do.
Intriguing, because seemingly, most people Kant be @rsed to.
Although, clearly, I kan...
Footnote: I seem to have lapsed into Kerrang style prose, where every sentence is littered with Ks. Time for my pills.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
0
Source (credibility) effect on 16:18 - Jul 7 with 499 views
Source (credibility) effect on 00:36 - Jul 4 by stainrods_elbow
Thanks for that, and I appreciate the (interesting) feedback from one who clearly knows their stuff. Sorry if I bored one or two others.
As I tried to put across, I really just want to demonstrate how, for every violator, there's often collusion, protection, and co-dependency, and I see the thrust of F's critique of power as harmonising with that systemic vision - as well a necessary counterweight to those here who just want to isolate people like Barton as unilaterally and self-enclosedly corrupt. Far too many, in my experience, project their own power dynamics onto others to safeguard their view of themselves as the 'nice guys'. Most of us are a mixture of humane and mean. Some use fists; others use words.
As for Joey, I wouldn't necessarily have a drink with him, but I would interview him. If he were a mere simpleton or complete c*ck, I imagine he wouldn't have been invited by the Oxford Union to debate football, philosophy and social media (and be described by students after as 'inpsirational'), do community work at Pendleside Hospice while at Burnley, or check himself into Sporting Chance (well, at least he tried).
[Post edited 4 Jul 1:54]
From earlier: "... to isolate [Barton] as if he were the sole repository of evil in this interaction with his wife and family is missing the point. They're a (pathological sounding) network, and he's one player only."
And now: "I really just want to demonstrate how, for every violator, there's often collusion, protection, and co-dependency."
You appear to confuse explanation with excuse.
There can be no excuse for someone like Barton kicking his wife in the head - unless you consider the mere fact of her leaving her head within kicking distance to be a form of "collusion".
Either way, I find your use of him as an excuse (that word again) to justify your views on personal responsibility etc to be disgusting.
0
Source (credibility) effect on 16:45 - Jul 7 with 461 views
Source (credibility) effect on 16:18 - Jul 7 by NewBee
From earlier: "... to isolate [Barton] as if he were the sole repository of evil in this interaction with his wife and family is missing the point. They're a (pathological sounding) network, and he's one player only."
And now: "I really just want to demonstrate how, for every violator, there's often collusion, protection, and co-dependency."
You appear to confuse explanation with excuse.
There can be no excuse for someone like Barton kicking his wife in the head - unless you consider the mere fact of her leaving her head within kicking distance to be a form of "collusion".
Either way, I find your use of him as an excuse (that word again) to justify your views on personal responsibility etc to be disgusting.
I have tried my best to not write a reply on this thread but am unable to hold off any longer. Measured posts from NewBee and E15 pointing out inconsistencies and general nonsense have inspired me. Thank goodness for our cult-like group think that so many of us suffer from on this forum.
There are too many ridiculous claims in this thread. The main one is "Am writing an article". First point; who is the readership for an "article" which is effectively and unashamedly an attempt to blow smoke up one's ar5e. This from the classic poster who demonstrates this insatiable attention-seeking by metaphorically jumping on a soapbox and unleashing his long words that us unwashed masses could never hope to understand. Goodness help you if you disagree, get back to your cult, etc etc.
A remarkably pathetic thread, once again, that has fulfilled its purpose by sufficiently winding up as many regular Joes who just come here to catch up with Rangers chat from a collection of tremendous posters. I realise I'm now fueling this by adding a reply and opening up for the standard response - group think, cult, long words, poll, sourced article from last year, can't get to games, multiple angles.
Only question is which of the classic accounts it will come from when the inevitable pompous reply does come. Probably just as this thread is about to drop off the first page again.
I know I should just ignore him, so please excuse me for this outburst!
6
Source (credibility) effect on 16:54 - Jul 7 with 441 views
Source (credibility) effect on 03:13 - Jul 7 by numptydumpty
My take on this thread is Stainrod s Elbow has multiple accounts set up on here and to encourage debate he often uses rarely used accounts to reply to his own questions but he slightly disagrees with them and then compares all other replies as deviant or lacking in empathy.
My conclusion is it's a very strange way to operate. It's definitely true though. It's so obvious.
However, once either himself or any of his alternative accounts and his debates have caused others to bite, he then throws out all manner of insults to all and sundry and acts as the only one on here, along with his other rarely used aliases, that are decent human beings.
The conclusion is thus.
If you have not been insulted by Stainrods anatomy then you cannot consider yourself to be a fully fledged member of the forum.
However, my own personal take on all this is that every single comment Stainrod has put on here, I am astounded by the level of intellect and the fair mindedness that the man possesses.
I so wish I was that cool but unfortunately I confess to being a saddo !!
I very much look forward to being educated by Barton / Stainrod and A N Other !!
My mate Freud is getting worried...
I personally bow to my master !!!!!!!!
In my mischievous teenage years I probably would have been minded to set up various new accounts all named after various parts of Stainrod's anatomy....Stainrods_Knee, Stainrods_Wrist, Stainrods_Leg etc and post throughout this thread as a pisstake.
As it is I'm much older now, less childish, and can't be arsed.
4
Source (credibility) effect on 17:00 - Jul 7 with 433 views
Source (credibility) effect on 16:54 - Jul 7 by slmrstid
In my mischievous teenage years I probably would have been minded to set up various new accounts all named after various parts of Stainrod's anatomy....Stainrods_Knee, Stainrods_Wrist, Stainrods_Leg etc and post throughout this thread as a pisstake.
As it is I'm much older now, less childish, and can't be arsed.
I always think of Edward Norton in Fight Club saying "I am Jack's.... ".
I am Stainrod's Elbow, I am Stainrod's Over-Inflated-Sense-Of-Importance etc
0
Source (credibility) effect on 17:28 - Jul 7 with 376 views
I have tried my best to not write a reply on this thread but am unable to hold off any longer. Measured posts from NewBee and E15 pointing out inconsistencies and general nonsense have inspired me. Thank goodness for our cult-like group think that so many of us suffer from on this forum.
There are too many ridiculous claims in this thread. The main one is "Am writing an article". First point; who is the readership for an "article" which is effectively and unashamedly an attempt to blow smoke up one's ar5e. This from the classic poster who demonstrates this insatiable attention-seeking by metaphorically jumping on a soapbox and unleashing his long words that us unwashed masses could never hope to understand. Goodness help you if you disagree, get back to your cult, etc etc.
A remarkably pathetic thread, once again, that has fulfilled its purpose by sufficiently winding up as many regular Joes who just come here to catch up with Rangers chat from a collection of tremendous posters. I realise I'm now fueling this by adding a reply and opening up for the standard response - group think, cult, long words, poll, sourced article from last year, can't get to games, multiple angles.
Only question is which of the classic accounts it will come from when the inevitable pompous reply does come. Probably just as this thread is about to drop off the first page again.
I know I should just ignore him, so please excuse me for this outburst!
I could write a book on all of this, but thankfully have better things to do. The sociological self-commentary would fill one in any event.
In the meantime, one of my apparently multiplying number tried to follow the point of your post from my allegedly indefatigable loftiwordiness until I realised there wasn't one.
Poster who has a professional/creative life (shock, horror) mentions in passing he's writing an article for context! It's utterly shameless, isn't it? With vanity like that, how one earth for I squeeze my head through my front door?
One or two noble execeptions aside: Good Faith Posting 1, Pointlessly Resentful Inverse Snobbery 6.
Source (credibility) effect on 19:09 - Jul 7 by stainrods_elbow
I could write a book on all of this, but thankfully have better things to do. The sociological self-commentary would fill one in any event.
In the meantime, one of my apparently multiplying number tried to follow the point of your post from my allegedly indefatigable loftiwordiness until I realised there wasn't one.
Poster who has a professional/creative life (shock, horror) mentions in passing he's writing an article for context! It's utterly shameless, isn't it? With vanity like that, how one earth for I squeeze my head through my front door?
One or two noble execeptions aside: Good Faith Posting 1, Pointlessly Resentful Inverse Snobbery 6.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
