Eleven: Brand Me
The Internet connects people virtually, but distances they psychologically, so that they are left "emotionally detached in a crowded world" where many know their online personal and very few know the real person behind it.
It's also suggested that the internet is destructive of culture - which was also claimed of the printing press, telegraph, and mass-transportation: a distinctive culture develops in isolation, when people have shared beliefs. With mass-media and mass-communication, there is less isolation, less genuine interaction, and less culture.
It's further suggested that culture muse be cultivated. Throughout history, there have been a small number of people who controlled culture, who encouraged some beliefs and discouraged others. The nobility and the clergy made conscious decisions, sometimes explicitly, as to what their subjects and congregations would be encouraged to think and do.
And while the democratic spirit of the modern age cheers the deposition of the monarchs of culture, it leaves people without guidance. Each person makes his own decisions about what to believe, and what culture to adopt for himself, creating a cultural chaos.
But at the same time, most people take their cues from the mass media, which remains in control of very few individuals: a few large corporations, meaning their CEOs and chairmen, control the message of most media outlets. And while social media seems like a democracy, most people still merely pass along the information they receive from the major corporations.
For many people, television shapes the way they view the world. Most recognize it as entertainment, and even the "news" sources focus on a skewed portrayal of the sensational in order to pander to their audiences. But most of the attitudes exhibited by individuals in social media correspond to what has been disseminated in the mass media.
(EN: That seems a bit of a stretch, as the media itself is inconsistent. If a person says yes or no, or even claims not to care, one can find a corresponding position in some media outlet, and suggest a link even if the individual was not exposed to it. So that's a bit of sophistry, though it is entirely plausible and quite probable for the majority of people, who are dedicated non-thinkers with silly-putty for brains.)
There is a contrary point, which suggests that people believe that the stereotypes and prejudices that the media communicate portrays to "other people." They do not believe that it is true of themselves, but of others; they do not believe that it is true of their neighborhood, but of other communities. This notion prevents even the new corporate monarchs from being able to effectively control culture.
So in the end, the common person is still left without a guide to what he should think and what he should do, and where each person chooses for himself, there is no unity of thought and no consistency of culture. Man is left alone in the chaos to make his own way.
Lessons from Online Dating
Two lesson can be taken from online dating:
- The way people describe themselves is often quite different to how they actually are
- The things people say that they want are often quite different to what they actually find attractive
The contrast between claimed and actual attributes and behavior is highly analogous to the claims that vendors and customers make in the market place. Customers are disappointed by vendors who claim their product is better than it is and vendors are frustrated by customers who tailor their product to the alleged desires of the customer only to find that it fails.
Early online dating services were unsuccessful for the same reasons: people were disappointed when a date was different than they claimed to be, and even when the profile was accurate they find that they don't much like the things they thought that they would.
But there is a sign that dating services have overcome the problem, and have become more successful at matching people. The matching process has largely been improved by better information gathering, asking the right questions and phrasing them the right way to gather information about a person's attributes. Then, instead of asking a person their preferences, the services match profiles based on factors that are statistically correlated to successful relationships. As a result, it's claimed that 1 in 5 couples met through an online dating service.
There's also a consideration of the way pictures are used in online dating. People select images that make them look most attractive (similar to the way in which companies use flattering images of their product), which increases the chance that the other person will be disappointed when they meet them. The result is a higher number of unsuccessful first dates - which in business means a higher number of unsatisfied one-time buyers.
The author then presents some statistics that support the common stereotypes that men look for attractive women and women look for wealthy men. A woman's profile that features an attractive picture receives four times the messages of an average-looking woman and 25 times as many as an unattractive one (and for that matter, attractive men receive five times as many inquiries as average ones). A man's profile that cites a lucrative career (doctor or lawyer) gets 2.5 times as much attention as men whose careers pay about average.
(EN: What's missing here is the rest of the story - these profiles get more inquiries, but are they successful in leading to long-term engagements? My suspicion is that they do not, but there's nothing to confirm or dismiss that hypothesis.)
The Psychology of Disingenuousness
Another well-known fact is that people tend to be less inhibited online than they do in face-to-face or even telephone interactions. Clearly, if a person is using a handle or fake identity, they do not feel that what they say to others or disclose about themselves will ever be held against them - but it is also true, to a lesser degree, when a person's online persona is associated to their real identity. People are simply less inhibited when another person is not physically present.
This is as true of commercial interaction as it is of social interaction. People will say things in an email or an online comment that they would not say to a company representative in a live or telephone interaction.
It's also mentioned that they are less likely to be honest - so perhaps "uninhibited" is not quite the right term. They are more likely to be aggressive, but they are also more likely to fabricate and exaggerate, and boldly telling a lie is not the same as revealing the truth about oneself. At best, what you encounter when you meet someone online is a distorted version of themselves, exaggerated in certain aspects.
Anonymity and Distance
While the current trend is for people to be social and communicate as their "true" selves, the internet was originally an anonymous network and as government and commerce have abused personal information, there is widespread demand for it to remain so.
However, the side effect of anonymity is lack of responsibility: just as with anonymous handwritten notes slipped into a suggestion box, people tend to be less inhibited when they feel they will not be held accountable or even identified as the originator or what they say. And as a result they will be more candid.
And because spectacle and mean-spiritedness garners attention online, some people seek to draw attention to themselves by saying outrageous things, whether it's speaking the truth bluntly or departing altogether from the truth in order to seem clever.
Personas and Dissociation
The concept of dissociation describes a person who feels disconnected from themselves as a method of distancing their behavior from their identity. Dissociation is an attempt for a person to escape responsibility for what they did, whether due to clumsiness, lack of skill, or bad intentions.
In the simplest sense, a person who says "my hand slipped" when they make a mistake is blaming their hand for causing the outcome as if their hand was a separate entity with a will of its own. By so doing they do not need to accept responsibility, or even to reconcile the behavior with their own character and motives.
Likewise, a person who is drunk will blame alcohol for doing something that they had intentionally done. Or a person who acted out of anger will attempt to dissociate their behavior. Essentially, they are stating that "it wasn't me" who did something.
Compartmentalization
Compartmentalization is similar to dissociation, but the process is entirely conscious: a person tailors their personality for a given context, and rationalizes that they acted or spoke in a specific way because it was context-appropriate.
It is quite common for people to modify their behavior - to behave differently with different groups of people. A person acts their role when they are at work than at home; they act differently when interacting with a superior, subordinate, or peer; and so on. But there comes a point where behaving appropriately crosses the line into behaving disingenuously - of acting a role rather than being oneself.
And again, it is an abdication of responsibility for reprehensible behavior. Someone who considers himself to be kind can be quite cruel to subordinates in the workplace - and because it was done in the context of that role, he feels he is still a nice person. Or a salesman who considers himself to be honest can lie and swindle when dealing with customers and still consider himself to be honest.
Compartmentalization is usually an active and conscious process: the person does not dissociate after the fact, but plans in advance to behave in an unusual manner. It's rather like the marketing phrase "whatever happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" - this phrase is appealing precisely because it encourages people to behave badly in a given context, and implies they will not be held responsible for the behavior outside of that context.
Asynchronous Communication
Face-to-face communication is synchronous, which gives an individual the opportunity to modify their message depending on the audience's reaction. If the other person seems to be bored or offended, the speaker alters the message or abandons the transmission.
This is not possible with asynchronous communication. Even in writing a letter or an article, the speaker prattles on without knowing how the audience is going to react, and delivers a message that cannot be edited or tailored after it is composed. So they must tailor the message for the expected reaction, or simply be indifferent to the reaction.
The lack of synchronicity in online communication - asking a question and waiting for a response - also disrupts the normal processes of memory in communication. Because there has been a delay, we may have forgotten what was said before - but more significantly, we may have forgotten how we were feeling, so emotion does not ebb and flow during a conversation, but resets itself at every exchange.
There is also less trust when communication is asynchronous. Instinctively, we believe that a timely response is more trustworthy than a delayed one. Notice that, in speaking, we begin to feel uneasy when there is a pause in the conversation while the other person is considering how to respond to what we have said - and we generally assume that they are taking their time to fabricate a dishonest reply, or at the very least we expect the other person is ignoring us or did not understand what we have said to them.
Mercenary Behaviors
People will alter their behavior to get what they want, whether it's exaggerating or lying, cheating or stealing - the more they want something, the greater deviance they will undertake to achieve it.
In traditional business transactions, there are customers who will attempt to "game" programs such as coupons, discounts, and rebates to get a better deal. In their mind, they are not cheating or taking advantage, but merely being "smart shoppers" and can be quite proud of their dishonest behavior.
Exploiting vulnerabilities in websites, whether technical flaws or ill-considered business practices, is just another game to such people. They will lie and cheat, both more readily than when dealing with real people in real environments, to get something more for themselves.
The phrase "gaming the system" causes the author to consider gamification, in which companies use rewards to encourage behaviors. Just like the cheater, the gamer recognizes that changing his behavior will gain him things that he wants at less actual cost, is motivated to act in unusual ways, and is proud of his accomplishments.
Gaming is a kind of compartmentalization, in which behavior done in the context of a game is dissociated from the behavior a person considers to be a part of their normal character. It is therefore easier for them to willfully engage in behavior that they would otherwise find reprehensible.
Virtual Crowd Psychology
It has been noted that when people become a part of a crowd, they lose their sense of personal identity. "Going along with others" becomes an excuse for acting irrationally and impulsively, and the anonymity one feels as a member of a crowd decreases inhibition. Crowds act in extremely reckless and animalistic ways.
While a person in the online medium is often alone, interacting with a computer, he can also feel like he is part of a crowd of other people and can make assumptions about the norms for behavior, generally in favor of acting out the worst he expects of others. To be an anonymous customer is to cease to be an individual, and to be part of a virtual crowd.
The same is also true of employees of a corporation or members of a committee - it is "the company" or "the committee" who will take the blame for their behavior, so they are at liberty to act stupidly and horribly. (EN: Though I have noticed when the outcome is positive, people happily identify themselves as a member of the committee, and eagerly express that it was their idea and the committee went along.)
The False Self
Psychoanalysts distinguish between an individual's personas: who they really are, who they perceive themselves to be, and whom they wish others to perceive them to be. The last is called the "false self," a construct and a projection that is intentionally meant to deceive others to feed a person's self-esteem, even if they do not have a clear plan as to what they hope to achieve by being deceptive.
The false self is a mechanism for survival and defense. We project an image of weakness when we want others to provide for us, and an image of strength when we suspect others intend to harm us.
The false self is also a developmental tool, in that it enables people to "test" a version of themselves to see what it would be like if they behaved differently. And if they are successful, the test version is assimilated into the genuine self. If it fails, the experiment can simply be abandoned with no detriment to the genuine self.
There's also the mention of using a false self as a way to test social norms - to act in a way that is unacceptable in a test situation to determine whether the rule must be obeyed. The individual may be testing his own privilege (as certain people are permitted to break the rules that apply to others) or he may be testing his culture.
However, the false self is a superficial disguise that is easily uncovered. It is not particularly convincing, because it is an artificial construct that lacks the degree of detail that the genuine self has. Simply stated, most people are not very good actors.
But at the same time, others do not necessarily feel the need to expose the deception - some people will play along even though they recognize that the other person is acting. Unless the behavior of the actor is dangerous or noisome, there is no harm in doing so, and it can often be a source of amusement.
This relates to online behavior in two different ways. In some instances, it is easy to project a false self in the guise of an online persona because one has better control over what others see, and their real self is well hidden. But in other instances, people remark that it is easier to be themselves online, because there is less fear of reprisal when others disapprove.
This sometimes gives rise to personal branding that is paradoxical, or at least inconsistent. A person who is shy in person may become very outspoken online, and present different versions of themselves in different forums. The result is that it is difficult to detect when a person is presenting their true self.
Social Insecurity
What people most want when interacting with others is to be respected and accepted, and what they fear most is being disrespected and rejected. This figures into everything a person says in a social context: aside of the function of the communication (gaining consent or cooperation to accomplish a specific goal), it is always tainted by the desire to maintain and increase esteem.
As a medium in which people interact, the internet provides people with the opportunity to reach out to others with similar beliefs as a means to find a group in which they feel accepted. The online profile and blog are bait to attract like-minded people, but also makes a person vulnerable to attack. So the way in which they present themselves is consciously or unconsciously crafted toward these ends.
There's a bit of diversion about photography. It was very expensive to take a picture with the earliest cameras, so people did much to present themselves at their best when having their picture taken. As photography became cheaper, candid shots emerged - people would pose for photographs, but it was no longer that important to look one's best. With digital photography, it is very cheap to snap off a photo, and people have become entirely indiscriminate, snapping off "selfies" at impulse, with little consideration of the effect it would have on their perception by others and even taking and posting photographs that would later cause them embarrassment. (EN: My sense is that this makes much of the behavior of a minority, which is accurate but should not be assumed to characterize the whole.)
In the same way, talk has become cheap: it is very easy to communicate to a large number of people, and that a personal blog or Facebook post is far less formal than a printed newspaper or even a personal letter, hence people are becoming less inhibited - but per the previous section, it is not consistent: some people are less inhibited about exposing their true selves, others less inhibited in the presentation of a false self.
The Shifting Self
A few random topics are mentioned in scant detail:
- Self-Boundary - This describes the binary sense of things as being "me" or "not me," which is blurred by the "sometimes me" that occurs when acting in a specific context. The "sometimes me" can be a transitional state in a changing perception of self.
- Selective Memory - There is a tendency to create a consistent sense of self by being selective in memories. A person who maintains they are honest tends to ignore and eventually forget situations in which they were dishonest. Taken to extremes, this can constitute amnesia.
- Dissociation - Particularly in virtual activity, there is the sense that the physical body is unimportant and even unreal. Interacting online is an out-of-body experience, and those who focus on the online world begin to neglect grooming and health maintenance.
- Derealization - In the same way, people who focus on the online world lose touch with the real world, to the point that the real world begins to seem unreal and chimerical and real-world necessities are neglected.
- Identity Confusion - When a person acts as different personas in different situations, they lose the sense of "who I am" because there is no consistency in their behavior. It is like the actor who "becomes" his character, and after playing many roles has forgotten what his true self is like.
- Identity Alteration - In one sense, an individual's character and identity evolves slowly as his behavior and attitudes change with experience. This process can be more dramatic and rapid for a person who poses as a persona and permanently, rather than temporarily, adopts the characteristics of that persona.
(EN: Most of these seem to beg the question of the degree to which personality change is natural or dysfunctional - it seems to be a gray area. To never evolve is as undesirable as to change too quickly. SO where does one draw the line?)
Ego Surfing and Persona Maintenance
The author mentions the practice of "ego surfing," which is entering one's own name into search engines to see what is being said by other people. Ego surfing is regarded as narcissism, as anyone who does so hopes to see others saying positive things and may be upset when others do not perceive them as they wish to be perceived (not necessarily as they are) - or in some instances, when they find that they are being ignored. Being spoken of by others is a form of recognition, and being ignored is a form of rejection.
(EN: when corporations do this, it is called "reputation monitoring," a kind of market research that attempts to tap word-of-mouth in the online channel. And the practice is even encouraged for people who are seeking to make connections - both job applicant and online daters are encouraged to monitor and manage their reputation online.)
If a person is unhappy with what he finds, there are a number of responses that the author implies are aberrant. He may feel alienated and become withdrawn and bitter. He may take steps to expurgate or at least protest against any negative information. He may undertake a flurry of activity to get more attention paid or more positive things said about him.
The author then considers what can be done to protect one's reputation online, which applies to both personal reputation and brand reputation.
There are various legal remedies that a person or brand may attempt to leverage when information published is untrue - libel, slander, and defamation are generally classified as criminal, but the legal system does not seem particularly interested in pursuing these "crimes" through the judicial system because they harm only one person. Instead, the remedy is most often a civil lawsuit that attempts to punish the perpetrator.
But even pursuing a civil suit can be difficult for a number of reasons:
- Freedom of speech - The law protects the right of individuals to express their opinions, even when they are negative. And so a person can only be pursued if they present false information as being factual, and the line between fact an opinion can be blurry.
- Freedom of the press - The law protects individuals only when the statements made are falsehoods. When someone is reporting an unflattering truth, there is no legal remedy.
- Monetization - Civil law is contrived to compensate the victim for damages, and it is difficult to assign a money-value to the damage done to a person by an insult
- The Burden of Proof - The judicial system places the burden of proof on the plaintiff, which makes it difficult to address any of the issues above.
- Judicial Publicity - A lawsuit is a public affair, and when a lawsuit is begun, the information becomes public domain and attracts interest. That is, bringing suit helps to spread the information even further than it would have gone on its own, and grants it greater credibility.
All of these factors apply to libel/defamation in any medium. When it takes place online, there is the added difficulty of identifying the assailant: the data of several companies (not all of which are in the same nation) must be gathered in order to prove that a specific person made a specific remark - which is expensive, difficult, or unlikely.
It's also noted that the Internet culture has a spirit of defiance of the law, sympathy for those who are persecuted, and a decided love of melodrama. Even when a person is identified and compelled to remove slanderous material, it often pops up on dozens or even hundreds of other sites, posted by people who are sympathetic and who have taken greater effort to make it difficult to pursue them by posting the content anonymously to servers in countries that are not cooperative with the US legal system.
The author ends with a shrug: "in all cases, it is best to seek legal advice." (EN: Other sources suggest simply ignoring the source, responding independently to any negative information or, better still, taking effort to drown it out by taking steps to call attention to positive or neutral information.)
Loose Bits
Studies in risk-aversion show that people are more concerned with the potential for loss than the potential for gain. People are more likely to wager $10 if there's a 50/50 chance of winning $20 than if there is a 1/10 chance of winning $200 - even though mathematically the expected value of the latter is double that of the former, they consider a 90% chance of loss to be worse than a 50% chance of loss.