Social hierarchy on forums

[RLbitClassica]

I don't find it to be as prevalent on PSO-world, but I can't help but be bothered by the twisted social tendencies I see on most forum websites nowadays.

When I think of social forums and they're intended purpose, I think of an internet-based network that links people of a like-minded nature. It's supposed to bring people together, so to speak. What I actually see is a miniature social hierarchy, where certain members are idolized as gods of the board. Everything they say is considered gold by the main user-base and they(the user-base, that is) will blatantly attack anyone who has an opposing opinion.

I don't know where I'm really going with this... it just sickens me. I use the internet as an escape from the social BS that plagues the real world. I don't want to go through the same nonsense online too.

[BIG OLAF]

I was just listening to a radio program the other week that discussed things like this. Internet 'cliques', social hierarchies, and how many people revert to a middle-schooler mindset when armed with the anonymity of the internet, and the ease-of-access to like-minded individuals (so they can further inflate their incorrect opinions about things through 'yes-manning' each other). it was very interesting, but also sort of depressing, since I know a plethora of examples of each of those behavioral types.

Now, like you said, PSO-World isn't too prevalent when it comes to the 'hierarchies'; there really aren't any members that are 'revered' in that kind of way. But, when it comes to 'cliques', this forum is quite ripe with them, full of chunks of people who indirectly tell anyone outside their friend-circle things like 'not you', or 'only us', or 'we don't like you', or 'we don't care', etc.

When it comes to all of this, I'm quite interested in looking into it more. I find it fascinating, if not, as I said before, a bit depressing to see many people act the way they do on digital mediums.

[CelestialBlade]

You have to realize that the same idolization that you hate in the real world comes from the exact same source--human nature. We're not suddenly "sanitized" just because we're online. Of course there's cliques, that happens in virtually every group setting. It's just a bunch of humans sitting behind the computers and smartphones that give us access to the internet, so it stands to reason you're going to see the exact same problems in offline society as you are in online...though often worse because of the veil of anonymity.

Some people get revered for their contributions and achievements, too.

[NoiseHERO]

I'm totally the class clown bully that pretends to be best friends with all the teachers

[RLbitClassica]

You have to realize that the same idolization that you hate in the real world comes from the exact same source--human nature. We're not suddenly "sanitized" just because we're online.

This is true. This is why I care less and less about people with each passing day.

[blace]

I only see this happening on official forums for certain things. Not so much for fan sites.

The one I do recall it being heavily focused on a hierarchy, outright ignored anyone that was either new, or had a low post count.

[HeartBreak301]

The only instance of this I can think of myself was my friend Zack on one of the PSO private server forums. That guy can type up a wall of text faster than anyone else with factual evidence to whatever topic he's replying to. People kind of appointed him as an "Info God" because 99% of the time he was right. So I guess he earned his respect.

Typically not the case, but that's the only instance I know of where it was applied and kind of deserved.

[Randomness]

The only instance of this I can think of myself was my friend Zack on one of the PSO private server forums. That guy can type up a wall of text faster than anyone else with factual evidence to whatever topic he's replying to. People kind of appointed him as an "Info God" because 99% of the time he was right. So I guess he earned his respect.

Typically not the case, but that's the only instance I know of where it was applied and kind of deserved.

I think there's a difference between a reputation that's a result of consistently high-quality posts, and one that's more based on social factors. The latter is what's being complained about - idolization with no obvious basis, particularly in an exclusionary manner.

[Retehi]

Lol go into the PSO2 forum, plenty of that goin' on there!

[blace]

Bah, PSO2 forum is special.

It's been that way before the game was even in alpha testing.

[NoiseHERO]

Lol go into the PSO2 forum, plenty of that goin' on there!

Yeah that's what I was thinking when everyone's all "PSOW doesn't really have it" then I forgot that PSO2 section isn't all of PSOW. <_<

It's just the most entertaining part.

[BIG OLAF]

Bah, PSO2 forum is special.

It's been that way before the game was even in alpha testing.

Not entirely true. I can't really speak for pre-Alpha testing, since that was before I really paid attention to he PSO2 forum, but I know in the Beta test days, the PSO2 forum was very kind, and helpful, and everyone got along and had fun, posting pictures, videos, constructive strategies about gameplay, etc.

But, about the time that the game fully released is about the time things started going downhill. A lot of it had to do with the massive influx of forum newbies that flooded in after PSO2 went live. Most of them just had ratty attitudes, and covered the forum in a deluge of stupid questions/threads/anything, and a lot of the older, nicer forum members went into hiding amongst the rabble. Some of them still haven't returned, and probably won't.

It got very nasty for a while there, with literally every thread breaking out into a huge fight. It's not quite that volatile anymore, but it still has its issues and 'problem children'.

[blace]

I recalled some form of hierarchy was formed before the screenshots and dates for the alpha testing. Mind you this was when everyone would register and speculate over every detail and sides were taken.

[JazzGB]

It's funny you mention it as I have always been interested in the sociological effects of the internet.
About 3 years (or more) ago I posted a question on a popular gaming website/wiki which I had been part of since beta. Though I can't remember my exact words it basically boiled down to 'do you really think that anonymity allows you to behave in a way that generally you would not in real life?' I asked because the site was beginning to grow very rapidly and the general tone had started to dive (and since being sold to CBS I haven't returned).
The replies started off well and we actually had a good discussion about disconnection and inability to 'read' people's words like you would body language...after about 15 pages unfortunately it dissolved into name calling and general abuse.
So what is it that makes people behave that way? Boredom? Lack of any real connection to their statements and not understanding the cause and effect? People being too sensitive? Is the social heirachy that is so prevalent in school to blame? (side note: I have only seen this jock/nerd/whatever thing in American movies and though there were specific subsections of people at my school we all mixed happily...those who were difficult to others were generally ignored and not bullied)

I guess the real question is 'Why do we need to define ourselves in opposition to other people, especially on the internet?' because that is essentially what this is, ne? 'I'm better than you because x/y/z so people should think so and I'll show them by putting you down'.

TLDR: Someone called our first podcast as annoying as 'feline coitus' and made me sad.

[Sinue_v2]

I guess the real question is 'Why do we need to define ourselves in opposition to other people, especially on the internet?' because that is essentially what this is, ne? 'I'm better than you because x/y/z so people should think so and I'll show them by putting you down'.

Again, I'd chaulk it up to basic human nature. Heirarchical societies are profuse in nature, and that's especially true for mammals and apes like us. We're also a deeply tribal species, which is an abstraction from the local family groups towards bands of families in a community. The mechanism is pretty basal though and probably based on similarities and differences. Groups that look physically and have similar culture would tend to be more closely related, and treated favorably. Groups that look physically and culturally divergent are less closely related and are likely a threat to resources and territory. As our societies and civilizations grew, we ran into the problem of having a larger cultural identity to side with, but too large of a tribe to mentally catalog. So our subdivisions become even more and more abstract... not just within groups of families, but with hobbies, sports, politics, etc. We all want to promote our chosen tribes, and generally creates conflict against other tribes even in scenarios where resources (even if it's just for mental real-estate in the public eye) isn't really applicable.

And the internet hasn't really changed much at all about that, nor should we expect it to. The biggest change it's perhaps brought is the proliferation of tribal cultures (because people with similar likes and preferences can communicate and join together in a large and noticable community even when geographically diverse)... and anonimity. What keeps people civil in many instances is the threat of social or physical abuse for dissent away from the current social norms or heirarchies. Anonymity erases that threat. Imagine a Chimpanzee troup in which the lowest order individuals were allowed to harass and challenge the alpha male (or female, in the case of Bonobos) without the threat of getting torn to shit by the other members of the troupe. There'd be a lot more shit being thrown, for one thing, and that's exactly what we see happen with anonymity on the internet. A bunch of beta, gamma, and lower order chimps throwing shit constantly because it gives them the illusion of being an alpha without any of the social repriccusions that typically come from such behavior within striking distance. Though, on the flip side, it has also opened up a channel for subversive ideas to permeate the culture at large... and that's a very good thing. Groups which were marginalized before, such as Gays, Atheists, Gamers, Fetishists, Geeks, Political Independents, etc... are now becoming recognized and accepted offline, because the prevailing social sitgmas which supressed such ideas couldn't keep them in check by harassing the individuals who endorsed them.

So yeah, the shit flinging and the braying of self-important nobodies is a cost we pay, but the reward for doing such is much greater than we could have hoped for.

[JazzGB]

What keeps people civil in many instances is the threat of social or physical abuse for dissent away from the current social norms or heirarchies. Anonymity erases that threat.

Exactly, and I follow the Alpha/Beta/Gamma male part as well. I also follow your argument regarding minorities, though I'm not sure if Hollywood/American TV Shows and it's...I'll be blunt..Western propaganda (I don't entirely mean that in the negative sense) has the lion share in helping them become accepted - I'm sure the internet helped but I don't know how much. However that is off topic,.
I just find it interesting that it doesn't affect how people behave. It's like an ongoing masked ball where be you prince or pauper you can act as you wish., be it good or ill. There's no social evolution, just a transplant of previously held tribal beliefs into another realm.
It's rather sad to be honest...or is that just the lowest common denominator eclipsing everything else? As you can probably guess I view the internet with mild suspicion. Too much information is generally a bad thing in my opinion, especially when it's done in such a Chinese Whispers mentality as the internet.
ah forgive me, I'm just typing aloud as it were...with Stan Bush in the background oddly enough.

TLDR: That pretty much explains everything, though the retention of such patterns is sad. Question is what's needed to change it? What would destroy ingrained social hierarchy and create something closer to a utopia? Would it necessitate something as ridiculous as dropping an inter dimensional squid on the world? Create an external threat to allow mankind to become a universal tribe rather than splintered tribes?

[Sinue_v2]

though I'm not sure if Hollywood/American TV Shows and it's...I'll be blunt..Western propaganda (I don't entirely mean that in the negative sense) has the lion share in helping them become accepted - I'm sure the internet helped but I don't know how much. However that is off topic,.

Well, yes, any medium which expands and illuminates our perceptions of others... especially our shared humanity... will help to discourage dehumanization and expand the sphere of whom we extend our empathy towards. I don't mean to downplay the roles that literature, motion pictures, global news coverage, radio, and other forms of communication have had. The internet is different, however, in that there is far less censorship (typically) either from the state (or more importantly) from market factors. Printing, Radio Broadcasts, Movies and television... these can be expensive mediums, and will push at the edges of social reform, but due to it's near necessity to pander to large demographics to recoup costs - it will never be as powerful a tool as the internet in this regard. Anybody can make a blog or community for pennies comparitively.

To another degree, the internet's success in toppling old social paradigms boils down to it's interactive nature. Being heirarchecal animals, we tend to unconsciously (and consciously at times) follow the group consensus. There's tons of experimental data to demonstrate the validity of this trend, most famously probably being Milgram's experiments. By letting people take active roles in online communities, you open them up (even if just temporarily) to new modes of thinking, new ideas, and ways of viewing society... because they tend to follow along or accept the prevailing attitudes of that community. It doesn't necessarily mean their views will change, especially outside of that community, but it will... at the very least... crack the door to let a bit light in.


There's no social evolution, just a transplant of previously held tribal beliefs into another realm.

Culture is just a collective of memes and temes which aren't tied to an outside or objective physical phenomena beyond the human mind. It's not like DNA, a chemical chain reaction who's future states depend upon the past states of the system to modify new forms. It certainly looks like that at times simply because we're not as creative as we like to think ourselves to be, but we can create new ideas... sythesize various existing ideas into a new concept... and revive old and dead ideas. Cultural evolution can, and does, in individual components - progress and regress constantly.

What doesn't change, however, is the human mind which creates and considers them. How well a value or a meme or teme survive depends on many factors which make up it's environment, but because our minds haven't changed since the paleolithic era, we still see common trends. Defferment to authority and consensus, sex in advertising, superstitious beliefs... etc. We are cave-men with designer shoes and Wi-Fi access. I don't see how a measly 10k years, let alone 20 years of internet access, could change the cultural fitness landscape so dramatically as to be able to change fundamentally who we are on a psychological level.


Too much information is generally a bad thing in my opinion

I vehemently disagree. I understand how the torrent of information can make some feel lost, out of control, or hide vile abuses other others... but I don't support limiting or trying to compartmentalize or partition that information away. Although there are top-down heirarchecal organisational agents in nature, nature itself is almost exclusively a result of bottom-up interactions creating emergent phenomena. Top down control attempts of such systems have proven to be very difficult, if not impossible without significant damage or restriction to the system. At best, we can manage complex systems for a while... but even then, often poorly. The internet is similarly a bottom-up landscape where individual agents carve out niches and change the ecosystem by generating content (posts, programs, net code, etc)... and I fear that if you limit the flow of information through the internet, you will lose innovation and the power for social reform by the proliferation of ideas. For instance, I hate the idea of search enginges tracking your history and filtering your search results by geographical location and browsing history. It satisfies the desire for confirmation bias by presenting only content you'll likely approve of... but it also traps people in perceptual bubbles, creating an illusionary reality they want to see... rather than what's really out there.

I think as we get more and more accustomed to the internet as a culture, we will develop a kind of generalized heuristic (rules of thumb... common sense) for sorting through information ourselves. The best we can do to help this process is to promote critical thinking skills in school and at home.


Question is what's needed to change it? What would destroy ingrained social hierarchy and create something closer to a utopia? Would it necessitate something as ridiculous as dropping an inter dimensional squid on the world? Create an external threat to allow mankind to become a universal tribe rather than splintered tribes?

Nothing. There is nothing we can do to destroy it. We are our brains, and our brains haven't changed since the paleolithic era. All we can do is to turn the mirror on ourselves, recognize ourselves for who and what we are, and then try to correct our behavior as soon as we recognize it or have it pointed out to us. It's like seeing through an optical illuision. Our brains can't help but fall for the illusion, but through reason we can understand that what we are seeing IS an illusion, and can change our behavior appropriately. Same scenario.

Ronald Regan was astute when he observed that the seemingly irreconcilable differences between East and West during the Cold War would largely simply vanish if faced with a common enemy (alien invasion)... though I don't think an extra-terrestrial (or terrestrial) "wag the dog" is practical for creating a unified humanity. I think our best hope for a lasting peace and unity is through commerce and globalization... the exportation of media and culture, which the internet has largely helped to do... though we will always have that tribal element with us, and as a concequence, we will always have racial and sexual descrimination seething just below the surface and ready to draw "Us and Them" divisions despite the long strides made in overcoming them in the last century.

Don't hold out for a Utopia. It's a fallacy, used to highlight and critcize social initiatives, and always has been since it's inception. America was a hot-bed of experimental Utopian societies... and all of them have failed. George Orwell's "Brave New World" described a Utopia without war or poverty or strife, and through a simple twisting of the lens, demonstrated that simply removing these negative elements in and of themselves can turn one man's Utopia into another's Dystopia.

[ShinMaruku]

Meh I think this place is a cliquey as any place.

[Sinue_v2]

Meh I think this place is a cliquey as any place.

I agree, but at least the cliques here are largely toothless because the moderators do a pretty good job of not reinforcing those cliques with teeth by their moderator privledges. That's a big distinction right there between PSOworld and many fan-based internet forums.

[ShinMaruku]

I been on a site that swung both ways now it's somewhat like here. It was pretty well self moderated.
But yeah here have less teeth and the moderators do their jobs fairly well if about too overzelous at times.

[JazzGB]

Thank you, that was probably the best reply I've ever had to that question and gave me a lot to think about.