Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Fanboys and haters explained.

goblagobla somewherePosts: 1,411Member

Hey everyone,

while browsing the interwebz on slightly more intellectual pursuits I came across this interesteting open letter.

It's basically about expanding the definition of addiction away from merely illegal drugs and to include some of the addictive substances present in our own brain ( think dopamine and such ).

Some of you may be worried by now that this is going to be about internet and specifically MMO addiction, don't worry it's not.

It's more specifically about forum behaviour and so-called fanboys and haters in particular. Now the scope of the actual letter is much, much broader and I'd recommend you to read it. It's an interesting read if you have an interest in psychology, politics and society.

But, since we're on internet forums here, I'd like to quote one passage in particular that might explain why fanboys and haters happen and why, if we're honest with ourselves, we occasionaly have our fanboy/hater moments.

The passage is as follows:

"I want to zoom down to a particular emotional and psychological pathology. The phenomenon known as self-righteous indignation.

We all know self-righteous people. (And, if we are honest, many of us will admit having wallowed in this state ourselves, either occasionally or in frequent rhythm.) It is a familiar and rather normal human condition, supported -- even promulgated -- by messages in mass media.

While there are many drawbacks, self-righteousness can also be heady, seductive, and even... well... addictive. Any truly honest person will admit that the state feels good. The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong.

Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again. Moreover, as Westin et.al. have found, this trait crosses all boundaries of ideology."

What it basically boils down to is that the feeling of being right while arguing against someone you believe to be wrong is addictive. And that, being addictive, people will actively seek out this feeling with more and more desperation if they're exposed to it too much.

As such fanboys and haters in particular but the rest of us on occasion will actively search the forums to find opinions of others that we disagree with so strongly to keep arguing the point home that we're right and they're wrong. All to get this feeling of righteous indignation we've come to enjoy. And the more we get of it, the more we want.

So what do you guys think?

Are haters/fanboys addicted to this feeling of self-righteousness? Do you, occasionally, experience this feeling and get carried away by it?

We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")

Comments

  • mm0wigginsmm0wiggins Boredom, CAPosts: 270Member

    *raises hand*

     

    I'm self righteous, and it feels good.    I love debate, and I love feeling right.   I love that I'm honest enough to admit it too. 

    ;-)

    This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.

  • romanator0romanator0 Glendora, CAPosts: 2,382Member

    Nobody likes being wrong. Even if you learn something if you lose an argument or a debate it still sucks.

    image

  • AG-VukAG-Vuk Phoenix, AZPosts: 823Member Uncommon

    I'm not sure I see it the same.  The article dances around it, but doesn't come out and state it simply.  I see it more about ego.  Whether it's gratutious or an attempt to inflict pain or distress on someone else.  There is an entertainment value to this behavior that I believe people overlook.  When you strip away the veneer, I believe it boils down to what entertains/motivates that individuals ego.

    image
  • daelnordaelnor Manteca, CAPosts: 1,569Member

    I find this interesting.  People like to debate and argue.  They always have.  Look at the greek philosophers....they would stand around arguing their philosophies all day, to the point of making a living from it.  Human nature. /shrug.

    image

  • SwaneaSwanea Vegas, NVPosts: 2,368Member Uncommon

    I disagree.

     

    I've never been wrong once on these forums, and anyone who disagrees with me now is STILL WRONG. FOREVER AND EVER.

    Also, if you reply/quote me, you stink.  See above sentence.

     

    But yes.  It's enjoyable being right all the time. So much...

  • goblagobla somewherePosts: 1,411Member

    Originally posted by AG-Vuk

    I'm not sure I see it the same.  The article dances around it, but doesn't come out and state it simply.  I see it more about ego.  Whether it's gratutious or an attempt to inflict pain or distress on someone else.  There is an entertainment value to this behavior that I believe people overlook.  When you strip away the veneer, I believe it boils down to what entertains/motivates that individuals ego.

    I don't really think the article is dancing around anything.

    I don't know if you've got experience with scientific articles ( the type that are published in serious peer-reviewed magazines ) but this is about as simple as things get whilst still staying more or less scientific. This open letter is probably too 'simple' and 'straightforward' to be published in such a magazine.

    And I think you're talking about trolls, not fanboys/haters. Trolls pretend to take up a certain position to watch other people go to great lengths defending it and are amused by people putting so much effort into something that, in the end, is often just bits and bytes. Disregarding the fact that what they themselves are doing reflects in no more then bits and bytes and often takes just as much effort.

    Fanboys/haters take up a rather extreme position and are, as far as I know, convinced of their own right. They will argue points well past any logical boundary. And I think they're doing this because each time they defend their point they achieve this feeling of self-rightious indignation that they've come to be basically addicted to.

    Of course, the whole fanboy/hater thing is just a minor thing to take away from the article. It's much more about real-life politics and society.

    We are the bunny.
    Resistance is futile.
    ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
    ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
    (")("),,(")("),(")(")

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,981Member Uncommon

    <---------------------- You can see my viewpoint on the situation.

     

    People love to disgree and of course believe they are right vs everyone esle, human nature, no reason to turn it into yet another "addiction".

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • FdzzaiglFdzzaigl Somewhere in nowherePosts: 2,316Member Uncommon

    I personally feel like cognitive dissonance theory can explain these situations rather well...

    In short, people are inclined to only seek out opinions that confirm their own beliefs while ignoring conflicting ones. This goes for both groups in this case.

    Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!

  • goblagobla somewherePosts: 1,411Member

    Originally posted by Kyleran

    <---------------------- You can see my viewpoint on the situation.

     

    People love to disgree and of course believe they are right vs everyone esle, human nature, no reason to turn it into yet another "addiction".

    But why is this human nature?

    Human nature is a kind of "Well that's just the way it is." answer. It doesn't really explain anything.

    While I agree that this could be looking into things too deeply it's an interesting point of view nonetheless ( though not necesarilly the right one ).

    We are the bunny.
    Resistance is futile.
    ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
    ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
    (")("),,(")("),(")(")

  • GetalifeGetalife parisPosts: 786Member

    I have no problem admitting i am wrong. I do not consider myself perfect but i know many on these forums who are arrogant enough to think they are always right no matter what.

  • mm0wigginsmm0wiggins Boredom, CAPosts: 270Member

    Originally posted by Kyleran

    People love to disgree and of course believe they are right vs everyone esle, human nature, no reason to turn it into yet another "addiction".

    Even though I found great amusement in this OP, I have to agree with you Kyleran. 

     

    Any action or behavior rooted from a basic instinct and human nature shouldn't be turned into some addiction.   That's the road to failure since we always try to manage and control addictions

    This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.

  • AG-VukAG-Vuk Phoenix, AZPosts: 823Member Uncommon

    Debate is a form of warfare , polite or impolite as it may seem , the objective being to sway the opposing force to your side or to influence enough spectators that you are correct. Ulitmately it gets back to ego gratification . Trolling is just a destructive form of debate meant to derail or distract. A troll gets gratification by attracting attention or derailing a topic.  It's still an ego motivate activity.  The ulitmate goal is to dominate , whether it's a conversation , attention etc..

    image
  • chrislekochrisleko Tampa, FLPosts: 200Member

    Originally posted by gobla

    Originally posted by AG-Vuk

    I'm not sure I see it the same.  The article dances around it, but doesn't come out and state it simply.  I see it more about ego.  Whether it's gratutious or an attempt to inflict pain or distress on someone else.  There is an entertainment value to this behavior that I believe people overlook.  When you strip away the veneer, I believe it boils down to what entertains/motivates that individuals ego.

    I don't really think the article is dancing around anything.

    I don't know if you've got experience with scientific articles ( the type that are published in serious peer-reviewed magazines ) but this is about as simple as things get whilst still staying more or less scientific. This open letter is probably too 'simple' and 'straightforward' to be published in such a magazine.

    And I think you're talking about trolls, not fanboys/haters. Trolls pretend to take up a certain position to watch other people go to great lengths defending it and are amused by people putting so much effort into something that, in the end, is often just bits and bytes. Disregarding the fact that what they themselves are doing reflects in no more then bits and bytes and often takes just as much effort.

    Fanboys/haters take up a rather extreme position and are, as far as I know, convinced of their own right. They will argue points well past any logical boundary. And I think they're doing this because each time they defend their point they achieve this feeling of self-rightious indignation that they've come to be basically addicted to.

    Of course, the whole fanboy/hater thing is just a minor thing to take away from the article. It's much more about real-life politics and society.

    As far as I know, magazines aren't peer-reviewed, Journals are (it's one of the key differences between the two).  The reason this doesn't appear in a peer-reviewed journal is because it's an opinion piece that has no research to support what it's trying to say.  Plus, it's written by an astrophysicist, not a neurobiologist/psychologist who writes science-fiction novels.  This is not scholarly, therefore it should not appear in a scholarly journal.  Brin even acknowledges this.

    I agree that his line of inquiry is interesting, and might yield some interesting exerimental studies, but there are probably too many difficulties to make securing funding for research.  I'm inclined to beleive that a great deal of "addiction" is a result from executive functioning disabilities.

    I also agree with Kyleran that "fanboys/haters" are probably not addicted to "feeling right", but they just want to be right (which is probably more an issue connected to Ego, Superego, and Id than anything else). 

    Claiming that these people "need" to be right due to addiction removes all accountability and responsibility for choice.  People choose to argue on the internet (yes, the irony is not lost on me), or support X game.

  • goblagobla somewherePosts: 1,411Member

    Originally posted by chrisleko

    As far as I know, magazines aren't peer-reviewed, Journals are (it's one of the key differences between the two).  The reason this doesn't appear in a peer-reviewed journal is because it's an opinion piece that has no research to support what it's trying to say.  Plus, it's written by an astrophysicist, not a neurobiologist/psychologist who writes science-fiction novels.  This is not scholarly, therefore it should not appear in a scholarly journal.  Brin even acknowledges this.

    I agree that his line of inquiry is interesting, and might yield some interesting exerimental studies, but there are probably too many difficulties to make securing funding for research.  I'm inclined to beleive that a great deal of "addiction" is a result from executive functioning disabilities.

    I also agree with Kyleran that "fanboys/haters" are probably not addicted to "feeling right", but they just want to be right (which is probably more an issue connected to Ego, Superego, and Id than anything else). 

    Claiming that these people "need" to be right due to addiction removes all accountability and responsibility for choice.  People choose to argue on the internet (yes, the irony is not lost on me), or support X game.

    Sorry, my bad about the magazine/journal thing. 50% thinking too fast and 50% lost in translation ( both magazine and journal are 'tijdschrift' in dutch ).

    And does addiction really remove all accountability and responsibility? I mean there's a lot of people addicted to say nicotine. They need sigarets. Does that mean they're not accountable and responsible for their actions whilst getting said sigaretes?

    Not all addiction comes in the form of desperate junkies. If they get their 'high' reguraly there's nothing preventing them from functioning normally the rest of the time.

    But as you say, it's probably looking too deeply into the matter.

    We are the bunny.
    Resistance is futile.
    ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
    ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
    (")("),,(")("),(")(")

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,314Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by gobla

    Originally posted by chrisleko

    As far as I know, magazines aren't peer-reviewed, Journals are (it's one of the key differences between the two).  The reason this doesn't appear in a peer-reviewed journal is because it's an opinion piece that has no research to support what it's trying to say.  Plus, it's written by an astrophysicist, not a neurobiologist/psychologist who writes science-fiction novels.  This is not scholarly, therefore it should not appear in a scholarly journal.  Brin even acknowledges this.

    I agree that his line of inquiry is interesting, and might yield some interesting exerimental studies, but there are probably too many difficulties to make securing funding for research.  I'm inclined to beleive that a great deal of "addiction" is a result from executive functioning disabilities.

    I also agree with Kyleran that "fanboys/haters" are probably not addicted to "feeling right", but they just want to be right (which is probably more an issue connected to Ego, Superego, and Id than anything else). 

    Claiming that these people "need" to be right due to addiction removes all accountability and responsibility for choice.  People choose to argue on the internet (yes, the irony is not lost on me), or support X game.

    Sorry, my bad about the magazine/journal thing. 50% thinking too fast and 50% lost in translation ( both magazine and journal are 'tijdschrift' in dutch ).

    And does addiction really remove all accountability and responsibility? I mean there's a lot of people addicted to say nicotine. They need sigarets. Does that mean they're not accountable and responsible for their actions whilst getting said sigaretes?

    Not all addiction comes in the form of desperate junkies. If they get their 'high' reguraly there's nothing preventing them from functioning normally the rest of the time.

    But as you say, it's probably looking too deeply into the matter.

     Also this depends entirely upon your definition of addiction.  In the upcoming DSM-V addiction is out and replaced by abuse and dependence depending on where the locus of control lies.  Dependence deals with disregulating receptors that are "regulated" upon introduction of a compound similar to the ligand that binds to it.  Here the locus of control lies outside the person.  Their behaviour can only be altered when the chemical is bound to the receptor or the receptor is changed.  Treatments would then be chemical treatment/ complete abstinence combined with CBT to change the receptors.  (incidently 12 step is an excellent, highly reseached and effective form of CBT)

    In abuse (gambling, possibility internet) there is no disregulated receptor.  The locus of control lies within the individual.  Treatment could be abstinene, harm reduction, gradual withdrawal.  This can be just as damaging as dependence but reflects a fundamental difference in the cause.

    To date there has been no reliable research showing that people are "addicted" to dopamine.  There is no research to support the idea that adrenaline junkies need that dopamine and/or nor/epinephrine stimulus in order to function normally.  Additionally there has been no reliable research showing that there are some addictive personalties. 

    In truth the research that has been done actually show that many/most people will not become dependent on whatever the chemical stimulant in question is.  Only approximatly 20% of people who use cocaine will become dependant on it because the receptor it binds to is either disregulated or susceptible to becoming disregulated.  Alcohol is closer to 80% as there are several recepters that are affected.  Marijuana is currently about 4%.

    So while the person in the article has an interesting idea and the idea actually deserves some merit, the only thing I will say at this  point is, thats interesting.

    Venge

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • AG-VukAG-Vuk Phoenix, AZPosts: 823Member Uncommon

    I also believe that too many people use addiction as a word substitue for habitual behavior.  Habitual behavior doesn't have physical affect that addictive behavior does.

    image
  • GyrusGyrus Lost City of ZPosts: 2,335Member

    Sorry OP, but I think you miss the point.

    "Self-righteous indignation" applies to defending your own point of view.

    Fanbois are not defending their own point of view - they are defending the Developer's.

    Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.

  • FikusOfAhaziFikusOfAhazi St. Louis, MOPosts: 1,835Member

    Sure people get addicted to it. Im a little different though.

    I love being wrong. What better mental feeling is there than understanding?

    See you in the dream..
    The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.

Sign In or Register to comment.