i’m beginning to curtail my online interactions as i discover certain repeating patterns that demonstrate to me most people in these venues are decidedly unstable.
most recently, i noticed the behaviors in an online forum i frequent. the interesting part of things was, when i began to mirror back and amplify the behaviors, every one of those seen exhibiting them immediately not only self-identified, but proceeded to take me to task for them.
it was so very odd. almost as if they had no memory at all from which to recall the posting style i’d adopted was completely unlike my usual one. but even stranger was the manner in which they stepped forward and identified only with those aspects of the behaviors that were directly attributable to themselves… people known for implying mental instability making statements as to my instability, people known for implying drug use making statements about being on drugs or needing to be, etc.
the complete and utter inability to see themselves in it was somewhat surprising… but i sit here and don’t know why i find it so. almost every sociology study on the books indicates the things a group will respond to inevitably are the things they deny in themselves, fear of themselves… thus, the first things they notice about others as they are hyper-attuned to them.
instead, it became an odd dance of ‘that’s not me, that’s what YOU are doing’ with people persistently and insistently identifying the behavior correctly, but being completely unable to finish the process and admit the only reason they could see it is because they so often do it.
what made this ironic was that the forum in question is purportedly based on the concept of ‘extreme honesty’. yes, you may chuckle now… as i have been for the last few days to test and re-test only to have the results confirm and validated with every pass.
eventually, disgusted and feeling rather sick to my stomach over it, i turned in my access and left them to themselves. the last phase of analysis couldn’t occur until i had done so, and i was curious whether or not the behavior pattern would run true.
i needn’t have worried. no sooner than the news of my departure was validated, a slew of posts dealing with varying degrees of celebration were made, and one very intriguing post wherein the participants are pretending to get drunk so as to forget their own emotions and activities (tacit acknowledgment within the shell of social denial).
and, of course, all the while, soothing one another by reiterating their lack of fault and emphasizing the blame of the departed (conveniently unable to respond). heh. all the more sickening, one participant in particular being very worried about whether or not the departed could “still read” the responses or come back using another name.
i found this latter interesting because it seems a regular pastime on the part of some members to create multiple accounts and persona, which they then use for things like agreeing or supporting themselves, making comments toward others that they would not wish to take the blame for on their ‘primary’ account, etc.
the entire pathology of the place seems to thrive on this manner of behavior, underscoring what seems to be a recurring theme that communicating in such places is not only transient and of a highly disposable nature, but that anyone who in any manner considers it otherwise is deserving of ridicule and, if that doesn’t bring them ‘in line’, shunning.
needless to say, i had no personal interest in being there. but, having conducted study over close to thirty groups (and removing those without repeatable patterns from consideration), i eventually found this place… where close to twenty people were ‘run off’ in less than a year. it was simple enough to carefully document the pattern, and then, test it. results seem to indicate there is a certain set of personality types who find such places not only attractive, but addicting.
i find what this says about the increasingly narcissistic and sociopathic behaviors in american culture is rather frightening. to be sure it was enough to end my presence in the group. the paper itself i will likely submit to the usual outlets.
as for the group? well, let’s just say that outside of a small number who, over time, contacted me privately to express themselves, or who found benefit in my presence and wanted to ‘friend’ me…. i’m more than happy to leave them to themselves. the parallels between some of them and the parents of the columbine kids, the known details of the family and relations involved in the virginia massacres, etc. were a little too unsettling for more than clinical closeness.
i am slowly learning to stop mixing study with online fun. while they sometimes can run in parallel, it rarely works any closer and, in this case in particular, brought a lot more awareness of the ugly to light than i usually care to see.