For anyone who has spent time on an internet forum you know that you can have one person siding with your views at one point and then the next thing you know a new group has formed against your view and you can indeed win them back one by one and then the groups change again. It is a totally interesting phenomena indeed. Recently studying this from an objective behavioral standpoint I noticed that occasionally someone uses trickery to get another person to state a view, only so the can attack that person. What is interesting is that when this is done, that person usually cannot get away with that tactic again with the same person for a while. One individual on a Blog forum and lets just call her Jen stated; Maybe I'm like the "girl who cried wolf" and you won't believe me no matter what I say. If so, there's nothing I can do about that. This after she tried the same tactic again with the same person to establish report to gain information. Yet that person upon hearing this admission of the girl who cried wolf stated; I believe this to be the case. I believe you have tarnished your credibility in attempting to play psychological games and alienated yet another straight person, who actually was willing to assist [using the mightier pen] in seeing that equal rights for all in a country that claims to pride its self in such, made good on its promise. I bet I could have helped quite a bit. Of course, in the end of all the human furious sound, signifying not much, does it really matter which side you pick, in enjoying that aspect of the human endeavor? That is to say, should I join the other side and promote the status quo, using the same resources at my disposal? Rather than gaining an asset or friend to help in Jens cause she alienated a potentially strong player who might have been willing to assist her? Unfortunately Jen lost an opportunity and this shows that primate politics on Internet Blogs do indeed play at higher speeds than normal socialization. Consider all this in 2006. |
