Social Groups: Crash Course Sociology #16 

MarkFilipAnthony very good questions.

from my point of view, on the internet you're a lot more closer to your true self, as you can generally communicate whatever you want, without feeling repercussions, thus, basically, uncensored. your true character comes alive on the internet, when you're totally not afraid of what others might feel and think regarding to what you say/do to them. if someone is a toxic person, for instance, he might control himself in public or in real-life groups, but he'll spit everything out on the internet and reveal that part of himself. anyway, the fact that on the internet the other people seem so less real and less human might contribute to these anti-social behaviours, for example.

interesting. To simply counter argue that: Are you really your true self if you spit out whatever comes into your mind on the internet to people you don't have to confront? Aren't you discovering who you really are when you have to face someone in real life? Everyone can be tough in front of a glowing window, but maybe if you're together with other people is the moment where you discover yourself fully? I mean when you confront someone else, one start to become very self-conscious. You start to realise how you look, how you behave if you're a nice or bad person, and what environments you feel at home in. Everyone thinks they're good when they're alone, but meeting others might reveal that being comfortable with yourself, isn't the same as being true to yourself. How can you know who you are, without looking yourself in the mirror? And aren't other human beings to interact with technically mirroring you instantly? If they like you, they copy you, if they dislike you they shy away from you. In the end that says something about you, and maybe you discovered that you did not truly know yourself at all

My experience is that this very much depends on the person. I suffer from social anxiety issues and find it easier to interact online and I even once won an award (of the mostly joke sort) at a meetup for being the person most like their internet persona. On the other hand there are many people who don't see online interactions as at all real. If challenged about toxic behaviour they'll respond "but it's just the internet, it's not real".

in sociology, you might think as there are no "pure you" as you are always parts of larger group. Even at home, you might be alone but the fact that you read, cook or even the time you go to bed are all influence by your social environment. On the internet, you are in a social group that might allows you to express your self more easily. But if you take for exemple the amount of insult there is on internet and compare it to "pure lonely person", you'll find that they're way higher on the internet. an other way of thinking it is by interaction: when people act on internet they often react to something else (as you're comment is a reaction of this video), and you are expecting reaction from others. therefore, you construct your thought so it will have the more chance to get the desirable reaction (eg. this comment). So you're social interaction on the internet would be closer to what you call "a public person"

she has another video about the performance of it all. i took away from it to always remember 'on stage' and 'off stage' and know the difference between it

JamesLinton17 That's not enough to save you! If you jumped off a cliff 100 ft. high, it will still kill you, humans are still pretty solid, they're not marshmallows!

or not jump and still survive

You have that many friends?

Family Guy reference?

This comment added absolutely no value to the conversation at hand.

yes she talks way too fast

Closed captioning really helps

Click the three dots in the corner and click on speed and click the smaller decimals and it should slow it down

Also, Milgram is less about conformity and more about obedience to authority. They are not just conforming to fit in or be the norm. They are following the orders of an authority figure because they feel that this person has expertise and authority over the situation.

I think the Asch experiment ties in nicely with the XKCD punchline that's currently the top comment. If everyone else is choosing differently on an apparently trivial task, which is more likely: the task is as trivial as I think, and everyone else in the room is a bafflingly clueless moron while I am the only normal person -- or there's something I've missed?

So, experiments using the same and similar paradigm to Asch have explored this idea more directly, leading to the differentiation of two types of conformity-- normative social influence, and informational social influence. Normative social influence affects behavior when we conform to norms because we want to be like everyone else, or because we fear social disapproval or ostracism if we do not adhere to the norm. Informational social influence affects behavior when we use the actions of others as sources of information about the world. While outwardly the two types of social influence may result in similar behavior (conformity), the conditions that lead to each type of influence affecting behavior are importantly different-- informational social influence impacts behavior more in situations where the appropriate behavior is unclear or ambiguous, while normative social influence impacts behavior more when conditions make it more likely that we'll face repercussions for deviating from norms. For example, responding anonymously in the Asch studies means that there's little chance of facing negative feedback from other people for giving a different answer-- and indeed, rates of conformity decrease when people respond anonymously (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Both types of influence are related to social groups-- we're less willing to face negative feedback and ostracism from groups that are important to us, but we also tend to think more positively about in-group members, meaning that we're more likely to think they know the right thing to do in a given situation.

Please give it

daedra40

Anthony Eyler well instead of us vs them, think of it asd "Us" vs "Not-Us" , notus isn'y necesarily an homogenoeus entity... but they share atribute of not neing in the group we belong to

In my opinion, yes and no, depending on your own morals, beliefs and outlook on life. For example, If you are the type of person who will always stick by your family, even when they are at fault, you could argue that the family is an involuntary group, posed by self restriction. Where as if you have no moral qualms about telling your brother he's an arse and don't want to be around him, it could be seen as more voluntary. You make the choice to stay or leave the 'group'. I'd argue that it begins as involuntary to begin with. When you are a child you need your family to take care of you. But as you get older and your methodology of thinking changes, it becomes voluntary. Some people leave their family due to disagreements about politics, morals and other fun stuff.

I would say yes and no, depends on the level autonomy and other factors, when you are young , yes. Then one could runaway or leav home or have a dispute and never talk to those people again, at that point it would be voluntary.

Anti-sjw's live in a group think echo chamber.

Yaz 234 You're not the only one 😞

Because she dyes her hair blonde... I'd love to see her let her natural color come out.

Ask Cersei and Daenaerys.

So I saw a video of her from 4 years ago where she cut off her long hair and bleached them. Oh my God I'm embarrassed how much I'm attracted to her lol

That's why she said "are more likely to receive affection" or WTTE.

what is wtte?

"Words to that effect", sorry. :) I couldn't remember the exact words, but that was the sense. I apologise. :)