Sociopath Community

Hi Pink, it's almost impossible to be sure whether or not you really do it equally. Other people tend to notice it better.

@Air: It does

No, I skim everyone's posts equally. (too short of an attention span to read the books people post on forums)

I did the same for you!

The hierarchy of this forum is puzzling.

Do you feel you put more weight on the content of the poster or the person posting it? I've noted that I tend to favour some posters more than others, especially when they share their personal stories. When I see someone I don't know posting an amazing (not always) story of their life, I either get interested or I dismiss it as bragging/lying. I've noticed that I usually make this judgement not so much based on the content of the post than the person posting it.

I'm wondering if we're all chained by an ominous, invisible authority that exists in our minds and sneakily cherrypicks the right type of information for us. From some basic psychology research we know that in any situation people form their opinion based on the first assertive opinion unless we have already established another one. This is because our brains are lazy, it hates to work and always searches for the simplest answer. This is called the WYSIATI principle.

Some people here state things, rather than suggest things. Some people are more assertive and independent in thought than others. I believe these are the people who dominate all discussion here. While it shows they have more leadership ability, it does not necessarily show more intellect.

I've devised a plan to citically and neutrally analyze every post. First, I'll always formulate my own opinion before reading anyone else's replies to avoid being affected by others. Second, I'll hide the name of the poster until I final moment. Third, I'll translate the posts into neutral language.

by Legga

First, I'll always formulate my own opinion before reading anyone else's replies to avoid being affected by others.

 I tend to do this when I'm on political forums/sites anyway.

Ok

"Do you feel you put more weight on the content of the poster or the person posting it?"

I judge people based on the content of their posts. That being said, there have been numerous times people I've regarded as generally "wrong-headed" have made great points. For example, Dexter spouted a lot of nonsense, but more than once he eloquently hit the nail on the head with something that he said.

"I'm wondering if we're all chained by an ominous, invisible authority that exists in our minds and sneakily cherrypicks the right type of information for us."

Certainly we must be. Imagine what it would be like if we were not! 

by Legga

The hierarchy of this forum is puzzling.

Do you feel you put more weight on the content of the poster or the person posting it? I've noted that I tend to favour some posters more than others, especially when they share their personal stories. When I see someone I don't know posting an amazing (not always) story of their life, I either get interested or I dismiss it as bragging/lying. I've noticed that I usually make this judgement not so much based on the content of the post than the person posting it.

I'm wondering if we're all chained by an ominous, invisible authority that exists in our minds and sneakily cherrypicks the right type of information for us. From some basic psychology research we know that in any situation people form their opinion based on the first assertive opinion unless we have already established another one. This is because our brains are lazy, it hates to work and always searches for the simplest answer. This is called the WYSIATI principle.

Some people here state things, rather than suggest things. Some people are more assertive and independent in thought than others. I believe these are the people who dominate all discussion here. While it shows they have more leadership ability, it does not necessarily show more intellect.

I've devised a plan to citically and neutrally analyze every post. First, I'll always formulate my own opinion before reading anyone else's replies to avoid being affected by others. Second, I'll hide the name of the poster until I final moment. Third, I'll translate the posts into neutral language.

I get the respect and even the authority part, but obedience on this forum is a bit of a stretch. I don't form opinions based on someone else's established forum authority and have no problem with contradicting people I get along with and respect, if I feel they are wrong. Yeah, I'll trust new information more if it comes from some expert in the field, like in a debate about some illness between a doctor and a janitor I'm prone to believe what the doctor has to say.

The hierarchy and authority on this forum for me are based on the past history of each user. How many times I have agreed with him/her, how many times I disagreed but it turned out they were right, their character/attitude and so forth. It's something that needs to be earned, and once earned, sure, I'll read that person's posts with more interest than others. It's natural in time to respect some people's judgement more than others, simply because some have better judgements than others in most cases. See Inquirer vs Spatial Mind for example. If you want to critically and neutrally analyze every post of Dexter and Wrecktarded, be my guest, but I'm telling you it sounds like a massive waste of time.

According to research it's near-impossible. I'll merely attempt it. I've never refused to accept my imperfections and limitations.

The conversations are largely shaped by the general opinion, imo.  It's hard to disagree with everyone, especially if one does not access different sources. I haven't seen that much variation from most people, although the conversations are shaped by private conversations.

Well. Short answer. I tend to ignore good info if it comes from the wrong people. And I value information more if it comes from the right people.

Who does not?