I heard about this http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/gaming/news/mind-powered-gaming-neuro-headset?articleid=1479683828 on Radio 4 the other day. Fancy your every thought and emotion being visible via your online avatar? Now where, I wonder, could all this lead to....?
This week has, sadly, added another chapter to the tragic story of what appears to be a mass suicide of a group of young people in Bridgend, South Wales. (See http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1305988,00.html ) . The toll now stands at 17. As the first reports emerged, rumours and theories of an 'internet suicide cult' began to circulate, as all those who had ended their lives were members of the social networking site 'Bebo' and, it seems, belonged to a network of contacts or 'friends' on there. Other theories proposed the possibility of 'internet suicide gurus', influencing the Welsh goups' behaviour.
The police and MPs are currently adamantly denying this possibility on, (it seems to me from the bit I've read), very little evidence other than the fact that most of these young people knew each other - or at least some of the network - in real life too.
Whatever the primary mechanism of effect behind this truly tragic series of events, the internet and social networking sites seem to have played a least a partial role; maybe peripheral and non-catalytic roles but nevetheless their presence is uncomfortably.....worryingly....there.
Over the next couple of weeks you're going to be studying models of cyberpsychology that might offer insight into how a collection of people can, via text-based CMC, adopt incredibly strong bonds of 'group identity', loyalty and extreme polarisation of feeling, thought, and action. You'll be hearing how one of the less positive effects of CMC is, sometimes, 'deindividuation', a term most commonly associated with Festinger et al (1952) and Zimbardo (1969). All of these researchers emphasized how anonymity, diffused responsibility and large 'community' size (all affordances of cyberspace) lead to the very strong need to conform to the social norms of a group...whatever those 'norms' may be, i.e. the internet is a perfect breeding ground for deindividuation, the potential for vulernability to extreme group norms....and potentially tragic consequences.
This is a Wiki entry of the movie released on 29th Feb, 'Untraceable': The film is a social commentary on Internet schadenfreude.
Set in Portland, Oregon, the film involves a serial killer who rigs contraptions that kill his victims based on the number of hits received by a website http://www.killwithme.com/ . The website features live streaming of video of the victim. (Yes, there appears to be an actual website of that name - presumably created by the film-makers as a promo idea; visiting is quite a startling experience) Naturally, in the film,millions of people log on, hastening the victims' violent deaths. The protagonist is a cybercop named Jennifer Marsh, who pieces the mystery together, at great risk to the personal well-being of herself and her family.
Question is....why? Why would anyone risk the life of another to sate mere (rather ghoulish) curiosity? One can see the attraction for the sadist / psychopath/ extreme fetishist but why would (largely) ordinary, well-balanced, non-psychopathic individuals log onto such a site in their millions when they know that there's even a small chance that the 'warning message' is true and that someone will suffer or die as a consequence?
The answer partly lies in what we've been talking about in class in Week 2...the affordances of cyberspace. The killer in the film is capitalising on the 'invisibility' of the internet , thus the viewers sense of anonymity, lack of accountability / personal responsibility and disinhibition plus, I think, something else: the fact that a primary attraction of the medium is 'exploring' and 'experiencing' (without any real consequence). The 'point and click' generation would find it incredibly difficult to be denied their birthright to "observe and evaluate, engage or discard"....and the killer in the film uses this.
But other, personality factors, MUST, to my mind, interact with the affordances to determine whether a person would click 'Enter' or not. Obviously, their 'moral compass', their level of morality (see Kohlberg)might play a role but what else?And which one trait can you think might disempower the affordances of the internet and override all curiosity or propensity to just 'have a look'?
"Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others."
Given the interaction between internet people, and the exaggerated emotions often displayed.. the arguments that ensue, the upset people can feel.... which flamer are you? Flame Warriors Homepage
[I think i fall somewhere in the middle of 'therapist', 'strumpet' and 'philosopher']
Chatting to a person online, via a chat room, a discussion forum or any other way you find... why is it that you actually feel emotions about a conversation? Feel so strongly that you sit and pour out your opinions on a topic to a total stranger, would you do that to someone at the local pub? Why is it some people seem to be targets for abuse? The internet, possibly the ultimate tool for communication and ability to meet like minded people yet some search avidly for opposing people to battle it out with.
People... strange breed...
Does cyberspace and virtual reality have the potential to take over the real world? And to what cost if it does?
Film to watch... The Lawnmover Man
