What Do You Think Of Me?

You want to be told what you think of yourself.

If you think you’re a brilliant game designer, you want to be told you’re a brilliant game designer. It’s self-verification.

But you don’t want to be told by just anyone. You want to be told by people whose opinions matter to you. You want to be told by people you think are similar to you.

You can find these people by joining an online community. You will get involved and work hard to get these opinions.

This has implications for building an online community. First, try to identify what most people in the group think of themselves. If you run a community for young entrepreneurs, it’s a safe bet they think they are good for their age at business. Tell them so. But when you tell them, give reasons relating to their participation in the community to justify your opinion. It's more credible.

Second, build a community culture that focuses on individuals rather than collectives. Constantly give opinions on individuals, celebrations champions, set individual milestones and recognise people when they achieve them. This can only happen if you lead the way. Everyone else will take their cues from you. The more it happens, the more it will happen.

Comments

[Michael Sutherland]

Actually, sometimes I think you should ask people who don't like you what they think of you - they'll be honest in their appraisal with no care for your feelings. If you ask people who like you and are like-minded, all you'll hear is conservative self-endorsement, which can presumably stagnate a community and make it more cliquey. Unless you've got some very honest friends.

[Richard Millington]

You're right, but what people should do and what people are motivated to do are entirely different. You can aim for the former, but you'll usually get the latter.

However, the point here (and I probably haven't described it very well) is that people want to be told what they think about themselves. It's what motivates people to take actions within a community.

It's not an inherently good or bad thing. If I think I'm a great marketer, I'll work very hard amongst a community of great marketers to be told I'm a great marketer. That means participating a lot, sharing my wisdom, helping others etc..

Which, surely, is a good thing?

What do you think?

[Christian]

Interesting stuff - on the previous point, perhaps, but you don't just want empty praise. Although you do want people to respect and admire you, you also want feedback. If I join an online photography forum, I want good advice on cameras, lenses and feedback on my photos, with hints for technique. In an online community, you need to get something out of it in order to stay around - even pros and semi-pros look for advice, feedback and inspiration, like Miss Aniela on Flickr, or the chaps from the beeb on Twitter.

[Ken Allan]

Kia ora Richard

The esteemed Scottish poet, Robert Burns, in his piece, "To A Louse", gave us this verse:

"O wad some power the giftie gie us,
To see oursel's as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
And foolish notion."

My translation of the dialect is:

"If by some power we were given the gift, to see ourselves the way others see us, it would save us from many blunders, and foolish ideas."

Though this tells of a desire that seems proverbial, I wonder if it would be so useful an attribute to have. For one thing, we would be constantly reviewing ourselves in the light of conflicting reflections, for not everyone sees things the same way.

The other is that we might lose confidence in following our otherwise successful courses of action that may be seen by others as likely to be unsuccessful.

Or we may adopt the characteristics of a politician, who is constantly being given the content of diverse opinion from all directions and by many. Save us from that.

However, my proselytising isn't telling you what you want to know. Here it is :-)

I think you have a lot of energy for your ideas. You have many. You are a bit of a theoretician. I suspect that much of your theorising comes from within. It appears to lack the robust background of someone with experience.

My feeling is that you need more focus with your idea creating - but there is merit in diversity. A repeating gun that swivels and jives in all directions as it constantly discharges is bound to hit something sooner or later.

I'd describe you as postmodern.

You have a tendency to poo-poo past knowledge, established understandings and authority in favour of creating something entirely new, perhaps, undiscovered or untested. While the usefulness of this attitude is debatable, it is nevertheless valid in western culture today and you see it that way.

You have a tendency to shoot in flames ideas that are not aligned with your own, or go out to find supporting evidence to refute the ideas that differ from yours. The famous philosopher, Goethe, said that if you go looking for evidence to support your theory you will always find it. It takes an analytical mind to go genuinely in search of evidence to disprove the prized theory and to weigh the stresses when it is found.

Your ability to usefully reflect on anothers opinion is in need of development. In particular, you may still have to acquire an ability to see some usefulness in a criticism that you think it is not aligned with your own thinking. This could be unfortunate, for if you truly believe in the attributes of community and collaboration within it, you need to understand that not everyone who differs in opinion from you is incorrect. Reflection and some introspection will help with this.

As negative as criticism seems to be, it can always be a location for building on. As stupid as an opinion may appear, it may have the potential to be innovative. Many ideas that come from outside the square will seem foreign. That's the nature of stuff that comes from those who think outside the square when viewed by those who do not. The reverse is just as true.

And last of all, the square has only two sides to it - the inside and the outside. But it is nevertheless a closed line, no matter which side you are on. We tend to think we are on the inside looking out. That's everyone's view, whether thinking outside the square or not.

To look into the square requires being on the outside - but this also requires thinking outside the square.

Catchya later
from Middle-earth

[Richard Millington]

Hi Christian,

I'm not sure I've explained myself well enough.

This isn't about good or bad things. It's about what people do. You're entirely right in that you don't want something out of the community, content-wise. But content is available in many, many, places. The personal motivations for participating in that one community, as opposed to the many others, is something more psychological. It is this psychological element which I'm getting at.

If you think you are a great bird photographer, for example, you have to work hard amongst great bird photographers to be told you are one. Which is also a great thing. It's not empty praise, it's self-verfication.

Ken: I suspect a lot of that comment would be better suited to e-mail (richard@feverbee.com).

Self-verification is a supported by studies by Swann Jr, Guinn, Cooley, Mead - all of whom have undertaken extensive research in this field.

How would you adapt this idea for online communities?

[Ken Allan]

Hmmm Richard.

While it is true that I'm not noted for my tact, I'm more of a straight shooter.

You have to admit that the topic name - "What Do You Think Of Me?" - does ask for some related feedback.

When I became a writer, one of the things I learnt was that all criticism is useful. Many of my colleagues who were writing like me just could not hack the criticism that comes with that job, and they stopped writing. That was a pity, for many of them had a lot to offer in that discipline.

But y'know, criticism can be used to improve oneself. And this is what I thought was so fantastic about criticism. It was a means towards improvement.

I have been writing resources for learners since 1987. Little of what I've written escaped the scathing comments of my critics, and in some areas I've worked in, there were many of those - hundreds.

THE FIRE AND THE ANVIL

You mention self-verification. William B Swann reports, "We concluded that perceivers might systematically shape the minds of targets. Yet as robust as these findings seemed to be, I noticed that sometimes targets actively resisted the label with which they had been tagged and attempted to alter the impressions of perceivers. This suggested that the process of 'making minds' was not a one-way street; not only did perceivers shape the minds of targets, but targets shaped the minds of perceivers. Apparently, the “making of minds” was an interactive and dynamic process in which both perceivers and targets actively influenced one another."

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/Swann/docu/sw_int_studies05.pdf

"No man is an island".

I urge you to rethink the content of my comment. It is not the damning soliloquy you first have thought it is.

You have a lot of strengths that I mentioned. It's the areas of need that are important to development.

Thanks for your description of parts of my comment. You made me think about how I write.

Catchya later
from Middle-earth