Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 8, 2021, 6:10 pm

is it possible to discern someone's level of power awareness through this medium?

And what would happen if Lucio posted as a guest or undercover account rather than his main account?
Would we take his advice as seriously?

Or similarly if some of the regulars like John or Ali posted as a guest account, would we treat their posts differently?
I'm thinking personally yes because we are all biased to a certain degree.
We cannot decouple ideas from people.

Interesting question.

And great experiment :).

Definitely the "history", the past interactions, the idea you've developed about someone will influence how much weight you give to someone's post or opinion.
But then again, those past opinions are not built on nothing, they've been built on what someone has said and done in the past, as well as how helpful -or unhelpful- they've been to you.

Basically, we're talking about social capital here.

So it's normal, and even good, that social capital influences future interactions.
For those who seek to be high-value and add value, that's a geat thing: it means you can fuck up sometimes, and still remain a high value, high status, "force for good".

On the other hand, also true: someone who shows up for the first time has zero social capital.

But it won't take long for that bank account to start developing, and to go either on the positive, or the negative.
And if one shares good wisdom, he'll quickly climb up.

EXAMPLE

From the first moment I opened this thread on my phone I immediately thought:

Great post!

1. He picked a crucial few lines to delve deeper
2. He quoted correctly (form also matters)
3. He formatted his text well, both in terms of organization, and in terms of persuasion, to invite further reading

A post like this from an actual new member would have catapulted him quickly onto the "hot new entry".

NEW SUBJECT FOR THIS POST?

Something like "forum handles, status & power dynamics of online forums".

Quote from Samson on February 16, 2021, 4:44 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 8, 2021, 6:10 pm

Definitely the "history", the past interactions, the idea you've developed about someone will influence how much weight you give to someone's post or opinion.
But then again, those past opinions are not built on nothing, they've been built on what someone has said and done in the past, as well as how helpful -or unhelpful- they've been to you.

Basically, we're talking about social capital here.

So it's normal, and even good, that social capital influences future interactions.
For those who seek to be high-value and add value, that's a geat thing: it means you can fuck up sometimes, and still remain a high value, high status, "force for good".

Great stuff, thanks for explaining the concept of social capital in the forum context.

This explains why we give more weight to our friends and family.
It is because they have influenced us positively to an extent.

This means that, if I contribute sufficiently to this forum, my opinions and thoughts may matter increasingly more.
And possibly that people may start caring about what I say on this forum.

Akin to that of academic citations.
People care more about authors who have been cited more.
Sometimes authors with solid opinions are not held in high-esteem because they do not have a perception of academic social capital.

Would There Be Any Bias Detrimental to an Objective Discussion If Profiles Matter?

I'm thinking that it is good to view content on its own sometimes.
Which is why conferences do blind reviews of papers sometimes.
Authors are not allowed to put their names in their papers upon submission.
This reduces the bias of only accepting prestigious authors into the body of research.

In this case, I saw the portion of the forum with proven strategies, case studies, etc.
We can draw some potential analogies with accepted papers into conferences.

Negative Social Capital

So it's normal, and even good, that social capital influences future interactions.
For those who seek to be high-value and add value, that's a geat thing: it means you can fuck up sometimes, and still remain a high value, high status, "force for good".

This suggests the contrary as well.
If you have negative social capital, maybe you should move to another environment and start from scratch.
This is why anonymity may incentivise people to take more value from others.

Is Anonymity Good Online?

I'm thinking that anonymity can be good sometimes.
It can let a content stand alone without past history.
Hence, it is more objective.

With regards to disincentivizing people from bad behaviour, having some sort of accountability through social capital seems to be good idea.
This motivates people to work to build their social capital.

What if our face changes everyday : )
Maybe like a CIA agent.
I like the idea of being able to contribute and influence without past history, a.k.a. social capital.
Or rather concentrated, rapid built-up of social capital.
Spikes, drops to zero, rinse & repeat.
There's a certain freedom in that.

How Should We Call This Thread?

NEW SUBJECT FOR THIS POST?

Something like "forum handles, status & power dynamics of online forums".

Sounds like a good title to use.
I think power dynamics may affect the objectivity of discussions on this forum as well.