How to create connection and community

[philostam]

Really? Never got that vibe from you, but maybe you make a special effort for the INFJ forum

Yeah, that's more in real life. Although most of the times I appear 'cold' simply because I'm out of my comfort zone, say in a bigger group of chatty people/sensors.

Agree. I think that to some extent this relates to ego. If you are not willing to tone down your ego for the sake of membership in a community, then maybe said community is not for you. I'm sure this can be difficult to accept for some people. The impulse to try to change a specific community for the sake of alignment with one's ideals/preferences is a strange one, given the vast choice of online communities one has on the internet, but in any case it is never going to work if the members of the community don't agree with it. And if the reason for them not agreeing is pinned down to their being tone-deaf, or conservative of their privileges, or whatever, then all the more reason to give up trying to be a member of it. You can't have a peaceful community with people you fundamentally don't respect and whose intentions you don't trust. Anyone is welcome to have those views. But it is obvious that said views won't be shared by the community itself.

Agree. That's like coming to a funeral wearing yellow Hawaii shirt lol. Either conform to the rules or stay the fuck home and be edgy on your own.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

That's like coming to a funeral wearing yellow Hawaii shirt lol

Maybe we should wear yellow stars instead.

 

[Ren]

I think this is only true to a degree.

There are occasions where the group is violating its own values or rules, or where group dynamics sweep people up into positions and causes they wouldn't otherwise take.

I don't think it's a sound principle to defer to 'group judgement' on faith, for obvious reasons, otherwise we'd just be entrenching the impulse to ostracise, and the 'values' of the group wouldn't be consistent over time; they'd shift with temporary alliances and immediate emotional states. We'd have to therefore claim that any minority population anywhere who were suddenly scapegoated were somehow acting out of 'ego'.

This is all true. I don’t think it is a wise strategy to defer to ‘group judgement’ on faith.

But what is ‘the group’? Who belongs to it? I think you could make a case for negative group dynamics if there is consistent agreement about most things between members and pressure against taking an opposite line in particular instances.

I think it would be difficult for a large community, such as the forum, to slide down into this kind of dynamic. There are too many free spirits, people who think for themselves and who happen to be also respected by fellow members, including mods. I don’t think they would hesitate to take a stance against even the mods if they saw things going in that direction.

It’s definitely true, though, that there have been instances of negative group dynamics in smaller group units—I guess what we refer to as “cliques”. I don’t like cliques, and also the fact that a lot of their activity happens in PMs (i.e. it’s not accountable). But fortunately there seems to be enough diversity on the forum to pre-empt the possibility of one clique dominating the others. I tend to be oblivious of those dynamics though—perhaps as a defense mechanism—so I could be wrong.

 

[slant]

This is all true. I don’t think it is a wise strategy to defer to ‘group judgement’ on faith.

But what is ‘the group’? Who belongs to it? I think you could make a case for negative group dynamics if there is consistent agreement about most things between members and pressure against taking an opposite line in particular instances.

I think it would be difficult for a large community, such as the forum, to slide down into this kind of dynamic. There are too many free spirits, people who think for themselves and who happen to be also respected by fellow members, including mods. I don’t think they would hesitate to take a stance against even the mods if they saw things going in that direction.

It’s definitely true, though, that there have been instances of negative group dynamics in smaller group units—I guess what we refer to as “cliques”. I don’t like cliques, and also the fact that a lot of their activity happens in PMs (i.e. it’s not accountable). But fortunately there seems to be enough diversity on the forum to pre-empt the possibility of one clique dominating the others. I tend to be oblivious of those dynamics though—perhaps as a defense mechanism—so I could be wrong.

I feel like when we look at historical situations of groups being challenged because of bias it prejudice it's typically functional vs recreational.

What I mean by that is typically we don't see civil rights movements being fought through a local recreational bowling league. Maybe professional level competition, but from my observation, the only time it's actually worth challenging those dynamics and forcing equality into a community is if it is a necessary community:

A school, public/government institutions, for example. This makes sense to "infiltrate" so to speak and force a change of culture since by not practicing equality it is having a real impact on all lives without people willingly participating. I have to go to school as a child and so if I'm being discriminated against there yes that needs to be challenged.

However.


Groups in which are recreational and voluntary, I do not see the same value in trying to change them for equality. If you join a book club on a conservative town that meets in a lady's living room and you keep trying to introduce Noam Chomsky reading material, you're just being a dick and ruining someone's group. They don't owe you anything and they have the right to have their group.

 

[philostam]

I feel like when we look at historical situations of groups being challenged because of bias it prejudice it's typically functional vs recreational.

What I mean by that is typically we don't see civil rights movements being fought through a local recreational bowling league. Maybe professional level competition, but from my observation, the only time it's actually worth challenging those dynamics and forcing equality into a community is if it is a necessary community:

A school, public/government institutions, for example. This makes sense to "infiltrate" so to speak and force a change of culture since by not practicing equality it is having a real impact on all lives without people willingly participating. I have to go to school as a child and so if I'm being discriminated against there yes that needs to be challenged.

However.

Groups in which are recreational and voluntary, I do not see the same value in trying to change them for equality. If you join a book club on a conservative town that meets in a lady's living room and you keep trying to introduce Noam Chomsky reading material, you're just being a dick and ruining someone's group. They don't owe you anything and they have the right to have their group.

Yup, that's well said and a helpful distinction, I think.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

This is all true. I don’t think it is a wise strategy to defer to ‘group judgement’ on faith.

But what is ‘the group’? Who belongs to it? I think you could make a case for negative group dynamics if there is consistent agreement about most things between members and pressure against taking an opposite line in particular instances.

I think it would be difficult for a large community, such as the forum, to slide down into this kind of dynamic. There are too many free spirits, people who think for themselves and who happen to be also respected by fellow members, including mods. I don’t think they would hesitate to take a stance against even the mods if they saw things going in that direction.

It’s definitely true, though, that there have been instances of negative group dynamics in smaller group units—I guess what we refer to as “cliques”. I don’t like cliques, and also the fact that a lot of their activity happens in PMs (i.e. it’s not accountable). But fortunately there seems to be enough diversity on the forum to pre-empt the possibility of one clique dominating the others. I tend to be oblivious of those dynamics though—perhaps as a defense mechanism—so I could be wrong.

Yes that seems to happen here - the diversity of members tends to provide a fairly functional set of checks and balances, combined with a generally pervasive willingness to compromise or act in conciliatory ways.