The image of a blogger as a way of influencing the reader

    You wondered why you are waiting for posts from some authors, and are upset that they have not been published yet, and once you get to the pages of others, do you rush to leave?
    Why do you want to listen to some people over and over, and next to others - is there a desire to close your ears more tightly or ask them to shut up?

    I offer a view of a psychoanalyst on this phenomenon. For clarity, I will talk about the perception of Internet resources, in particular blogs, and, first of all, about a very understandable everyday situation when you are listening to someone.

    For me, interest in the words / text of another person is determined, in general, by whether this object satisfies me or not. The satisfaction process itself is multifactorial, proceeding with the involvement of various physiological and psychological structures. I propose a simplified scheme that describes the basic principles of the formation of sympathy / antipathy in the perception of the Other.

    So, I strive to continue contact if and / or:
    1. I am informed of the necessary information.
    2. Discharge my mental tension directly.
    3. I interact with an attractive real figure or image of another person.

    Let's consider each of them.

    With informative communication / resources, everything is simple. In its pure form, in a similar way, directories and analytics, for example, Wikipedia or digests, satisfy me.

    Direct discharge methods are also limited: humor, sex, exaltation (we will not consider drugs :)). Little by little, everyone can use this lever in their texts. But without guessing with the form, you can push away more than attract. The acceptable options for this method of discharge differ too much. For example, lovers of subtle allusions will probably be repelled by crude humor and vice versa. Or, the author’s acceptable sexual behavior (which is shaped not so much by the general culture as by the family and individual characteristics) may be punishable for some. And religious or aesthetic exaltation is generally individual categories.

    The process of interacting with the Other that attracts me is larger. And I want to dwell on it in more detail. To begin with, he got us from animals and improved for hundreds of thousands of years. Basically, that is why almost all stages proceed unconsciously. Such unconsciousness, on the one hand, makes it difficult for the blogger to operate in his own way, but on the other hand, makes such an impact more effective, because it passes by the reader’s defenses and rational attitudes.

    I will try to simplify the decomposition of the process of influence through the image (reaction to it) into components. In the order of formation of the mental dominant. I already wrote about this on my blog, so I’ll try to retell it briefly.

    With the design of the basic mental structures of the individual - a picture of the world, self-image, super-ego, ideal I - the dominant of identity is the first to be affirmed . A newly formed personality seeks traits like its own from other people. The peak of this process occurs in adolescence and early youth. The main experience in communicating with a similar person is a confirmation of the picture of the world and a guarantee of acceptance.

    If I talk with the interlocutor on topics where our positions coincide, then I get confirmation of my own rightness and begin to feel that “we are of the same blood”, that he will not push me away and is even ready to help with something. Although the latter is rarely accessible to consciousness.

    If I read someone I agree with, I rejoice at the “correctness” of my thoughts and know that my comments under the text will be accepted favorably. I will be accepted into this group. The benefits of such adoption are virtual, hardly any of them will even give a cigarette :). But the psyche concludes “Accepted into the group is good” and communicates the positivity of the process with emotions of pleasure.

    After solving problems related to identical qualities, priority goes to value in the partner of complementary qualities. Those. those that I do not have, and which I need for successful functioning. Depending on the pace of personality development, they begin to dominate from 25-30 years, on average, and remain basic until the moment when structures are formed that ensure the satisfaction of deficit qualities in the psyche itself. That is, almost everyone - forever :). The dominant of complementary qualities when choosing an interlocutor does not mean the absence of identical ones. Just their number and significance is higher.

    When communicating with a person who has qualities that I do not possess, but whose deficiency I feel, the following occurs. On the one hand, anxiety is reduced, because my psyche concludes that when situations arise that require competencies that I do not have, there is an object that will take their decision on itself. On the other, being trained, I gradually acquire relevant skills.

    If I experience difficulties in manifesting aggression, then the interlocutor located to me with clearly expressed aggressiveness will allow me to feel that when a threat arises he will easily deal with it. And I learn to show my aggression by imitating his words and actions.

    Reading the blog of a successful author, I seem to be becoming his friend. Having a millionaire friend is almost the same as being rich yourself :). Plus, I begin to think like a wealthy person, to do what he would do. Which contributes to my financial development.

    There is another, less significant process, which includes the characteristics of the interlocutor. This is an update of the experience gained earlier. Vis-a-vis can remind me of my father or my ex, or a classmate friend. Depending on the positive or negative associated with the figure from the past, I experience the corresponding emotions for the interlocutor in the present. Since this process is almost always individual (it’s difficult to manage it) and is rarely included, it does not make much sense to consider it in the context of the article.

    I also want to say that, in my opinion, the characteristics that are not related to these groups are insignificant in the process of forming the reader’s attitude to the blogger.

    Now to the most difficult and interesting. Characteristics are not only perceived as identical and complementary in themselves. The psyche always wants to save and perceive the interlocutor not as a list of properties, but as a certain image with the already known prospect of interaction. And from these properties of the speaker, everyone who perceives him collects his whole image.

    This image is taken from a certain individual library. It is formed throughout life. But there is not much individual in it. As a rule, these images are widely provided by culture and are only occasionally adjusted by personal experience. In ancient times, these were pantheons, mythology, and fairy tales. Now they are films, books, programs. There are certain prerequisites for images in the collective unconscious (Jung archetypes), and they are objectified directly by the media and, sometimes, by personal experience.

    We, as before, have our own heroes, villains, jesters and beauties :). But they look and speak, of course, in a modern way.

    So, the image always takes precedence in the formation of relationships over individual qualitiesthe interlocutor. It’s not enough to seem successful and rich. If in the readers' perception you find yourself a “Rich Relative”, then they will reach for you. If you are enrolled in the “Capitalist Bastard,” then expect nothing but negativity.

    A woman who demonstrates her attractiveness to a male may turn out to be an “Attractive and educating mother,” who has something to adopt and who has no conflict (her father and all other men are mine), and “A successful competitor” for blog readers. "To be discounted.

    Of course, then, in which cell the speaker is placed, largely depends on the perceiver. From his current experiences, life experience and weather :). But, from my point of view, the author of the blog himself determines no less than half that.

    By the end of the article, we nevertheless came to psychoanalysis.

    What we think of ourselves and how people see us rarely coincide completely. We may feel insecure, and our interlocutors will see the impudent before themselves. Or consider yourself rude and not know that in the team we are known as honest and direct. Our distorted perception of our own image is possible both with respect to positive characteristics, and relatively negative. But nevertheless, from the point of view of psychoanalysis, the negative ones are much more often “in the shadows” and become an unpleasant discovery.

    What you demonstrate in real life, often, one way or another, penetrates into your texts. And immediately perceived by readers. Editing and proofreading by outsiders can help, but only partially. Of course, it’s good if the demonstrated image helps (or at least does not interfere) with solving the problem for which the blog is being maintained. For example, it may turn out that readers see in you not only smart, but also fun. Not “Sage”, but “Cool lecturer-professor”. Often the opposite happens.

    Everyone has white spots. This is an axiom. How to eliminate them?

    You can, of course, go to the specialists. In principle, at almost any psychopsychological training you will be given feedback (you can’t compare it with the quality and depth of psychoanalysis, “Psychoanalysis is our everything”). But such an approach is not always feasible.

    I will offer a procedure adapted for non-professionals. She, I hope, will help minimize the risks of negative consequences from the mismatch of the declared image and objectives of the blog.

    The first one. You need to show the blog to someone else. You yourself will not see your tendencies, you should not even try. “It doesn't smell like it.” It is better to give a reading to a practicing psychologist in decreasing order of effectiveness; smart humanities (preferably not knowing you closely); a person whose assessment of other people previously evoked your consent; a few friends. I do not advise reading comments; it’s difficult to restore the picture from them.

    The second one. First, evaluate your own expert. Then, in his words “put out of brackets” what he says about himself (thinking that he is talking about you). For example, if he is clearly embittered, then everything about aggression in his text can be ignored. What remains is likely to apply to you one way or another. True, which of the traits is manifested more strongly, which is weaker, cannot be determined by this method.

    The third. The situation is more complicated with the image. I propose to ask the following question: “What character from books or films do you associate the author of these texts with?” Ask for a few metaphors, and then choose the one that most reflects you.

    Then discuss the character with other friends of yours, asking the question: "Do you think my text is similar to the written" ... "? What is the difference?". In theory, the detected image that you broadcast should not cause disagreement with the interlocutor.

    After the good version appears, see how the character you ascribe to is effective in achieving the goal of the blog.

    I hope this article helps me meet interesting blogs more often.

    Also popular now: