User talk:Fairmanfour

This account is being used as part of class assignments at the University of Stirling (Module FMSU9A4)

Annotated Bibliography Exercise ii
Suler, John, “The Online Disinhibition Effect”, Participations: Contemporary Media Forum, International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 184-188, 2005 Whurr Publishers Ltd

In this article, John Suler discusses the psychological phenomenon in how the use of internet or online activity affects behavioural patterns and whether it causes positive or negative acts as a result. In the introduction, Suler lays out the two main categories that the behaviours will fall into, characterised by two opposing extremes on the spectrum of positive and negative online attitudes; “benign disinhibition," described as being characterised as the exhibiting of kindness and sharing emotional expression; and “toxic disinhibition," described as the exhibition of hateful, angry and, at its most extreme, criminal and taboo subject matter. Suler also elaborates that the differences between the two categories of disinhibition cannot be absolutely determined and can form a complex combination and attempts to simplify it for the interpretation of how it manifests and becomes an extra element to someone’s personality.

The first section of the article describes the effects of the anonymity a person can experience whilst online and have it creates a dissociative identity, allowing or even justifying the negative “toxic disinhibition”. This also leads into the second section, which discusses the concept of online invisibility and how it causes less self-consciousness and how it can interfere and hinder communication because of the lack of visual social cues.

Suler also discusses the asynchronous (not occurring at the same time) nature of online communication and how it is delayed communication and can potentially create an opportunity to ignore or “run away” from unwanted messages. The author also writes about the fantasy and wish fulfilment aspect on what online communications can allow, and ties it back to the dissociative element described in earlier sections of the article.

The article also covers the elevated sense of self on the online landscape, as the combination of the dissociative identities and anonymity seemingly creates an equal footing for anyone participating in online practises. Suler then concludes the article by discussing how individual differences between people can cause the differences in online identities and personalities.

The article provides a good starting-off point for research into the field of digital and online communications, and how it can affect a user’s behavioural patterns and identity. However, the article is somewhat limited in its short length and lack of statistical study and sources — though Suler does cite some of his earlier works on the subject, he does not include examples from other authors to back up his descriptions of online disinhibitions.

Comments
I think this academic article will be an excellent resource for our group moving forward in our essay research into collective intelligence and how it impacts the behavior of people in the online community. I especially like the dichotomy you discuss of toxic and benign disinhibition; because these two behaviors occur so often, yet are so polar opposite, I think they are an interesting subject matter to explore for our research. Does the author discuss what causes such different behaviors in an online space in the work? If so, that would be an excellent jumping off point for utilizing this article in particular. Additionally, does the author at all discuss the concept of groupthink? Due to our topic of “collective intelligence” I also think perhaps pulling in some research about how having others around to justify or simply agree with a person or community's beliefs increases the difficulty for a member of that community or others to speak out in opposition to it would be beneficial. It would show how collective intelligence alters behavior, and we could use examples of group toxic disinhibition and benign disinhibition to show how the online communities can foster and strengthen groupthink. Does the article bring up any specific examples of these types of communities that exemplify toxic and benign disinhibition? Again, these could be incredibly useful in continuing to pursue our research topic at large. Overall, I think this annotated bibliography is a job very well done, and you have found an excellent article for us to utilize in the continuing process of this research project. Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 09:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC) #

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that the two contrasting behaviours exhibited and discussed in the article would be a good subject for our essay, as it will provide some explanation on how certain internet behaviours are caused. The author offers some hypothesis as to why some of these behaviours occur, citing things like the anonymity of the user, which the author describes as being disinhibiting, thereby allowing more extreme behaviour - without the perceived safety of online anonymity, the user might not feel as free to exhibit the negative or 'toxic' behaviour so often found online.

There isn't much discussion of groupthink in the article, but it does include elements that might be described as being 'confirmation bias' and how it influences the openness of opinions shared online. The article also doesn't make mention of any specific examples of the benign and toxic behaviours as described in the article, but does include some descriptions of what might be considered broad, non-specific examples. And even if this article proves to not be the most helpful of articles we use, we can definitely use it as a reference point, even if it's just for an example of what other theorists think and how we might adapt it to our own findings.

Thank you for the clarification on some of these points! I do think this is a strong article for us to utilize for our research. I wonder if we could find good examples of both types of disinhibition? That would definitely strengthen our argument, particularly in relation to collective intelligence and behavior, especially because it talks about group behavior and variations within it. I also really like the point you bring up of “confirmation bias” because I think this is a huge issue with collective intelligence and the online community, and one that we should definitely explore in relation to behavior. Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)#

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Fail. Contributions of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 3 relevant contribs registered over the penultimate day of the project. These were significant entries in terms of moving the project forward, and had you actually done this work over a sustained period as instructed, this would have made things much, much easier for yourself and for your group work. There’s no sense as to why you made the decision to leave this until the last minute.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * 2 of the 3 contribs are deemed “significant”. However, some of these materials seemed to be cut and paste using materials already posted to the page from other users? So your actual contrib to the discussion would amount to far less characters.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * Not much in evidence here, I’m afraid.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * Again, negligible.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * You conducted yourself well as far as the material evidence goes.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.

Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * As with the above descriptor, the main problem here is that your final exercise is missing, so this has meant that you have effectively lost a significant percentage of marks needlessly. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good, and probably have contributed to the bulk of your marks, because you did make an effort to engage at a couple of points in the process.. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you have engaged in discussion in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are). A pity, then, that so much of this work is offset by missing posts.

General:
 * Reading and research: some evidence here and there.


 * Argument and analysis: the main reflective piece is missing, so this is fairly difficult to judge. One might say that you have potential in this regard, but have forgone the opportunity.


 * Presentation: see above comment on use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)