3 ms·

I think many internet communities can be understood by figuring out their in-group/out-group standards. 4chan's /g/ board will make fun of "normies" that can't

I think many internet communities can be understood by figuring out their in-group/out-group standards. 4chan's /g/ board will make fun of "normies" that can't assemble a computer, and /v/ will make fun of normies that aren't willing to embrace something as fun as videogames. Progressive subreddits will make fun of easily-debunkable political misinformation and the kinds of people that peddle it, and sciencey subreddits will call out various other kinds of misinformation and its peddlers. In some places, the out-group is "SJWs", and in other places, the out-group is the kind of person that spends too much time complaining about "SJWs". There's an in-group/out-group dynamic being used in all of these situations that can feel fun to be in on. (Not trying to say all of these divisions are equally arbitrary. Many people have their own reasons for preferring specific setups rather than others, but someone in any of these setups will automatically get a feel-good bonus from the tribal part of their mind.) Cringe humor is a quick way to bring up the in-group/out-group dynamic or to temporarily spawn a new instance of the dynamic. Places with predefined in-group/out-group dynamics are attractive to people not just so people can experience being in an in-group, but also because as long as you're not part of the out-group, you're unlikely to be randomly targeted as an example of cringe/out-group. (I think this part explains a lot of the popularity of Trump despite scandals: Some of his fans know or will acknowledge he's doing bad things, but it's just considered much less important than the belief that Trump will never punch in the direction of his fans but the other side will. -- Hopefully a connection to politics doesn't feel too out of place here. In-group/out-group dynamics seem like something common to human psychology that we should expect to see in many places.)

leftyted 7y ago
I think you're dead-on. The cringe analysis is mostly subsumed by in-group/out-group analysis. > (I think this part explains a lot of the popularity of Trump despite scandals: Some of his fans know or will acknowledge he's doing bad things, but it's just considered much less important than the belief that Trump will never punch in the direction of his fans but the other side will. -- Hopefully a connection to politics doesn't feel too out of place here. In-group/out-group dynamics seem like something common to human psychology that we should expect to see in many places.) I don't think this is accurate. I think that Trump's popularity is mostly due to his "realness". He's the exact opposite of a career politician. He doesn't talk like a lawyer and, despite being rich, he has an everyman quality to him. He's incredibly unpretentious. Trump reminds me of something from Notes from a Dead House. Dostoevsky describes a prison warden who was beloved by the inmates due to his homespun character despite the fact that he took pleasure in beating them: > There are men who are far from being kind, and who have yet the talent of making themselves popular; they do not despise the people who are beneath their rule. That, I think, is the cause of this popularity. They do not give themselves lordly airs; they have no feeling of "caste;" they have a certain odour of the people; they are men of birth, and the people at once sniff it. They will do anything for such men; they will gladly change the mildest and most humane man for a very severe chief, if the latter possesses this sort of odour, and especially if the man is also genial in his way. Oh! then he is beyond price. > Lieutenant Smekaloff, as I have said, ordered sometimes very severe punishments. But he seemed to inflict them in such a way, that the prisoners felt no rancour against him. On the contrary, they recalled his whipping affairs with laughter; he did not punish frequently, for he had no artistic imagination. That's Trump as far as I'm concerned.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > I don't think this is accurate. I think that Trump's popularity is mostly due to his "realness". He's the exact opposite of a career politician. He doesn't talk like a lawyer and, despite being rich, he has an everyman quality to him. He's incredibly unpretentious. I think both your theories about Trump's popularity are right, as are many, many other theories. It's unfortunate that the mind seems to have a tendency toward aggressively forming rapid conclusions rather than logical analysis and curiosity driven brainstorming. Granted, we're the product of crude evolutionary processes, but the lack of activity in this realm even among the academic community seems far less impressive than one would predict considering what we are capable of in other fields. Maybe the author is onto something here.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Unlike certain other far past politicians, his image is impeccably crafted, not grown. (Easy, look into his past. He's not a man of an image he is projecting. People don't change this much.) He is a very good actor, specifically a comedian, and there's a species of logic behind his actions, not actual raw or even lightly filtered emotions as far as I can tell, but gives a great appearance he does so. (He does not seem to be a sociopath, but it's not a requirement.) That said, by acting consistently, one does become their mask to a degree.

leftyted 7y ago

I think you're dead-on. The cringe analysis is mostly subsumed by in-group/out-group analysis. > (I think this part explains a lot of the popularity of Trump despite scandals: Some of his fans know or will acknowledge he's doing bad things, but it's just considered much less important than the belief that Trump will never punch in the direction of his fans but the other side will. -- Hopefully a connection to politics doesn't feel too out of place here. In-group/out-group dynamics seem like something common to human psychology that we should expect to see in many places.) I don't think this is accurate. I think that Trump's popularity is mostly due to his "realness". He's the exact opposite of a career politician. He doesn't talk like a lawyer and, despite being rich, he has an everyman quality to him. He's incredibly unpretentious. Trump reminds me of something from Notes from a Dead House. Dostoevsky describes a prison warden who was beloved by the inmates due to his homespun character despite the fact that he took pleasure in beating them: > There are men who are far from being kind, and who have yet the talent of making themselves popular; they do not despise the people who are beneath their rule. That, I think, is the cause of this popularity. They do not give themselves lordly airs; they have no feeling of "caste;" they have a certain odour of the people; they are men of birth, and the people at once sniff it. They will do anything for such men; they will gladly change the mildest and most humane man for a very severe chief, if the latter possesses this sort of odour, and especially if the man is also genial in his way. Oh! then he is beyond price. > Lieutenant Smekaloff, as I have said, ordered sometimes very severe punishments. But he seemed to inflict them in such a way, that the prisoners felt no rancour against him. On the contrary, they recalled his whipping affairs with laughter; he did not punish frequently, for he had no artistic imagination. That's Trump as far as I'm concerned.

mistermann 7y ago
> I don't think this is accurate. I think that Trump's popularity is mostly due to his "realness". He's the exact opposite of a career politician. He doesn't talk like a lawyer and, despite being rich, he has an everyman quality to him. He's incredibly unpretentious. I think both your theories about Trump's popularity are right, as are many, many other theories. It's unfortunate that the mind seems to have a tendency toward aggressively forming rapid conclusions rather than logical analysis and curiosity driven brainstorming. Granted, we're the product of crude evolutionary processes, but the lack of activity in this realm even among the academic community seems far less impressive than one would predict considering what we are capable of in other fields. Maybe the author is onto something here.
AstralStorm 7y ago
Unlike certain other far past politicians, his image is impeccably crafted, not grown. (Easy, look into his past. He's not a man of an image he is projecting. People don't change this much.) He is a very good actor, specifically a comedian, and there's a species of logic behind his actions, not actual raw or even lightly filtered emotions as far as I can tell, but gives a great appearance he does so. (He does not seem to be a sociopath, but it's not a requirement.) That said, by acting consistently, one does become their mask to a degree.