Earlier postings on the "Sociology and Psychology of Blogopaths" (and on a real clinical case here) produced some interesting comments from readers. The crux of the issue posed in the earlier posting was this:
"Is there any pertinent literature yet on the psychology and the sociology of the blogosphere?
"Psychologically, for example, it would be interesting to know whether there is any pattern to the 'types' of folks who blog, in particular, the folks we might call 'Blogopaths,' those for whom blogging appears to be a substitute for real life.
"Blogopaths pen lengthy tomes about every topic; they appear to blog 24/7; they pounce almost instantly at any slight or mention from another blogger; they are frequent 'commenters' on other sites, always with links to their own blog; their blogs include 'endorsements' by other bloggers, and so on. Blogopaths are the folks well-described in an e-mail by one trusted reader: 'These [types] are unfulfilled people not unlike, figuratively, the homeless who rummage through garbage bins. Cyberspace is their alley, their raison d'etre. It gives them a reason to get up in the morning.' (The same reader offered the most memorable description of the blogopathic part of Cyberspace, calling it a 'sub-universe of dementia' populated by 'marginalized sociopaths' who crave 'publicity, [which] allows them to fantasize that they are real and engaged and relevant.')"
It turns out there is not yet a scholarly literature on blogopathology. Still reader WMR offered some interesting observations on the blogosphere, by reference to an earlier (and more charming) adolescent fad:
"My reaction to the blogosphere is that it reminds me of science fiction fandom when it was still a fringe movement-before Star Wars became such a pop culture phenomenon. I sense the same adolescent thrill in discovering that there are people out there who not only like the same strange things I like, but who will listen to my opinions and even take them seriously. Perhaps your position as an academic, i.e., one who regularly takes part in serious discussions, insulates you from the sheer, visceral charge of finally having your ideas being taken seriously by total strangers and the joy of 'spirited' exchange with the 'all too common idiots' over some picayune 'critical point'."
Philosopher Dominic Murphy from Cal Tech (whose book Psychiatry in the Scientific Image is forthcoming from MIT Press) writes:
"I know of no psychiatric research on bloggers, although since there is research on everybody else I'm sure someone's doing it right now. But for rhetorical purposes I think that Narcissistic Personality Disorder is your best shot (although a lot of theorists think all the personality disorders are a crock).
"The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder include:
a grandiose sense of self-importance
a belief in one's specialness and one's entitlement to associate with distinguished people and institutions
lack of empathy,
envy
arrogant, haughty, behavior
requires excessive admiration
And here's something you can write down on a piece of paper for use in faculty meetings. DSM-IV-TR says the most useful way to distinguish the personality disorders for differential diagnosis is this:
Histrionics are coquettish
Antisocials are callous
Borderlines are needy
Schizotypals and paranoids are socially withdrawn
Narcissists are grandiose
Oh, both Narcissists and Obsessive-Compulsives are perfectionists, but only narcissists believe themselves to be perfect
It all sounds a lot like the average commentator on Crooked Timber to me."
Good stuff, even if, as Professor Murphy notes, the science underwriting it may not be robust. And Narcissistic Personality Disorder certainly seems apt for our clinical case, noted above.
Meanwhile a student reader from Canada, who asked to remain anonymous, had some interesting observations in defense of "comments" on blogs:
"You quote The clerk on emotionally stunted commenters, but I believe you're a little bit too quick in that judgement. I believe I helped convince the Clerk that comments on his web log wouldn't turn out as terrible as he'd imagined, and indeed you can confirm that they aren't bad at all. I had predicted to him that the content of his site would significantly affect the demographic of readers and therefore commenters; similarly, sites that regularly post political commentary, a topic of broader interest and lower barriers to understanding, will attract an
average demographic with lower levels of education and more extreme and
uncivil conviction to their point of view. It also explains why Yglesias can't post about philosophy without his average demographic (determined by his regular political commentary) insinuating that philosophy is a subject for know nothing ivory tower academics and their students."
Recent Comments