Communication: Are you a good witch or are you a bad witch?

In class, we talked about group dynamics and how they impact our interactions both on and offline. As a psychology and sociology major, I find this area of study incredibly interesting. This semester, I'm taking an anthropology course on Biocultural Evolution, which discusses the interaction of our genes with culture, and views culture as a separately evolving entity. The Clark Doll Test comes to mind when I think about group dynamics and culture. In this study, Kenneth and Mamie Clark presented children of various races with both a black and a white doll, and asked them to present the doll which fulfilled the qualities that they listed. When asked which doll was "good," the majority of children (regardless of their race) presented the white doll. Good traits were associated with the white doll and bad traits were associated with the black doll. The interaction of culture and genes in grouping here is evidence. Naturally, we group people into those who are like and not like us, for various reasons that change with age and experience. We still have a tribal mentality, so grouping was once necessary for protection, but in modern day just leads to stereotyping. In this case, we naturally group people by races, and then we are taught what to think of these groups. This relates strongly to one of the major benefits of computer mediated groups: anonymity. When we converse online, we can choose not to present information about ourselves that may be associated with negative stereotypes. Perhaps we choose to hide our race, gender, religion, political affiliations, socioeconomic status, social status, school affiliation, career, etc. We are given the rare chance to share our opinions unburdened by others' assumptions about us. 

Another interesting component of group dynamics is deindividuation. Deindividuation allows us to view ourselves and others as part of groups, rather than as individuals. One example I see of this mentality on a regular basis if in football culture. When people start to talk about football, I generally notice that their tone of voice changes, their values change, and the game becomes the prevailing motivation for whatever the task at hand previously was. As we’ve seen to a devastating degree here at Penn State, having extreme dedication and loyalty to a team and a sport leaves a lot of room for error in other aspects of life. Sexual abuse was covered up here to save the game. In Florida, Jameis Winston was accused of rape and robbery, but the charges were largely ignored until the reason ended. Do all of the individuals believe that football is a more important cause than peoples’ livelihoods? Probably not, but since they were working as part of a group and not as in touch with themselves as individuals, the entire situation looked different. We act differently when we feel supported by and loyal to others, especially when those others are populations of players, fans, coaches, university officials, student bodies, etc. When it comes to interacting online, the anonymity of people allows them to say things that they don’t necessarily have to own. While anonymity can be beneficial in reducing stereotyping and judgments, it can negatively impact our decisions about what to say. The complexity of each of these characteristics both on and offline serve as an excellent example of the complexity of communication overall.