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

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

I offer a psychoanalyst view on this phenomenon. For clarity, I will speak both about the perception of Internet resources, in particular blogs, and, first of all, about a very clear everyday situation when you listen 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 process of satisfaction is multifactorial, proceeds with the involvement of various physiological and psychological structures. I propose a simplified scheme describing the basic principles of the formation of likes / dislikes in the perception of the Other.

So, I aim to continue the contact if and / or:
1. I am given the necessary information.
2. Discharge my mental tension directly.
3. I interact with an attractive real figure or image of another person.
')
Consider each one of them.

With informative conversations / resources, everything is simple. In its pure form, reference books and analytics, for example, Wikipedia or digests, satisfy me in this way.

Ways of direct discharge are also limited: humor, sex, exaltation (we will not consider drugs :)). Little by little everyone can use this lever in their texts. But, not having guessed with a form, it is possible to push away more than attract. Too different acceptable options for this method of discharge. For example, lovers of subtle allusions will surely be repelled by rude humor and vice versa. Or sexual behavior that is permissible for the author (which is shaped not so much by a common culture as by family and individual characteristics) may turn out to be punishable for someone. Religious or aesthetic exaltation is generally an individual category.

The process of interacting with the other that attracts me is bigger. And I want to dwell on it in more detail. Let's start with the fact that he got us from animals and improved hundreds of thousands of years. Basically, that is why almost all stages proceed unconsciously. On the one hand, such unawareness makes it difficult to operate one’s own way on the part of a blogger, but on the other, it makes such an impact more effective, since it passes by the defenses and rational attitudes of the reader.

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

With the design of the basic mental structures of the individual - a picture of the world, an image of oneself, a super-ego, ideal I - the dominant identity is first established. The newly formed personality is looking for features similar to its own from other people. The peak of this process comes in adolescence and early youth. Basic experiences in communicating with a similar person is a confirmation of a picture of the world and a guarantee of acceptance.

If I talk with my 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. Although the latter is rarely available to consciousness.

If I read someone with whom I agree, then 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 reports the positiveness of the process with emotions of pleasure.

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

When communicating with a person who possesses qualities that I do not possess, but whose deficit I feel, the following happens. On the one hand, anxiety decreases, since my psyche concludes that when situations arise that require absent competences, there is an object that will take over their solution. On the other hand, being trained, I gradually acquire relevant skills.

If I have difficulty in manifesting aggression, then the interlocutor to me with a pronounced aggressiveness will allow me to feel that if there is a threat, 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’m supposedly 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 have done. That contributes to my financial formation.

There is another, less significant process, which includes the characteristics of the interlocutor. This is the actualization of the experience gained earlier. Vis-a-vis may remind me of my father or my ex, or a friend of a classmate. Depending on the positive or negative, associated with a figure from the past, I feel the corresponding emotions to the interlocutor in the present. Since this process is almost always individual (difficult to manage) and 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 the listed groups, in the formation of the reader’s attitude to the blogger, take an insignificant part.

Now to the most difficult and interesting. Characteristics are not perceived only as identical and complementary in themselves. The psyche always wants to save money and perceive the interlocutor not as a list of properties, but as a kind of 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 some individual library. It is formed during life. But there is not much individual in it. As a rule, these images are widely provided by the culture and only sometimes are corrected by personal experience. In ancient times these were pantheons, mythology, fairy tales. Now it is movies, books, programs. Some prerequisites of images are in the collective unconscious (Jung's archetypes), and they are directly mediated by the media and, sometimes, by personal experience.

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

So, the image always takes precedence in shaping the relationship over the individual qualities of the interlocutor. Not seem successful and rich. If, in the perception of the readers, you find yourself a “rich relative,” then you will be drawn. If you are enrolled in the "Bastard capitalist", then do not expect anything but negative.

A woman who demonstrates her attractiveness to the male can be for readers of the blog as an “Attractive and Teaching Mother”, who has something to learn and with which there is no conflict (her father and all other men are mine) or “Lucky rival , Which should be discounted.

Of course, the fact that the speaker’s “what cell is placed” depends largely on the perceiver. From his current experiences, life experiences and the weather :). But, from my point of view, the author of the blog himself defines it no less than half.

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

What we think about ourselves and how people see us is rarely the same. We may feel insecure, and our interlocutors will see an impertinent person. Or consider yourself a rude and not know that in the team we are honest and direct. Our distorted perception of our own image is possible both with respect to positive characteristics and relatively negative ones. But still, from the point of view of psychoanalysis, negative ones are much more often “in the shadow” and become an unpleasant discovery.

What you demonstrate in real life often penetrates your texts one way or another. And immediately perceived by the 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 the task for which the blog is being conducted. For example, it may turn out that readers see in you not only clever, but also cheerful. Not “Sage”, but “Cool lecturer-professor”. Often the opposite is true.

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

You can, of course, go to the specialists. In principle, in almost any psychiatric training you will be given feedback (you can’t compare the quality and depth of psychoanalysis, “Our Psychoanalysis is Everything”). But this 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 discrepancy between the declared image and the blog’s objectives.

The first. We need to show the blog to someone else. You will not see your trends yourself, you should not even try. "It does not smell his." It is better to give a read, in decreasing order of effectiveness, to a practicing psychologist; smart humanities (preferably not knowing you close); a person whose assessment of other people previously caused you to agree; several acquaintances. Read the comments do not advise, to restore the picture for them is difficult.

The second. First, evaluate your expert yourself. Then, in his words "put out of the box" what he says about himself (thinking what he says about you). For example, if he is clearly angry, then all that concerns aggression in his text can be ignored. What remains will most likely relate to you somehow. True, which of the features is more pronounced, which is weaker, you cannot determine by this method.

Third. With the way the situation is more complicated. I propose to ask such a question: “What character from books or films do you associate with the author of these texts?”. Ask for a few metaphors and then select the most reflective of you.

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

After the appearance of a good version, see how much the character attributed to you is effective in achieving the goal of the blog.

I hope this article will help me to meet interesting blogs more often.