Sig pics, stereotypes, and the way we behave

[LindyHopper]

I was reading an interesting article about virtual reality avatars affecting people's behavior, and relating that to what happens in interactions here on the TMF. A few excerpts:

Nick Yee, who received his PhD in communication in 2007 and has returned to the lab as a staff researcher, dubbed this the Proteus Effect, after the Greek god who could shift form. Yee describes an experiment in which people who were given taller avatars behaved more aggressively in a virtual bargaining task than people with shorter avatars. When the subjects later repeated the task with a real person, “people who had been in taller avatars continued to bargain more aggressively face-to-face.” Similarly, following a virtual reality exercise, subjects were asked to choose people they'd like to approach from a mock dating website: people who had been in more attractive avatars during the exercise chose more attractive partners.

This change in self-perception happens remarkably quickly. “It only takes 90 seconds of exposure to a mirror image transformed in age, height or gender to cause drastic changes in behavior,” Bailenson says. Why are we so easily tricked by the way we look? Possibly because, unlike donning a costume or putting on makeup in real life, in cyberspace your avatar is your whole self-representation, the primary identity cue that tells you how to behave socially.

This made me think about how members here choose to represent themselves in their signature files. Is it with the intent of steering the way other people relate to you? Does approaching the TMF with a particular (artificial) physical appearance affect the way you behave? Do you think your interpersonal interactions here would change if you "looked" different? Would you choose to "look" different than you currently do?

Yee, who studied online role-playing games, says that digital life has a tendency to replicate social norms, even undesirable ones. “People infer a lot of their expected behaviors from how they look, and when you put someone in a virtual world their avatar is their entire identity.” In fact, Yee says, entire virtual worlds can end up stereotyping themselves. “One thing that really frustrates me is that in a world where you can be anything and anyone you like, why does Second Life look so much like suburban America?” Houses look like tract homes, instead of, say, floating orbs. People run around in Abercrombie & Fitch knockoffs. Women are exaggeratedly curvy. “There's almost an overemphasis on looking stereotypically good.” If online play affects real-life identities, what does it mean when such a popular virtual reality application reinforces class and gender tropes, rather than obliterating them?

That certainly reminded me of the TMF, too. Depictions of people, especially women, in signature files here are almost invariably pinup-beautiful. The objectification of women on this forum is a common complaint; many people assume there aren't many ladies here because men tend to harass them and treat them like sex toys. Do sexy sigs contribute to that? I ask this on an individual level (for example, you gotta laugh when someone like *~Game Girl~* uses a huge pic of a hot punk teenager as her sig, then flips out when men pay her sexual attention). 🙄 I'm also asking on a whole-forum level, and even a real-life level. Do the sex-stereotyped pictures we choose to represent ourselves reinforce sex stereotypes on the TMF, and in real life?

 

[His Divine Shadow]

I don't know if any of this explains Maniac's farting signature. 😀 I think that a great many of the signature pics (Maniac's and other Mimi-creations especially) embody their owners rather than the other way around. Art imitating life, if you will. To take another example, look at kurchatovium's. His has a decidedly cheerful and happy-looking fellow floating in a colored whirl in what might be a meditative position. If that doesn't describe the always mellow and always silly Kurchman I don't know what does (Maybe a jar of orange marmalade held by a bunny. 😉). And he has been that way since long before he added that parcitular image to his signature. A third example: my signatures are always of characters from Japanese animation/comics. I like such and put characters in there because I like it. The various sigs that have been there (I change once a year or so) have been many things: the dead guy in armour there right now; a teenage swordsman; a vampire; the anime version of the Count of Monte Cristo; and a version of me drawn by nessonite of the TickleTheater. All are quite different from each other. Were I to be embodying my signature picture as the research suggests I would consider myself quite the schizophrenic. 😀 Not saying there's no truth to it; just sayin' that there are many examples on the TMF that buck that particular trend.

 

[Bugman]

Let me state for the record i look nothing like my signature picture 😀 I chose my name because i was in the pest control business at the time and i asked Mimi to come up with something appropriate.She sent me seven to chose from and this is what i picked.I don't think my Sig says anything about me beyond that.

 

[kurchatovium]

I don't know if any of this explains Maniac's farting signature. 😀 I think that a great many of the signature pics (Maniac's and other Mimi-creations especially) embody their owners rather than the other way around. Art imitating life, if you will. To take another example, look at kurchatovium's. His has a decidedly cheerful and happy-looking fellow floating in a colored whirl in what might be a meditative position. If that doesn't describe the always mellow and always silly Kurchman I don't know what does (Maybe a jar of orange marmalade held by a bunny. 😉). And he has been that way since long before he added that parcitular image to his signature. A third example: my signatures are always of characters from Japanese animation/comics. I like such and put characters in there because I like it. The various sigs that have been there (I change once a year or so) have been many things: the dead guy in armour there right now; a teenage swordsman; a vampire; the anime version of the Count of Monte Cristo; and a version of me drawn by nessonite of the TickleTheater. All are quite different from each other. Were I to be embodying my signature picture as the research suggests I would consider myself quite the schizophrenic. 😀 Not saying there's no truth to it; just sayin' that there are many examples on the TMF that buck that particular trend.

Thanks HDS for the kind words. 😀 I also tend to agree that the avatars represent the people rather then vice versa.

PS Also I thought the meditative pose was appropriate for a collapsing universe type background, well much better then a farting pose certainly. 😛 😛

 

[General Zod]

I know I look nothing like my sig.pic The General Zod pic is one I found on the net Same as the SU 152 Russian armored vehicle I just happen to like them 😀

 

[milagros317]

I don't have any repesentation of myself in my sig and I don't know what signifies. 😀

 

[asutickler]

My signature images actually say quite a bit about me, come to think of it...

 

[kis123]

I always felt that folks picked their sig pics based on how they felt on the inside. It's not exact science or anything like that, but maybe their exploring their fantasies in their own way.

I've thought about a sig pic myself. I've also thought of posting my pic in the members section. But I'm a naturally shy and private person so it's difficult to let that part of myself out on a public forum.

You may be onto something because why is almost every woman depicted as thin, beautiful, and flawless? Also, those pics attract the guys around here as well; they tend to subconsciously assume this is what the ladies look like.

Mimi is one of the few who gives realistic depictions of herself. She's a bbw, but she "works it" and makes us big mamas look good. She's found her own zone and she is who she is and makes no apologies and excuses for it. I've taken her mindset and have followed my dreams instead of letting someone tell me "no" because they think I'm too "whatever!"

It all depends on how you look at it I guess, but I definitely see your point. It'll get me thinking for sure.

 

[Snail Shell]

My signature pic is a paid artists rendition of me if I were a dog. Upon completion of the painting, I gave him no money. 😀

Snail Shell

 

[kered]

I don't know....I just told Mimi about my parrots and what I like to do and she came up with several for me to choose from. I likes the sundown beach scene the best.

 

[Bugman]

My signature pic is a paid artists rendition of me if I were a dog. Upon completion of the painting, I gave him no money. 😀

Snail Shell

LMAO.

 

[SmarterthanU]

Now this is an interesting topic! Wow. Great job, Lindy.

Say what you want, I think Lindy raises really great points.

I think people's sigs and member names are fascinating. I've been interested in this topic and a keen observer for as long as sigs have been around. For the women, there are two basic types of sig - the character ones of the kind drawn by Mimi, and the photographic ones. The character sigs, as Lindy points out, usually portray the member as pinup beautiful. This is understandable - after all, Mimi is awesome at that style. Then there are the photo or photo-real ones. These can make a more complex statement - "I really AM cute (pretty, beautiful, stunning, etc.)" or "I'm honest," or "I'm real (i.e., not afraid to show my face on a fetish website). Sometimes the first masquerades as the second, but that's expected too. It might be interesting to consider that this phenomenon has a real-life analog - Halloween. If you notice, there aren't that many women who choose costumes that make them look ugly. Usually they choose to be the sexy witch, wench, or kitty. There's nothing really wrong with that, my point is just that, given the opportunity to harmlessly embellish to become more sexy, many women take it.

What interests me a lot more are the sigs of the males. I've talked to lots of people about this, both off- and online. What people notice is that in lots (but not all) of cases where the sig uses a character, the (honest) immediate impression is "This guy's a dick." A lot of male sigs portray the owner as either physically or emotionally aggressive, or both - in other words, in some way imposing. But this is just the male analog of what the females are doing - that is to say, employing a stereotype / posturing for the opposite sex.

I chose my own member name, "Smarterthanu," as a none-too-subtle statement about this exact cyber-cultural practice. I do a lot of debating in the P&R forum, and I could tell from the start that my member name caused some people to be much more caustic toward my posts than they were to others. My member name definitely brings out the contrarian in people. Of course, I don't really think I'm smarter than anyone else - far from it. I chose the method and the name in particular because I wanted the presentation to be equally disarming to males and females, and on an intellectual rather than physical level - something that's not easily achieved with a graphic sig. I have to say that having the name is often more trouble than it's worth. Maybe people will read this post and be more inclined to understand.

Anyway, again, Lindy - great thread.

 

[AffectionateDan]

My siggy is an almost exact look-alike for me, so I don't see what all the hubbub is... 😉

 

[AngelOfDarkness]

Mine is NOT me, it's just a picture of a Dark Angel. I have a liking for the image of an angel with black wings. 😀

 

[brahmslover]

Signatures...

Since my signature is new, thought I'd pop in. Lindy, I agree with Smarterthanu, fun thread.

For personal and professional reasons, I keep myself anonymous, which is why I decided to go with an inanimate object. That's also why I have not posted a picture (although I'll think about it in the future - not that the picture of a middle-aged stumpy bald guy would be that interesting ).

I went with the church organ because it shows two important parts of my personality. I am a classical musician (as my name shows - Brahms has always been a favorite composer), and while I never made a career at it, I still enjoy the personal rewards and excitement of performing. The church is the perfect venue for what I do - I get to do it every Sunday, I have an appreciative audience, and they PAY me to do it!

Secondly, it represents a very proud moment in my recent endeavors. The organ was the result of 10 years of sticking with it, and finally getting a parishoner to contribute the money for such a great gift. I spent two years researching electronic installations (we could never afford a pipe organ), then two months checking out and playing the five finalists, travelling up and down the northeast. The company we chose is in Connecticut (italian built console, American built sound system), and gave us the best combination of quality and features for the money we had to spend. The congregation and the parishoner involved approved it, we got it paid for, and it was installed in time for Easter of 2007. All in all, the completion of this project was a proud moment for me, our congregation, and everyone involved.

So it doesn't have to be about looks or caricatures. And this way, I still get to keep my anonymity (unless someone can figure out where my church is ).

 

[SamuelKhan]

My newest signature pic is Bruce, the Australian Drinker/Philosopher with an excerpt from the Monty Python drinking song.

I love Monty Python and their ridiculous, but refreshing take on life itself.

And I like hot barefoot girls in bondage, by the way...

 

[lk70]

My sig image was emailed to me by a fellow TMFer who said it reminded him of me. Being immensely flattered, naturally I used it. Does it resemble me physically? Somewhat, I guess. I'm 37 years old, not 19, I have a much larger waist than the unhealthy lady in the pic, but the hair is good 🙂 My pic is in the member's section, see for yourself.


Now inside? Am I an angel? Well, what's your definition of angel? 😉 I think I enjoy the irony there.

Do I think it makes men more inclined to contact me? Probably.

Is that why I chose it? I don't think so. Talk to my subconscious to be sure.

Do they subconsciously think I look like that? Probably.

Should they know better? Certainly 🙂

Am I affected by sig pics? Absolutely. One in use not too long ago was two pit bulls mating, followed by one vomiting then eating it. Disgusted me so much I stayed away from any thread the poster was in and it definitely instilled hostility in me towards the poster. But I think I'm only really affected by sigs that are out of the norm. The Mimi-type characterizations don't have much impact I think.

SmarterthanU's name irritates the crap out of me, even though I often agree with him. 🙂

 

[Redmage]

Just for the record, I look almost exactly like my sig. I'm the one on the right.

 

[Comfort Eagle]

I love me some ticklish goth girls, but am not goth myself.



And I am also a bug.

 

[LindyHopper]

Thanks to everyone for your contributions! A few more of my thoughts:

To everyone who said, "Signatures are just based on the person inside:

Yes, but everyone has a variety of facets that they could choose to represent. So why do so many people choose "sexy?" And why are all of the sig-people in this thread so darned skinny?

When you get dressed in the morning, what you decide to wear is probably, in part, a reflection of who you are inside. But you almost certainly don't do it with a blind eye to what other people are going to see. Getting dressed is part of self-presentation. So are sigs.

To everyone who said, "I just went with what Mimi gave me:"

Two things:

1. You were the one who chose that image to represent yourself, so don't just pass the buck. 😛

2. Why didn't Mimi offer you a depiction of a person who wasn't conventionally attractive? Probably because she didn't expect you to like it. Mimi chooses to represent herself as the BBW she is, but I don't think she assumes that anyone else will want to do the same. And based on the skinny ideals we tend to see around this forum, that's an entirely reasonable assumption.

To everyone who dismissed the notion that sigs affect the way they act, or the way they behave towards others:

I'd like to point out that this dismissal is the expected result. In the avatar experiments I quoted above, none of the participants suspected they were being manipulated. That's kind of the point. Avatars, advertising, and all sorts of media are designed to appeal to non-rational aspects of our thinking. We're not supposed to notice we're being affected.

And it's quite clear that many people on this forum are affected by the sig pics. How many times have you seen men post, "OMG UR SO HOT! PLZ PM ME!!!" on the basis of a sig pic alone? Clearly, they should know better. Yet somehow, they don't. And even leaving aside such blatant examples, there's still plenty of room for subtle effects at the subconscious level.

To SmartherthanU:

I chose my own member name, "Smarterthanu," as a none-too-subtle statement about this exact cyber-cultural practice.

Hey, that's funny - I just assumed it was because you were a dick. 😀 So thank you for your explanation - it's enlightening. 🙂 I agree that people tended to be more adversarial with you right off the bat - though it's quite possible that your tone alone would have done the trick. 😉 Without a controlled experiment, we can only speculate how your posts would have been received had they been made by "NiceMellowGuy."

FWIW, I'm not sure how a deliberately off-putting screenname serves any useful purpose, especially as far as debating with people. I've found that a neutral screenname has served me quite well. Judging by the "popularity contest" threads on the TMF, as well as the "unwanted attention" threads, the biggest correlates to a crapload of PMs around here are 1. an obvious female screenname, and 2. a sexy sig pic. Without either of those, people have to actually read what you write to get an impression of you, and text is much more likely to be processed through the rational part of your brain.


Again, I'm not picking a side. I just think these questions about how we are capable of manipulating our self-presentations in an online world are worth exploring. And the more we understand these effects, the more we can learn not to be impacted by them, if we so choose.

 

[kis123]

Thanks to everyone for your contributions! A few more of my thoughts:

To everyone who said, "Signatures are just based on the person inside:

Yes, but everyone has a variety of facets that they could choose to represent. So why do so many people choose "sexy?" And why are all of the sig-people in this thread so darned skinny?

When you get dressed in the morning, what you decide to wear is probably, in part, a reflection of who you are inside. But you almost certainly don't do it with a blind eye to what other people are going to see. Getting dressed is part of self-presentation. So are sigs.

Because we've been innudated with images of what society sees as beautiful, sexy, and successful. Are any of them fat?? Well, Queen Latifah and Monique come to mind (and throw in Aretha Franklin and Carolyn Mannenheim for good measure). But for the most part, the images society throws at us everyday are these under-fed looking women with pencil legs and darn near flat chested with their hipbones showing. We're being told this is what you should look like. Let's face it, it looks like they're right since those are the ones who get a lot of attention around here.

May I throw another aspect into the fray?

At my old job, we worked on 4-person teams. My team consisted of three black females and one white male. Out of sheer workplace frustration, we made up a "name your alter-ego" contest. I previously noticed that we ladies had some serious split personality issues. It happened so often that I came up with the idea to give that personality a name because it was so differently from our normal personnas.

I know my personna changes when I'm here; the atmosphere will bring that out in you. You're with 50,000 folks who have something in common with you that society would deem as strange at the very least. So you relax more and take a few extra liberties--it's cyberspace you know! No harm no foul IMO.

 

[Red_Feather]

I went for the Monkey. All students seem fascinated by them at some level. Perhaps it's Totemic. 😀

The banner is my own creation. It shows my Football team.

 

[Tamia78]

Does my sig affect the way I behave? Hell no. Call it a dismissal if you want, but I was like this WAY before Mimi gave me several to choose from. I chose a cartoon image instead of one of the model images because it represented me better. Oh yeah, and I like tigers, lol. If ppl want a pic, it's posted in the members section or they can ask. I don't have to prove to anyone if I'm attractive or not. If you like what you see, fine. If you don't, that's fine too.

What's so wrong with people choosing sexy sigs? It's about the same as going to a club or a bar, right? You dress in your sexiest outfit, and try to show as much cleavage as possible, right? Perhaps that's just me..

My point is, I've seen a couple of threads dealing with sig images. So we choose to represent our personalities with sexy, skinny images, even tho some of us may not look exactly like who we represent. So what? As I've said before, I'll be happy to show a pic of myself to anyone who asks. So what if there are "Popularity threads" dedicated to people because of their sigs? Most of the thread starters just wanted to get the subjects' attention.

I guess I don't see why this is such a problem.

--T

 

[RobAce]

I am just as smug as the attitude in my sig pic shows.

Although I could have used a little Shemp in it.

What do you all think?

Rob

 

[LindyHopper]

Does my sig affect the way I behave? Hell no. Call it a dismissal if you want, but I was like this WAY before Mimi gave me several to choose from.

I believe you, particularly because you actually look quite like your sig pic. But another thing that tells me is that you've probably always faced the world, both real and virtual, looking the way you do (i.e. pretty 😉 ). Thus, no change when you added the avatar.

We tend to think of personality as something that comes solely from within, but in fact, our behavior and character traits also develop through interaction with our environments. Imagine two babies, with the same inborn personality traits. Imagine that one of them is conventionally attractive, and the other one is overweight. Due to the way people in our society treat others based on their physical appearance, the next 20 years and beyond will proceed very differently for these two kids. By the end of high school, their confidence and social skills might be markedly different, even though they started out the same.

If you don't believe me, try putting on a fat suit or a big facial scar and going about your normal life. Folks who've tried this have noticed an immediate and obvious sense of coldness in interpersonal encounters. People just aren't as friendly, especially right off the bat. Weeks, years, or decades of this can take its toll on a person, making them more shy and less confident. This in turn makes people colder.

The researchers in the article I linked to are exploring whether or not these kinds of effects, well documented IRL, can occur in a virtual world.

What's so wrong with people choosing sexy sigs? It's about the same as going to a club or a bar, right? You dress in your sexiest outfit, and try to show as much cleavage as possible, right? Perhaps that's just me.

I think it depends on what kind of attention you're trying to get. If you do it on purpose, that's cool. But didn't you start a thread a while back about strangers constantly IMing you with tacky tickling questions just to get their rocks off? You're not the first woman on TMF, or the fiftieth, to complain about unsolicited PMs, IMs, and boorish chat behavior. And people offer comfort and advice, as if being the victim of such behavior in an inevitable consequence of being female on a fetish forum.

It isn't. Many women exist on this forum, posting, chatting (well, maybe not that one!), and speaking their minds about tickling, sex, and all matters of life, all with a minimum of unwanted attention. All it takes is a gender-neutral screenname and no pic in your sig. I think if *~Game Girl~* had thought about this in advance, things would've gone a lot more happily for her here.

So yes, I believe it pays for us to think about our self-presentations, and the way they tend to prompt people to react. This helps us find what we're looking for, and avoid what we aren't. We don't need to be the accidental victims of things we had the power to control.

I guess I don't see why this is such a problem.

I don't believe I ever said it was, only that it was interesting and worth exploring. I'm not saying the TMF would be a better or worse place if we couldn't choose the way we "look," or that the world would be better or worse if we could. But I'm quite sure it would be different, and I think it's neat to think through all the ways that could be. 🙂