Thank you again for the insightful discussion!
🙂
I was in two minds of using it [red-haired biker chick], thinking some people may think shes a tart etc. To be honest, if they think that then thats down to them, the only way they'd know if I was one, was to find out more about me, and then they'd realise I'm not a tart at all.
I've never hidden who I am. I'm comfortable with myself, and I've always liked my signature picture. Those who really know me, know that there is more to me than just a guy who likes to ask girls if they've stood barefoot on ladders, and, for those who think that is all there is to me, then, I'm sorry to say, they dont really know me.
[paraphrased] If you jump to conclusions about me based on my screen name, you're an (adjective) (noun). 😉
I suppose you could say it's incumbent on the viewer to take the time to get to know you as a person... but it's the owner of the sig who will have to deal with the response it generates, in the form of icky PMs, hostility, or avoidance, depending on what you chose.
Moreover... I don't believe that such responses would necessarily be unfair. When a person makes judgments about others based on their race, age, sex, or any other characteristic they don't control, we call that discrimination, and it isn't socially acceptable. But if someone judges you based on something
you chose, such as your attire, your sports car, your offensive speech, your screen name, or your sig pic... those judgments are reasonable and very often valid. Blaming others for drawing logical conclusions based on the way
you decided to present yourself is, IMO, wrongheaded.
For example, I have large breasts. I don't hide them, nor am I ashamed of them. But if I chose to use a huge picture of my naked boobs as my signature, would you be wrong to judge me for it? Wouldn't I be an idiot to say, "You guys are jerks for being so superficial, and not getting to know the real me!"
(SmarterthanU, I'm talking to you. There have been no cheap shots or low blows from anyone on this thread, only honest and reasonable commentary.)
I'm not so sure I buy the sig pic thing as a big an influence as you're postulating.
I didn't mean to imply that screen names and sig pics are the only thing that impact the quantity of PMs received. Posting frequently is obviously important, and hanging out in the chatroom probably even more so. There are many other factors as well. But I do believe that screen names and sig pics impact the way people perceive you, and that ignoring this fact is likely to work to your disadvantage.
What's particularly interesting to me is that a screen name seems to have lots more power than a sig.
Well, one variable is that many of us surf the TMF with sigs turned off. I'm no longer affected by
anyone's signature, because I don't see them. You can't do the same with screen names, and there are certainly a few that produce an instantaneous prejudice on my part. For example, any time I see a name like "NonConLer," I immediately picture an inconsiderate asshole who gets off on the violation and suffering of other people. Is this fair? I'd say "maybe," because he
chose the name to represent himself.
When people have fun and often flirty sig pics, it encourages many to post more, to interract and banter more, and can open the door to many fun friendships on the forum.
That is exactly my point! Virtual reality research has shown that when people are given an attractive avatar, they behave more boldly in social interactions. They bargain more aggressively. They pursue more attractive partners. Their entire persona can change, probably in a way that makes them happier.
I think peoples intentions when selecting what image to use are more innocent than manipulative.
I agree. I'm not attributing evil motives to anyone. Again, my focus is on increasing
understanding the effects of things like signature pics on interpersonal perception and interaction, so we can choose to use them more deliberately, and/or reduce their power.
Cheap shots and low blows aside, I think there's a bigger point to be made here. Which is, does an off-putting sig (for males) or a sig that attracts unwanted "creepy" attention for females serve any useful purpose either? What's particularly interesting to me is that a screen name seems to have lots more power than a sig. If someone has a sig that screams "asshole," but a relatively neutral screen name, that seems to be much more accepted than the other way around, doesn't it? Why, I wonder, when a screen name takes 10 seconds to post, and a graphic sig has to be created and involves a lot more time and effort. Anyone would think a sig would make a much more powerful statement.
