The psychology of scapegoating

[Linz]

I came across this by accident while I was doing some research for my course... and seeing as a discussion last night concerned references, here is one for you from the psycho people about the use of scapegoats.

Some people point to this board and say that the majority are happy-clappers.

I disagree.

I think that the majority here prefer to see each individual game and each player on their merits. There is no outright slagging of one person, merely a general "X played well today" and "Y played badly" which some people fail to read because it does not ally with their own extremist views.

Let's start with some definitions:

The scapegoat was a goat that was driven off into the wilderness as part of the ceremonies of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, in Judaism during the times of the Temple in Jerusalem. The rite is described in Leviticus 16.

Since this goat, carrying the sins of the people placed on it, is sent away to perish, the word "scapegoat" has come to mean a person, often innocent, who is blamed and punished for the sins, crimes, or sufferings of others, generally as a way of distracting attention from the real causes.

Oooo... controversial use of the words "often innocent" there.

Scapegoating is a hostile social - psychological discrediting routine by which people move blame and responsibility away from themselves and others towards a target person or group. It is also a practice by which angry feelings and feelings of hostility may be projected, via inappropriate accusation, towards others.

Sound familiar at all?

So who ever would do this kind of thing...

It is the ego saying “If I can put the blame on you, I don’t have to recognize and take responsibility for the negative qualities in myself. What I can’t stand about myself, I really hate in you and have to attack you for it in order to deny that I have the same quality.”

This psychologist says that the people who pick a scapegoat for the failings of a football team are really poor at football themselves. Could this be true?

Scapegoating frees the perpetrator from some self-dissatisfaction and provides some narcissistic gratification to him. It enables the self-righteous discharge of aggression.

Again... it's saying more about the person who is the scapegoater rather than the scapegoatee.

"The fundamental dynamic is the need to export blame. If you can identify somebody else that makes you feel better. But actually, it doesn't, it's always a phony thing to do. People don't normally feel better if they express their negativity."

The consensus seems to be, someone with really really low self-esteem has to shift their inadequacies elsewhere and that this projection is often a cover for their own personality disorders.

Bibliography:

http://www.angriesout.com/grown19.htm

http://www.scapegoat.demon.co.uk/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7924481.stm

So perhaps we shouldn't argue the point with people who consider Nick Montgomery to be the root of all evil in the world. Perhaps we should tread carefully for upsetting them too much about their lack of footballing talent?

What do you think? Psychobabble or rooted in the truth?

 

[S64 Blade]

I think some of it could be true.

The football point is definitely true anyway. Would we be watching the football if we were actually good at it? No we'd be playing!

 

[The One]

I think some of it could be true.

The football point is definitely true anyway. Would we be watching the football if we were actually good at it? No we'd be playing!

You don't have to be good to play it. I mean look at Brian Howard

 

[Linz]

You don't have to be good to play it. I mean look at Brian Howard

Hahaha... are you proving the above theory?

 

[The One]

Hahaha... are you proving the above theory?

Erm....haha

I guess it's all going back to the "opinion" thing but on this occasion my opinion is RIGHT! MUAHAHAHAHA.


At the moment anyway. And I can't see him getting any better to prove my theory wrong.

 

[SotonBlade]

Any body else feel like they are sat in a lecture theatre on this thread!

 

[Deleted member 1466]

have you noticed the so called scapegoats are only the ones that regularly play shit?

 

[The One]

have you noticed the so called scapegoats are only the ones that regularly play shit?

I wouldn't say the one's that play regularly shit are scapegoats.

 

[Linz]

have you noticed the so called scapegoats are only the ones that regularly play shit?

See... the bit that quantifies that statement is the bit you left off.

Here, this is what is should look like:

have you noticed the so called scapegoats are only the ones that regularly play shit, in my opinion.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

This feels like a psychology lecture at degree (year 1) level, being given to 8 year olds. Time and waste of, springs to mind, Delia! In my opinion

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

...sorry for the double post. But picking up on the fact that you used the term 'scapegoat', is this going to develop/divurge into a debate about the pseudo-religious aspects of football and it's followers? I'm thinking particularly of the categorisation of believers; atheists, agnostics, liberals (happy-clappers), fundamentalists, etc.

 

[Deleted member 1466]

psychology is a waste of time anyway to be fair!

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

psychology is a waste of time anyway to be fair!

Is that, by definition, scapegoating?

 

[happyhippy]

Any body else feel like they are sat in a lecture theatre on this thread!

No, because on the few occasions I had to be in one when I was at uni, I was drunk, asleep, or both.

Unfortunately, I'm currently wide awake and totally sober.

 

[silverfox]

...sorry for the double post. But picking up on the fact that you used the term 'scapegoat', is this going to develop/divurge into a debate about the pseudo-religious aspects of football and it's followers? I'm thinking particularly of the categorisation of believers; atheists, agnostics, liberals (happy-clappers), fundamentalists, etc.

You categorising me as an etc??

If so can we have a fight at play time??

 

[jose_d_blade]

So in theory that makes Alan Hansen a narcissistic self gratifying pundit who couldn’t play football at school level.???
Or could the happy clapper’s be the ones scapegoating the critical posters for “scapegoating the players” as they are jealous of there superior knowledge of football and attacking the critical poster enables the self-righteous discharge of aggression?

 

[silverfox]

So in theory that makes Alan Hansen a narcissistic self gratifying pundit who couldn’t play football at school level.???
Or could the happy clapper’s be the ones scapegoating the critical posters for “scapegoating the players” as they are jealous of there superior knowledge of football and attacking the critical poster enables the self-righteous discharge of aggression?

Mentioning Alan Hansen damaged your theory big time I'm afraid.

He may have played the game well.....but.....he's a pundit instructed to talk shite.

Unless you have another theory!

 

[silverfox]

Sorry for the double post but...

Can Happy Clappers have aggression?

 

[jose_d_blade]

Happy clappers are passive aggressive!
But I best hold my tongue as last time I posted this I was shot down like a bright pink stuker dive bomber circling an RAF base.

 

[silverfox]

Happy clappers are passive aggressive!
But I best hold my tongue as last time I posted this I was shot down like a bright pink stuker dive bomber circling an RAF base.

That's the problem with forums.

People may think different to you.

But did they really shoot you down or just have different opinions?

Interesting?

 

[jose_d_blade]

lets put it this way your asking questions i cant answear..get it?
already had 2 warnings

 

[silverfox]

lets put it this way your asking questions i cant answear..get it?

Why can't you answer?

Show us the real examples of you being "shot down like a bright pink stuker dive bomber circling an RAF base."

If you think people are being abusive of your opinion you can report it to Linz or Foxy.

 

[jose_d_blade]

you posted we all need morning chill pills just after i crashed in to the run way in a ball of flames!
im sure you cant say i didnt get my wings clipped on that occasion.

 

[silverfox]

read threw blackwell is a tit thread

So do you you really think this is right?

I quote..."i think theres a lot of passive aggresive fashists on this forum"

If so I think you need to calm down and look at yourself!

This is a friendly football forum.....nothing else!

 

[jose_d_blade]

I think your going to put me in a position so if I continue this conversation I will be banned.
If you want to meet up I’ll talk to you about it.

look i love this club and i respect every one on this forum has the right to there opinions.
i think your baiting me in to a tight spot if i continue.

 

[Come from away]

Nice to have a bit of intellectual content once in a while. Wakes all us 8 yr olds wake up. Remember being told to write at a Grade 8 level (Canada - 13 yr old) or lower when communicating with the general public. Guess that's why we get so 'base' when we chat. But most respect the right to hold different opinions and usually save the shit for intruders. I actually support the blades, my team, though I am willing to share a little.

 

[silverfox]

I think your going to put me in a position so if I continue this conversation I will be banned.
If you want to meet up I’ll talk to you about it.

look i love this club and i respect every one on this forum has the right to there opinions.
i think your baiting me in to a tight spot if i continue.

I'm not baiting you.

You have posted stuff on here that everyone can read and can have an opinion on.

If you don't like being here, within the rules that are set, it's your choice.

The owners can do what they want.

It's their choice.....they pay the bills and spend many hours managing it.

If you don't like it go elsewhere the choice is yours.

Not sure if the language you use is fair.....in my opinion.....or am i being unfair?

 

[jose_d_blade]

i think your confusing fashism with nazi'ism
Fascism is a, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state.
Passive-aggressive behavior is passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following through with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations.
So if you some one tries influence the forum by posting none related arguments or negative argumentative, comments with little evidence purposely to cause a unacceptable reaction, in order to eliminate or reduce any one else’s point to insignificance so as to create a single point of view forum. I would see that as passive aggressive fascism.
I’m not saying I feel threatened by this or that there’s a conspiracy never do I expect any one to read into this statement to that extent it’s like when you say “I’m going to kill you” it doesn’t literately mean it.
But the term fascist passive aggressive is a quick way to explain the type of post to what I was referring to.
I think some times in the heat of arguments people react differently but nowhere more so than forums, you cant hear tones of voice or see gestures in posts.
I don’t think I’m being censored, but I did promise to behave and since I already got a warning its better to not reopen old wounds but I hope this explains why I felt that the reaction was harsh.

 

[Linz]

So if you some one tries influence the forum by posting none related arguments or negative argumentative, comments with little evidence purposely to cause a unacceptable reaction, in order to eliminate or reduce any one else’s point to insignificance so as to create a single point of view forum. I would see that as passive aggressive fascism.

Or just someone else having their say... perhaps?

You either censor everyone or censor no-one. That means your so-called passive aggressive fascists are as allowed to post as your so-called happy clappers and our so-called doom-mongerers.

If people don't want to have what they say put up there to be shot to pieces, sensibly, with humour or with facts... then they really shouldn't say it. Because if they aren't grown up enough to stick to their convictions without getting stuffy at the first dissenting voice, then they should stick to talking in a mirror.

If you have any ideas of how we can achieve the sheer utopia of everyone getting along, then by all means, PM me. Until then, allowing everyone to have their say, no matter how ridiculous it is, will prevail.

I think some times in the heat of arguments people react differently but nowhere more so than forums, you cant hear tones of voice or see gestures in posts.

We've long said that... which is why the majority of regular posters have met up and why the majority can judge the tone of the posts. I know that most people are on the wind-up and it's extremely amusing when someone gets their back-up about it.

I don’t think I’m being censored, but I did promise to behave and since I already got a warning its better to not reopen old wounds but I hope this explains why I felt that the reaction was harsh.

If I remember rightly, you were warned for name-calling. If you don't resort to calling people names, you don't get warned and you don't get infractions.

Simples.

From now on, if anyone wishes to discuss anything about the forum or the way it works, then your comments should go in here: Comments, Suggestions and Problems

I'm really sick of football threads descending into a few people whinging about how they really don't like this forum but we should think ourselves lucky that they deign us with their presence.

 

[SotonBlade]

i think this could be easily solved with a couple of handbags outside! ....In my opnion