Is there? I don't care. If there is, I'm not part of it. I get along with some people, including ministers, Christians, a Wiccan, and a few atheists. I don't get along with a few ministers and other Christians. I've had it out with another atheist here long ago.

Here's a take-home message for some: If you spend all your time worrying about not being part of a group of friends, you'll never have a group of friends. Be friendly, and people will want to be your friend.

That took me way too long to learn, and I understand why some adults still struggle with this. Everyone is different, and sometimes you have to overlook some things about people you don't like. Not everyone is going to be the greatest person ever. But we don't need perfect people in this life - we need friends who accept us as we accept them.

And if you find yourself in a room where you feel isolated, it's on you to approach somebody. If they shut you out, then that's on them. If you have nothing to offer to the conversation and the conversation goes on around you, that's not being shunned - that's you needing to work on conversation skillz. If they don't agree with you, that's no being bullied - either roll with it or find a group who is going to nod in agreement.

Thanks for checking in on this Chansen. 

Interesting - - I wonder if those who perceive bullying also perceive an in-crowd. 

Probably multiple groups depending on how you look at it.

There are regular posters whose names we recognize.  To those who are new, or come here rarely, that probably seems like an in crowd, even if people within that don't really like each other.  I've seen some posters from years ago post again, and people who have responded to them before say welcome to WC or something like that.  We don't do that with the regulars :)

There were those who knew each other before joining WC, that creates a bit of an in crowd.  Ditto for meeting those in real life.  Some have become good friends.  Being active in the UCCan more than just the local church but conferences puts some into an in crowd.  Sharing personal information helps, certain groups tend to naturally form with people who are similar to you.

P3, while you have been here a long time and I would consider you in with the regulars, I don't know much about you.  You keep much of your personal information offline, which is a bit of a barrier to getting to know you as a person.  I don't think you've shared if you have kids, whether you work, etc.

I'm not as close to some posters as they are to others.  As an example, Seeler made a trip to various places in Canada and didn't make a stop here.  If it was CH I bet she would have been here.  Do I think she purposely excluded me?  Nope, I just wasn't on top of her priority list.  If I was in the same location as CH I think I would have been included.  I haven't gone out of my way to visit posters either.  Pilgrim  was in this province.  I would have liked to see her, but I had other priorities at the time.

I'm not sure about an "in-crowd".

When I became a part of Wondercafe it was my first on-line chatroom experience.  I was leary.  My husband's profession was computers and as a family we were always careful as to what we allowed ourselves to open up to on the "net".  So, I came from a place of caution.  I also came from a place of wanting to maintain my anonymity.  I came from a place where I knew I would not be able to share some personal things, not necessarily about myself, but about others.  I never posted a photograph of myself, nor fully disclosed where I came from.

It was because of my holding back that perhaps people didn't get to know me as well as they got to know others who were more sharing and non-withholding of personal information.

I realize that this was my decision to participate in this way.  So I don't look at it that anyone prevented me (as in any "in crowd" or group of people) from being a part of anything.

Again, it was how I chose to participate.

There were times I felt left out when there were discussions about Wondercafe gatherings and get-togethers and meeting one another.  But again, I realized that that was my choice - and that my feelings were self-initiated, not from something anyone else said or did.

There was one time on a thread (can't remember when or why) that I felt there was  indication by some that people who actually met one another (wondercafers) that those met were more "real" .  Or at least that was how I took it.  I fully understood the concept and what they were saying.  And again, realized fully that was my choice and decision in not doing so.  But I have to admit, there was a part of me that felt that my "realness" was possibly questioned by some - not because anyone said it that way, but that was how I felt, because I hadn't been personally met.

So, in-crowd - not sure about that.  But, there are some who definitely know one another better and possibly even like one another better than others - but that is life, isn't it . That is the way human relations are.

I remember that Beloved, I felt a bit 'out' then too.  I think the thread was actually called who have you met in real life or something similar.  I kept some of my personal info to myself too (still do), but I also had the disadvantage of not being near a cluster of posters.  It seems like there's a group in ON and then a smaller one in BC.

Hi. I think I can address this. The in crowd shifts around, but there are people who are more popular. I feel like I was always just middle of the road. I'm fine with middle of the road. It hurts to be on the outs, though.

And some people need to work communicating with people who don't communicate like them and try to look for merit in what they're saying regardless. It goes both ways. To demand others work on their communication skills in order to be listened to invalidates whatever it is they're trying to say and maybe that's not actually a very nice thing to do.

I have met a few people from here, although I have felt my 'realness' questioned by those who haven't met me. It's like, on one hand we share a lot of stuff here. It's a good place to express it, on the other hand, because you can't see people there's an uneasiness about giving up your privacy to someone.

I also feel like the in crowd's mostly in Ontario (even though it's waaay cooler on the West Coast ;) Really I think most people are concentrated out east- even the politics are different (I barely follow Quebec and I wonder why I ever had to learn so much about Rob Ford) and the weather's different- I hear a lot of the out east (or back east as lots of people say) perspective so I have felt kind of out of place.

Interesting comment about regional differences, Kimmio. Thanks for postiing. 

Aaaand this is where I walk away from this thread, because I know where it's going.

What does popularity look like in an on-line community? 

Hopefully not, Chansen. 

In my experience the topic starter can influence where a thread goes - - not completely of course. I will try to keep this thread from heading south. Help me out if you can. 

There are frequent posters, and infrequent posters. But I don't think there is an in-crowd.

Everyone who writes fairly well is included. The only handicap in being an effective participant might be illiteracy, or poor literacy. Any on-line forum favours the highly literate. In a writing forum such as ours, the highly literate obviously do better than the lowly literate. If one is good at oral communication only, or prefers oral communication over written communication, then one does not do well on a writing forum.

Hi paradox3,

The current and historical allegations of in-crowds are, as near as I can tell.  Works of fiction.

What has been proven here at WonderCafe.ca is that the allegation will be made and there will never be an attempt to prove the existence of such a controlling faction.

The allegation, in my estimation, is an abdication of personal responsibility.

What I believe about the dynamic of WonderCafe.ca is that each of us comes to this place packing ideas about what is normal and what is not.  Most of those ideas were developed while we were children in homes we establish as default normal no matter how dysfunctional they actually were.

It is a conflict between the subjective "my" normal and the objective "you" abnormal.

Here is what that looks like.

I grew up in a broken home under the care of a single working mother who hired caregivers of various abilities while we were too young to be on our own.

Add to this the ever present influence of two types of alcoholics.  One irresponsible and the other violent.

A high priority was placed on truth-telling.  This was combined with extreme emotional out-pourings when the truth highlighted personal failure..  So while truth-telling was always described as being the most important element of relationships the sub-text of not hurting others feelings by speaking the truth forced all members into somewhat creative stretches of truth or outright deliberate falsifications of it.

I had difficulty functioning in that home so every opportunity I had I was elsewhere experiencing different ways of being.  Seeing truth-telling which still hurt but was not punished.  Experimentation in those systems afforded me greater confidence to speak the truth at home where, old norms continue to prevail.

I have been out of the home for the majority of my life.

That is not true of the rest of my family of origin.  Which has lead to conflict

Primarily the conflict is between the rest of my family which considers the dysfuntion they embrace as normal and myself and the dysfunctions I embrace and consider normal.  (I presume we are all fundamentally dysfunctional in that we are not perfect.  Some are able to function more than they diss.)

When my family visits that home we understand that there are certain rules that we don't agree with.  We do not insist on them changing their rules, we do insist on certain accommodations.  

Likewise when they visit us there are certain rules that they do not agree with and we do our best to offer some accommodation to them.

How I am at home is similar to how I am anywhere else.

Including here.

I would venture to guess that all other posters can make the same claim.

Which is, where trouble begins.

Each of us wanders into WonderCafe.ca believing that the way we think and the way we operate is perfectly normal.  

Each of us is wrong.  

WonderCafe.ca normal is not what we bring to WonderCafe.ca it is what we together made of WonderCafe.ca.  As new voices are added or subtracted from the mix WonderCafe.ca nomal shifts.

Because each of us is wrong about our being perfectly normal there are learned behaviours of our own that we do not see a need to change and an appalling lack of reciprocal behaviours that others fail to master.

Two behaviour sets that I see clash frequently are emoters and thinkers.

Emoters feel things.  They are capable of thinking, in fact, they do it all the time.  All thought is filtered through feeling.

Thinkers think things.  They are capable of feeling, in fact, they feel deeply.  All feeling is filtered through thought.

Going back to my family of origin I see that I was raised in a family of feelers

How the heck does all this relate to in-groups you are no doubt wondering.

Emoters feel something.  Because they feel something something must exist.  Because they don't want to feel that something there must be a cause.  Because I do not feel that same something I must be the cause.

In short the drama plays out as follows.

WonderCafe A says, "I feel X"

WonderCafe.B says, "I don't feel X"

WonderCafe A says, "Why would you feel X you are X"

And it is off to the races from there.  If WonderCafe B is a thinker they will make the mistake of asking WonderCafe B to "prove it" which is interpreted by WonderCafe A as a dismissal.  If WonderCafe B is also an emoter there will be no challenge to "prove it" the fur will fly over which emotion held is the most real.

My experience with WonderCafe.ca is that everytime the allegation of "in-groups" is made an Emoter is making it.

What happens though if it is a thinker making the allegation?

More or less the same stuff as above with subtle variations.

Rather than in-groups I believe that what we witness, more often than not is flocking.  Birds of a feather flock together.

How does that play out in WonderCafe.ca?

Disagreement happens (a common everyday occurance in this place).  For reasons know only to the original combatants that disagreement escalates.  The rest of us on the outside of that initial conflict observe and within moments we lend support to one or the other depending on a host of factors.

I'm a Calvinist.  In any theological discussion my natural allies will be other Calvinists.  Thinkers or Emoters it will not matter much.  My natural enemies will be non-Calvinists.

It is something of an asset that Calvinists are quite happy to argue with other Calvinists though I expect outside of Calvinist it looks more like a dysfunction than it does an asset.

Which means that there is absolutely nobody here that I could not get into it with at the drop of a hat..  Because I am a thinker it wouldn't be personal.  Emoters would interpret conflict differently.

At the end of the day Emoters only need their feelings as proof and Thinkers damn the feelings and press for facts.

Emoters and Thinkers are extremes.  I suspect most of us are fairly balanced and only lean one way or the other.

The problem is that when we start to fall, we never fall to the centre so whatever conflict started us falling accelerates with ongoing conflict.

We all come equipped with brake pedals and we are all responsible for using our own.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I came to Wondercafe  - both anxious and afraid. I didn't know how to use a computer well and I was afraid of doing something wrong. This was new stuff.

I came out of a bullying situation where I was staffass at a church - with raw wounds. Bullying was something I had not encountered in 50 years and to have it happen in a church by a minister. It was hard to take.

So was I a part of an in group - I think not. I was too araid.

7 years later, I would think people know me- most virtually. In real life I have met EXe; GR, Stevie and Reta, and seeler. some on the phone but certainly not an in-group.

Being a silver-tongued (ore silver-penned :-) writer?

Chemgal and Beloved, 

Much like Beloved, I have been mindful to limit the personal information I post on this site. So there has been practically nothing shared about my family, my health situation and so on. 

I have been open about my profession (occupational therapy) and my area of practice (mental health). I retired about a year ago but I haven't discussed my retirement at any great length. Just mentioned it a few times. 

There may well be a different (deeper?) level of friendship amongst those who have met in real life. I have never moved my involvement here into RL. With the exception of dropping in to worship at RevJamesMurray's and GUC's congregations - - in Ottawa and Sarnia respectively. 

And oh yes, a couple of phone conversations. 

I'm an INFP. if anyone would like to look it up. It goes well with what John said. And it's probably true, the birds of a feather thing- they flock together.

Hi Arminius, 

Interesting observation. I think I agree - - poor communication skills do not work in anyone's favour. 

I've never thought mine were that bad. Actually writing's something I thought I was good at. Even when I had an emotional blow out I felt I was clear. Add: lately I've been learning that others perceive me as a bad writer and poor communicator.

Define "in-crowd".

If you mean some kind of exclusivist clique that actively seeks to shut others out, then no, I do not perceive one here.

If you mean the natural tendency of longtime members of like views to clump together and support each other, sure. That's natural human interaction and it happens everywhere.

Another board I am on is much more clique-y than WC will ever be. I am "in" now there, because it tends to be the mods and their friends that make up that clique and I am a mod.

Most of the times that I have seen someone excluded here (and they are very, very rare) it has been because of the user excluding themselves.. They have tried to teach or impose, rather than learn and discuss, and feel excluded when their views are either critiqued or ignored.

Mendalla

Sorry, yes you have mentioned that!

I think p3, if I'm reading her intent right, is trying to clarify feelings and perceptions. Thoughts too. Mendalla you must be a thinker more than emoter because interestingly your first reaction was "define in-crowd".

Chemgal, 

No worries. You were bang-on when you said I keep a lot offline. 

Yes, to clarify and understand them better. It's part of my process of getting ready to let go. 

The existence of an "in crowd" is generally a matter of perception, is it not? Those who "feel" like "outsiders" see the existence of an "in crowd." Whether the "in crowd" really exists or not seems to me to not matter all that much, working on the general principle that "perception is reality."

Hi RevSteven,

Sometimes it is helpful to check out perceptions. Do others perceive things similarly or not? How do others react when perceptions are shared? 

Interesting stuff. 

Can we go back to this post Kimmio? There are some strong personalities for sure. But how do you know if someone is popular? 

Does it depend on folks responding to them? Agreeing with them? Paying attention to them?

Or something else? 

Yes, yes, and yes. And it's positive attention. And that they seem well liked because of those things- and so, stick together. They have each others' backs.

I agree with you, p3. But many are so set with their perceptions that "checking them out" is virtually impossible.

I sense that's why p3's doing this also. To help us sort out perceptions.

Disagree Kimmio

Thre are strong personaities here in the cafe that I have no strong affection for and there are others who are quite timid and I wish they would post more.

So ,imo, your conclusions do not appeal to me.

It's my perception p3 asked about in an effort to understand them. You don't need to agree.

There are people here who are more popular than others. I happen to be one of the least popular regulars. There are people whose opinions seem to be more appreciated and respected than are the posts of others. There are leaders here at wondercafe and followers.

Hi Jae,

Do you equate an individual's popularity with having that person's opinions more appreciated and respected? How does this come about in the first place, I wonder?

How do you determine who is a leader? Is it the same thing as being "popular"?

Not sure what you are disagreeing with, Crazyheart. Can you say a little more for clarity's sake?

Well, I think that's certainly one indication of it. Another would be the way in which posters are spoken of. I'm generally seen here in a bad light. There are a few who get spoken of worse than I do though.

I think to a large degree it begins with people believing that other people who hold roughly the same positions on things must be better people than those who don't. Since wondercafe is operated by a liberal Christian denomination, I imagine that liberal Christians will generally be the most popular here.

Not necessarily. Being popular just means that many people like you. Being a leader means that people are following you. There are people here who I think are popular followers, and popular leaders. I can't think offhand of any leaders who are generally unpopular, although there is one whom I struggle with living in a Christian way since I feel that the person has little if any respect for me. And I'm not going to name any names.

Jae, 

Have you seen the U of O student's 2012 thesis about Wondercafe? Stardust posted a link to it over in R and F. You would find it interesting I am sure. 

Thank you for the recommendation paradox3. I very quickly glanced over the thesis yesterday, and read the part concerning the Spirit Express. Is there something else you think I should read?

Yes, you were mentioned more than once :)

I think this is what I was referring to but then again I could be confused. lol

 P3

It's an interesting read. I hope s/he got an A.

I suggest that there are quite strong personalities that are not popular or even treated with common decency.  They rankle. They irritate. They may or may not intend to do so. Many of them abide in religion and faith where that kind of back/forth is the norm.  

Strong personality does not equal popularity.

I remember BusyMom being called "vanilla".  I think she was being dismissed in that part.  Yet, BusyMom was and is a very welcome poster with wonderful threads that have held together.

There are groups that exist due to experience. I remember when xyz happened.

There are groups that exist due to common interest, skills, locale, etc

Those groups may be identified as inner circles.  

There are also people who are well liked because of the gifts they bring to the community and those who just aren't known across them all.  The lurkers are not known. The ones who never come to a church potluck aren't known to that community.  If they come to a potluck and complain about the food are likely not the favourite folks either.....My favourite potluck person is the one who takes the time to bring homemade, or laughs wiht us about the pizza they brought....it is about their relationships to each other and the community that matters most.

I remember in high school, there were the popular kids, the stoners, the athletes, the mathies, etc, etc, etc.  People were part of some groups, not others. People popular to one group or a leader in one group were not always a leader in others. 

I always bounced around and across groups.  I don't follow leaders coz others do, and I dont' seek to belong to groups coz they exist. That is me.  I surf.

So, my experience is likely not like others who seek to be a part of groups and find that element of belonging to groups  important to them.

It's interesting because I don't seek to be part of groups in RL. Naturally, we join groups- these days, they're temporary like take a workshop or something. I might meet one or two people that way and we happen to stay in touch but I don't seek it. I'm not in any clubs or leagues. I go to a church and am part of a couple of groups defined by their purpose in the church. In highschool I was part of an in group for part of the time, but just barely. I struggled with that.

I have a handful of good friends, my husband, and a bunch of acquaintances from different walks of life past work colleagues, etc. I'm good with that. A small group of friends is good or else it can be exhausting to keep up.

This place isn't like my real life. It reminds me more of my experience of highschool.

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.asp

Are you speaking here of the Myers-Briggs dichotomy of Feelers vs. Thinkers, revjohn? If so, I believe that you are slightly in error in understanding it. The distinguishing mark of we who are Feelers is not that we filter our thoughts through our emotions, but that we rather filter them through our personal value systems.

Note: this is an ongoing discussion for the last 7 years....

(site:www.wondercafe.ca incrowd)

It is also an ongoing discussion in churches....often directed at the board or the congregation

I sense we all have a responsibility to encourage new folks and try not to refer to experiences from the past that exclude them or set them apart, without some decency in explanation.

I feel we all have a responsibility in how we post to each other. I will treat a newbie differently than someone who has had an account for a long time.  One of the welcomes to the recognized names is that you may be engaged differently.

I think we also have a responsibility to allow room to change, to grow.  I think that RitaTG shows some of the most grace there.  I am in awe in threads that she is willing to dialogue where I would be saying " i know where this is going".

so...this isn't particular to this site, there is no magic bullet, people own their emotions and we can make life easier for each other.

As search engines are unpredictable in terms of result. Here is the 2007 thread: http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/social/crowd-can-you-ever-really-not-have-one