Note: I know this is system wars, not fanboy wars, but I hope the mods will allow this one because it is not meant to be blind bashing of fanboys.
Why are people so intensely loyal to their console of choice? Why does it seem like some people on the other side of the console war just don't get it sometimes? Why do people at times misconstrue positive aspects of a console as negatives, and negatives as positives?
These are 3 questions I've thought about in my free time (now that it's summer and I have time to waste), and I think they are best addressed by psychological explanations.
Why are people so intensely loyal to their console of choice? Social identity theory tells us that human beings are inherently competitive. Competition happens in a three-stage process. First, we categorize ourselves according to a particular group (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo). Next, we develop a sense of ingroup positivity, which means that we cultivate a sense of superiority vis-a-vis other groups. Ingroup positivity opens the door to intergroup competition, in which we compete with other groups for a particular goal (in this case, the winner of the console war). Social identity theory explains why System Wars is so competitive, when it is quite plausible that all three consoles may end up being successful. But due to our inherently competitive nature, we tend to perceive the console war as zero-sum.
Why is it that people on the other side of the console war just don't get it sometimes? People in different console "factions" often state the same facts over and over again, and yet rarely does anyone succeed in changing someone else's mind. Psychology tells us that the root cause of this phenomenon is that we are all affected, to a greater or lesser degree, by a cognitive bias known as "cognitive dissonance." Cognitive dissonance is the tendency for people to filter in evidence that corroborates their opinion and filter out facts which contradict their previously held beliefs.
This is why it is still hard for some cows to accept the fact that the PS3's games will not be vastly superior to the 360's from a visual standpoint, even when evidence since the first showing of the two consoles' actual games have pointed to its validity. However, because we are all vulnerable to cognitive dissonance, I reject the notion that some groups of fanboys are "smarter" or more "clear-headed" than others. In my view, extreme fanboys of all colors are equally hampered from the same type of cognitive bias.
Finally, why is it that people sometimes misconstrue the positive aspects of a console as a negative, or vice versa? Take the PS3's blu-ray player, for example. Some people say that because the PS3's blu-ray player is cheap compared to standalone players, it is a great deal bundled inside a game console. Other people see it as a violation of consumer choice--that Sony is trying to shove a blu-ray player down gamer's throats. Who's right?
Well, to be exact--both, because different consumers have different subjective valuations of a product. But why do people view the same feature as positive, while others see it as a negative? Psychological theories like prospect theory tell us that human beings can be highly affected by how a particular situation is framed. Whether the the PS3's blu-ray player is a "benefit" or a "burden", whether Xbox Live is "worthwhile" or "milkage", whether the Wiimote is a "gimmick" or an "innovation"--all of these are manifestations of placing different frames on the same product.
System warriors may not be consciously aware of it, but the battle in SW is essentially waged by opposing groups seeking to exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of the opposition.
Log in to comment