Explaining Fanboyism Through Cognitive Dissonance

Thomcult: One possible explanation for the vehement and evangelic nature of the modern fanboy lies in the theory of cognitive dissonance. The phenomenon, coined by social psychologist Leon Festinger, describes the tendency of individuals to justify and rationalise decisions and choices even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[ChickeyCantor]

Cognitive Dissonance

Somehow I'm reminded of castlevania....

Castlevani:Cognitive Dissonance

Anyway back on topic XD

[Montrealien]

"It is possible that when trying to justify their own decision between such similar offerings that consumers could turn hostile against the competing products, not because they’re no good but because they need to prove to themselves that their choice was the right one."

Quote of the day.

Great read.

[DavidMacDougall]

I dont like Microsoft they treat there customers like s**t

[Montrealien]

ahh, if only I would still hold a grudge against Sony for the 3 PS1s and 2 PS2s I had to buy because their console had no known issues, which to this day stands, those consoles where perfect in sony`s opinion all 45 skus.

Both companies have horror stories from customers, heck, I bet Proctor Silex have a few pissed off customers because their toaster went bad after a year. Stereotypes suck.

[DavidMacDougall]

30% Failure rate is shocking for anything and just to rush it to "try" and beat Sony .

Then you get the Microsoft help line trying to trick you into gettin a new one because its your fault it broke not theres fu*king bull****

[N4g_null]

Man this guy that hates MS is young. SONY told us to buy new PS2. Most PS1 ended up being played upside down LOL. I laugh now but at least you get some thing we just got a chance to buy another one that's it. I wouldn't doubt that the PS brand numbers are inflated by some huge number. I stay away from bad product period now. I'll see what is broken and see what measures where taken to fix it. Then maybe I'll bite.

This article was illustrated when the PS3 started to sale. The Xbox guys totally went at the PS3, no games, look at your sales, look at our game sales, WOW you guys suck etc. While all SONY fans had was hype that was not paying off it was truly crazy. While the Wii was ignored so it could silently become the second system that so many say collect dust LOL. My PS2 and 1 collected lots of dust but I still bought them and their replacements.

It really is hard taking a fanboy seriously now. Back in the day you played with fanboism but you wanted panzar dragoon and you had arcades for all fanboys to look up to. The market was more unified now every thing is looked down upon. Every one trolls even the media. You use to be able to talk to them and instantly find out what was hot by their standards and not the pop hype standards. They where mostly well informed. It's almost like SONY made them all lazy this gen.

The funny thing is Posting on the Internet is about being right and lots of people believe that if you can argue your point then you are right. The current trend has resulted in mobbing and ganging up on people similar to what happens on online FPS servers. Oyeah I might add live did nothing good for fanboys because it put them in direct contact with the 733t players and gave them a mic LOL.

After years of PC gaming I cringed the day UT came with mic support! From now on I always play muted and I still have lots of fun. Most people are not that useful with a mic anyway, Oh Oh they are coming, where? BAM your dead...LOL You can just look up and see who is dead and realize they are coming most of the time.

Great article though. The angrier the fans get the more likely they are going to leave the sport. Seriously agree to disagree but if you like some thing voice your good words it helps believe me. Eventually they all come to their senses and I'm sure the cult guys are all going back to school of planting gardens now.

[Montrealien]

Let me ask you this David, how many 360`s have you had?

[DavidMacDougall]

lol come on you think i would buy one , friend had one. Safe to say he got a ps3 now but there ****ed him 6ways from sunday said he had it in the wrong "position" and it was his fault it broke

I had a ps2 from the first model to the slim version came out same with ps1 so they have treated me good

Im quessing Montrealien your the same but on Microsofts side

[Montrealien]

Nope, I`m on the gamer side.

I`ve had issues with my PS1 and 2 which sony never recognized, ever, and I moved on. I`ve blown in more NES cartidges and fiddled with them to work more times then I can count, I`ve had one disc read error on my 360 under waranty , got it back in 2 weeks with 2 months of Live gold in the box (no one tried to tell me to buy another one). And I`ve had my l PS3 60gb monster awesomesauce console since launch. (easily the best playstation product in years, well worth it`s price at launch imho.

The 30% failure rate was a calculated risk on MS`s part, a really stupid one at that but at least that have come forward and admited to there huge mistake, something Sony has yet to do with there previous manufacturing mistakes, which granted, where not as hefty as the 360 failure rates.

thank you for answering my question, I presumed you never actually owned one. I guess it`s about perspective. Sterotypes suck, even though they have some merrit, they still suck.

[BlackTar]

Montri, you know how to spin.

[Montrealien]

@Blacktar

Yep, my life long dream is to spin everything back to the most important thing in the Videogames industry...Games ;D

[fafoon]

In 1 word

BOTS !!!!!!!

[Montrealien]

OHhh DISSSsSSSS fafoon!!! you are the man! So fresh, so clean!

[DavidMacDougall]

And here we are on a topic about fanbois who they really are lol Laterz

Oh and btw im 20

(Man this guy that hates MS is young - scissor_runner )

[Montrealien]

and since when has 20 been considered old? :p

[DavidMacDougall]

Who said anything about old he said i was young .I might not look it but **** you i have ID lol

[SoIid Snake]

It's Power of Green's head.

[Famous Wookie]

in 1 word

DROIDS !!!!!!!

See how easy that is? Fanboys are just so stupid

I only have a 360 right now but Im going to get a PS3 cause they have some games I want to play, so dont call me no fanboy.

[silverchode]

wookies

[Montrealien]

ewoks?

[NewSchoolGamer]

make a big deal out of fanboyism. It's almost like they want to make a big deal out of it so that nobody will recgonize that he/she is a fanboy. LOL

Fanboysim is everywhere: ex. sports, politics, etc.

[PimpHandStrong]

if you want to tell me the Packers are better i will spin the facts till you see the truth!

[PimpHandStrong]

thats the problem

your spinning games?

The 30% failure rate was a calculated risk on MS`s part, a really stupid one at that but at least that have come forward and admited to there huge mistake, something Sony has yet to do with there previous manufacturing mistakes, which granted, where not as hefty as the 360 failure rates

MS didnt addmit SH!T till 16 months after luanch!

[Montrealien]

And sony never ever ever recognized anything at all, whats your point? I still love and respect Playstation as a brand, even though it was them that where in the hot seat as the big corporation jumping into the gaming market in the 90`s, just like MS has been since they launched the Xbox...

You and many others want to remind me that MS is sh*t, while all I want to remind you is that they all have their advantages and dissadvantages, what`s so hard to understand there? In the end we, as gamers, just want to play great games right? Who cares what consoles they are on.

[PimpHandStrong]

"The 360 has a 2-3% fail rate!

yea they told us that!

[cjp4eva]

Does it mention any kind of experimental threatment for this "disease"? It doesnt matter if it hasnt been tested on human subjects, I donate POG and toughNAME to the cause.

[PimpHandStrong]

its funny you ask Sony to admit past faults on the PS2 when it has sold 130 million units! I have a slim PS2 and that thing never had one issue and it was played to death!

well not death because it still works

[thomfilm]

I had a PS2 from 2003 until last year (when I updated to PS3) and I never had one single problem, even after I spilt a can of guiness over it!

[GiantEnemyCrab]

and I've owned a 2 360's since launch and neither have any problems.. Again, what is your point?

MS spent 1 billion to say, "hey, we screwed up and we will fix it for free". When Sony had the PS2 problems they said pay up or get bent!

Now all of a sudden Sony get's a free pass while MS is burned at the stake even when they fessed up and actually paid to fix there mistake. I agree the PS2 problems weren't as widespread but they were far above industry norms.

[sak500]

Sony programmed the cell in ps3 to provide cognitive dissonance rays on daily basis to its droid army so they dont see the failure ps3 is as games console. One fine day they will execute order 99 and all droids will start attacking 360 fanbois.

[bunbun777]

and after reading it I have to applaud the writer for bringing this again to light. But it seemed a bit shallow, I would like to see more articles on this subject. I wish the author could have finished a little stronger though....

"not because they’re no good but because they need to prove to themselves that their choice was the right one."

Using double negatives is aggravating. So both systems are good, and it isn't that one is better, but that the choice (sic) to have only one fosters contempt and ill well to those that..."enjoy the greener grass". Imagine if there was a definite edge in what console is better, we still need all 3 companies to do more, to stay vital, to try to impress and outdo each other. We may even need a 4th console, but that is becoming as likely as a libertarian ever getting elected president.

When it comes down to it, most anyone that supports one thing needs the other- remember Joker and Batman? GI Joe and C.O.B.R.A.? He-man and Skeletor?

Term for the day: The Hegelian Principle. Look it up and ask yourself something fanboys: Is it worth it?

[thomfilm]

Thanks for your feedback. I think its a very interesting topic and a a lot more discussion needs to happen. I would have liked to read into more but any kind of real academic study into it is beyond the scope of my writing.

From a marketing point of veiw, It is a serious problem. Reducing cognitive dissonance is a huge part of what good marketers do, yet I dont see it happening in video games at all. There is no reason for xbox owners and ps3 owners to be at each others throats, and the fact they are says a huge amount about how petty the corporate culture of gaming has become. The big wigs at Sony and Microsoft in particular need to stop being so antagonistic.

[Superfragilistic]

Good read. I've been following your blog for a while and this has been a recent favourite. And I agree cognitive dissonance is a major problem in this industry that may well hold it back from making the strides towards a more universally appreciated medium for art and entertainment.

It's also refreshing to see a well thought article generate genuine and intelligent debate. So for that you and many others get bubbles. :)

Quick question though. Where can I read more of your work?

[PimpHandHappy]

MS can afford to buy an Army

you will be safe if you keep cleaning dem nuts

[PimpHandHappy]

When it comes down to it, most anyone that supports one thing needs the other- remember Joker and Batman? GI Joe and C.O.B.R.A.? He-man and Skeletor?

good stuff bunbun

PS3 is Batman

[JOLLY1]

The ps3 is rich, has gadgets, has no powers, and wins all his battles mainly on luck?

[BIGELLOW]

I think this article was the result of cognitive dissonance. Insisting that "console wars" are a new thing, or are somehow tied to price. The reality of it is, it is not as complicated as that. It is simply tied to the basic human desire to pick sides and defend the side picked. Otherwise, you can suggest that those who root for their football team are suffering from cognitive dissonance (unless you're still rooting for the Raiders,) those who like some movies but not others are suffering from cognitive dissonance, and those who drink a particular beer are victims of cognitive dissonance. Beer isn't expensive, movies aren't expensive, and watching football barely costs anything (except for beer.)

The reality is, you could create a simple (and free) game online... and ask people to pick a side... side A or side B... and then you can watch the two duke it out. Is there money involved? No. Are they suffering from cognitive dissonance? No. Are they suffering from the inherent human desire to pick a side and defend it? Absolutely.

Now, if you pick side A and side A clearly loses, but you still insist side A is better. THEN you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. When there are clear rules between win or loss or defining better or worse, yet you deny the outcome, it's a clear case of cognitive dissonance.

When it comes to less than clear-cut win/loss scenarios, then it's just a matter of personal taste or opinion, and the two sides can debate for eternity and never suffer from cognitive dissonance... merely from disagreeing. Take, for instance, the Amiga computer. For its time, it was a superior machine. It is no longer being manufactured, however, due mostly to marketing and management issues, and the proliferation of IBM clones. Would it be cognitive dissonance to say that the Amiga was comprised of a superior architecture than PC technology of the time? No. It's merely an opinion. Would it be cognitive dissonance to say that the Amiga will still make a comeback and take the world by storm? Very likely.

Console wars aren't new. There were console wars between Atari and Coleco. There were console wars between Nintendo and Sega. There were computer wars between the PC and the Amiga. There still continues to be computer wars between the PC and the Mac. It has nothing to do with price... it has to do with individual taste, personal preference, and opinion.

To me, personally, I just don't like the way the XBox is marketed. I feel like it is being marketed more towards teens. The PlayStation feels marketed more towards gaming adults. I fit into that category, so I stick with the PlayStation. My teenager, however, loves his XBox (unfortunately, it needs to be sent in for repairs at the moment... not the RROD... in this case, it appears to be a problem with the graphics processor.) From what I have seen, there are no clear-cut "winners" between any of the consoles this generation. Each brings something different to the table. In terms of sales, Nintendo is the clear winner... but I'm a gamer... I don't care about how many dollars are going into the pocket books of a company in which I own no stock. So, I'm not interested in sales, I'm interested in my personal preference for a game console. I like investing for the future. The fact that the PS3 had a built-in hard drive and a Blu-ray player was enough to sell me. For my teenage son, he could care less whether or not his XBox has a hard drive (it does)... he just cares about playing games and doing so on the console his friends have, so that he can play games with them or trade games. Neither of us have much of an interest in the Wii. But I am sure that if we DID have a Wii in our home, we'd get a kick out of it. But life isn't JUST about playing 24/7, so we'll stick with just two consoles in the home. Maybe if I can trust my 5-year-old alone with the Wiimote and our television screen, he might get a Wii for Christmas.

If you were to ask me if I am a PlayStation fan, I'd probably say yes. If you were to ask me if I would ever switch to XBox... I wouldn't say it isn't possible, but at the moment I see no desire in the future to do so. If you were to bash the PS3 stating opinions as if they were facts, I'd probably bash your so-called facts and show them for the opinions that they are, then explain to you why your opinions don't matter to me and why my opinion is different. Again, it's not cognitive dissonance... it's just opinion. When did it become wrong to have an opinion and let the world know what it is?

[Nineball2112]

Excellent post.

How two people can give you disagrees for you stating your opinion and thought process 11 minutes after you posted that is just sad, however.

[LightofDarkness]

You neglect the fact that investment need not be monetary. People have bickered over console dominance for years, but it's never been this bad. It's simply because people have become EMOTIONALLY invested over the years. The countless arguments they (we?) have been in since grade school has cemented in their minds a structured theory of what is right, and to admit they are wrong after so much personal investment in that idea is indeed difficult, as it requires a little virtue known as humility. You need only look at the case study mentioned in the article. That was a RELIGIOUS and emotional investment. It's the same with sports, electronics, cars, music, movies.... This points to cognitive dissonance. It doesn't always just involve money, money may simply be the mitigating factor.
I had to admit I was wrong about the PS3 and bought one roughly a month after launch while on a visit to the states (20GB model, still better than the 40 though).

Here's an example, Xbox fanboys (not taking a jab, kids) always pointed out that the PS3 could not provide graphics nearly as good as Gears of War and was doomed. Then Uncharted came out and UTIII after that. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they simply became more vehement and attacked the less attractive games, focusing their argument on third party games. That's justifying your own point of view TO YOURSELF and projecting upon others. Cognitive dissonance? I believe so.

[BIGELLOW]

@Nineball2112,

Thanks. I hear you. If you look at my previous posts... most of my posts are very similar in intellect and composure (unless I'm tired or just generally in a weird mood.) Sometimes I get tons of agrees. Other times, the disagrees start pouring in. Maybe we should just call it Cognitive Dissonance. It's the Agrees versus the Disagrees. May the Agrees win! :D

@LightOfDarkness,

The point I was making was not necessarily that money needs to be involved, but that Cognitive Dissonance is only involved win there is clear evidence to the contrary. Remember when the U.S. was invading Iraq? The Information Minister repeatedly said on television things like, "The American troops are leaving" or "we are winning" or "there is no fighting going on here." And yet, you could hear explosions in the background. What this guy was SAYING was contrary to fact... not just contrary to someone else's opinion... contrary to fact.

If I say "peanut butter sandwiches are yummy" and "anchovies are yucky"... it doesn't matter if I go to war with Germany over this opinion, it's not cognitive dissonance. It's just a strong opinion that (for whatever bizarre reason) I was willing to go to war over.

The case of the religious cult wasn't cognitive dissonance simply because they felt strongly about their beliefs... but the fact that their beliefs were that the world was going to end on a specific date... and that date PASSED... but yet they still insisted they were right. With all facts indicating that the date passed... and that the world didn't end... they still insisted on being correct. That goes contrary to reality, not merely opinion... therefore, it is cognitive dissonance.

If Sony goes bankrupt and a bunch of Sony fanboys say "PlayStation sales will continue to increase and Microsoft is going down!" you can claim cognitive dissonance. If, however, a bunch of Microsoft fanboys say "XBox is awesome... PlayStation sucks!". There is no cognitive dissonance. It's simply a strong opinion.

Again, cognitive dissonance isn't about stating an opinion, no matter how strongly you state it. It's about stating a "fact"... even if this fact has been irrefutably been proven wrong... and insisting that this fact is still true after-the-fact.

The article writer made a lot of solid points. The only mistake was the use the term "cognitive dissonance" out of context.

As for the fact that disagreements have never been this strong before. I personally believe it has to do with the Internet. Never before could someone in Nebraska argue with a complete stranger in New Mexico or Canada with such ease.

I think another contributor is popularity. Back in the times of Atari and Coleco, the game market was in its infancy. These days, it has matured into a lifestyle. It's big enough for people to state their opinions loudly. In the U.S., American Football is big... but tennis isn't so much. So, you're likely to hear more about the battles between football teams than about tennis players. In Europe, it's all about soccer (football)... and not so much about American Football... so the wars rage on differently there.

The Internet has made arguing on a much larger scale with ease possible. Gaming has matured from a specialist hobby into a lifestyle. So, it was only natural that the attention given between the wars was going to be huge.

[LightofDarkness]

It's not about it being factual or opinion-based, it's about how you justify a particular choice. If presented with two alternatives and only pick one, your level of desire for the alternative creates varying levels of dissonance (that being torn between separate choices post-decision). If you had less of a real desire to choose the alternative, you would experience less dissonance. If you had a strong desire for the alternative, you would experience much more dissonance. It's not about any external factual or event-driven trigger, the event which triggers it is merely a choice.

[juuken]

I don't know why anyone disagreed with you either. That was a well written post/comment. I agree with... well...I should say here that I don't agree with all of it, now that I read it over. Light of Darkness had a much better argument, especially when I read it over.

Hmm, this article doesn't seem to be working. :/

EDIT: Now it does. Lol, @ that 360 shaven at the back of that guy's head. xD

[BIGELLOW]

@LightOfDarkness,

That would suggest that ALL choices are cognitive dissonance. Again, if this is how you want to view cognitive dissonance, then that's your prerogative. I'm just saying that while I agree with many of the things the original author stated, I think that it is over-reaching to refer to console wars as cognitive dissonance. If you're going to call the console wars of 2008 cognitive dissonance, then it only stands to reason that the console wars of 1983 can also be cognitive dissonance. If that's the case, then is anything really being said?

You might as well write an entire article about how gas prices are high because the price of gasoline listed at gas stations are increasing. It goes without saying. Nobody is really bringing anything new to the table or making a discovery, but merely re-packaging common sense in the form of discovery.

Let's come up with a term such as "cognitive olfactory discovery" referring to the unusual circumstances where some people will smell a perfume and think it smells good and other people will smell the same perfume and thinks it smells terrible. Then, after coining the term, several years later someone can write an article about how sales of some flowers are higher due to "cognitive olfactory discovery." I mean, isn't this just a given?

It just seems to me that people are trying to "figure out" the "fanboy" when, in reality, there is nothing to figure out. There is no "one fanboy." Some people are fans of the company because they have had good experience with that company's products. Some people are fans of the brand because they have had good experiences with that brand. Some people are upset with a company or a brand and choose to pick the competitor's brands. Whether you want to call it cognitive dissonance, personal taste, or alignment of the planets makes very little difference to the legitimacy of the opinion.

For this article to make sense... and to fit into cognitive dissonance... is if someone could point out a specific instance of a fan who has been proven wrong, but still insists on being correct. But "proof" requires "fact." You can't "prove" that a food tastes good or not... it's based on opinion or personal taste.

In a good example of cognitive dissonance (when it comes to choice) is when they took a bunch of children and had them pick out toys that they liked. Then, they created two groups. One that was given a mild punishment if caught playing with their toy of choice... the other group was given a severe punishment if caught playing with the toy of their choice.

Afterward, they took away the threat of any punishment. The group that originally was threatened with mild punishment showed no interest in the toys that had previously been their toy of choice. The group that originally was threatened with severe punishment proceeded to play with their favorite toy.

Where cognitive dissonance comes into play is that the children who were threatened with a severe punishment could already justify the fact that they didn't play with the toys, because avoiding severe punishment is justification enough. Once the threat of punishment was removed, the toy was fair game again. On the contrary, the children who were only threatened with mild punishment could not justify their lack of playing with their favorite toy with such a mild punishment that, instead, they created (psychologically) an alternative justification... they convinced themselves that their favorite toy "really isn't all that." So, even after the threat of punishment was taken away, they were still convinced that the toy wasn't anything special.

Now, can anyone really explain in scientific terms how the console wars or fanboys in general really and truly fits into the category of cognitive dissonance? Has a study been done to show this, or is it just a bunch of guess work? I'm only suggesting that a bunch of guess-work is being proclaimed as science. It's a hypothesis without a scientific method to follow up.

Now, if someone gave a PS3 fanboy a FREE XBox 360 with 20 FREE games... and that winner, instead of playing with the XBox 360 and enjoying it, decided to place it (and the games) on a barbecue and burn it, then yes... you could suggest some cognitive dissonance is taking place. That they are refusing any attempt at enjoying the system simply because they have chosen to hate it so much, and have only done so because they made a different choice. If, however, the person simply sells the XBox 360 and games and uses the money to buy more PS3 games, then it could be just as easily proven that it was merely a shrewd financial decision rather than just classifying it arbitrarily under cognitive dissonance.

Again, for cognitive dissonance to exist, there has to be something that doesn't make sense from a logical view-point. The person who insists their car is the best, even if it breaks down 3 times more often than the average car... the person who insists that they aren't a liar, even if they have been repeatedly caught in a lie over and over.

In the case of the console wars, simply having one person say "the PS3 is awesome... the XBox sucks" and another person say "XBox is awesome... the PS3 sucks" isn't enough reason to pull out the cognitive dissonance term. If an XBox owner has his console break down yearly and keeps saying that they love the XBox, aren't they entitled to still have this opinion? Maybe they love the XBox games so much that they are willing to put up with this minor inconvenience. If, instead, they say things like "well, it is only breaking because I play it a lot" and continue to defend the console more than they would defend any other home appliance (i.e., if their television breaks down once in 5 years, they complain loudly, but give praise to the XBox for only breaking down once a year)... then there would be a conflict. An absence of logic (not just a difference in opinion) that justifies a clinical term such as cognitive dissonance.

[LightofDarkness]

Not to be insulting, but I don't think you understand what cognitive dissonance attempts to explain. Making a choice is not "cognitive dissonance," making the choice can result in it however. Not all opinions are fuelled by cognitive dissonance, not at all. Cognitive dissonance can merely drive people to completely reject any opposing view or evidence, resulting in outright denial of clear opposing evidence. This is the mind's solution to cognitive dissonance, which can often be characterised somewhat by what we call "buyer's remorse." Hmm, now where have we seen this before?

What this can lead people to do is modify their existing principles continuously to support their decision, all for the sake of consistency. This simply means that rather than learning from their mistakes or accepting an opposing viewpoint, they will continue to deny it and contrive counter points endlessly. This is a preventative measure, to AVOID cognitive dissonance.

In a nutshell, Cognitive dissonance itself is merely that remorseful, uneasy feeling after making a certain decision, which is then remedied by rationalization or justification. This often results in rejection of the other option, and preventative measures such as denial of contrary evidence or ideas.

That's all it is. What you seem to be arguing about is denial and rejection, which can merely be a result of cognitive dissonance. Then you seem to argue about difference of opinion, which can simply be the result of opinion. But that rarely results in the vehemence seen by fanboys. Fanboys make ridiculous claims that are often shot down, yet they continue to use them, even when evidence to the contrary is presented. To be able to properly point it out you need to examine a subject's reactions and interactions over a period of time to see if they are in fact simply denying any contrary beliefs or evidence simply to prevent having to re-examine their beliefs. Fanboys are often "evangelical" as well, attempting to convince other people of their opinion so that they can get further justification for their decision.

Denial and difference of opinion do of course occur naturally without cognitive dissonance. But that's usually when people have intelligent, healthy discussion. It can of course break down into an irrational slugfest, which is usually the result of intellectual pride ("How can you be that stupid?!"; "We'll agree to disagree, I'm afraid, but I know better and you're wrong.")

[BIGELLOW]

@LightOfDarkness,

What's funny is, we're both saying the same thing now. From the beginning, I have been trying to clear up that the mere act of making a choice by itself isn't enough for cognitive dissonance. The only reason I brought it up is that it appeared to be the argument YOU were trying to make. Perhaps I misread what you were saying. I know full well what cognitive dissonance is, I just don't understand how you can so easily apply it to this scenario without any study to the fact. The article merely implied that it was possible, and I threw my opinion into the ring. It is my opinion that unless someone actually clinically defines the qualities that determine whether or not someone is fanboy, THEN performs some tests to confirm whether or not the issue is rooted into some other psychological issue, or whether it is cognitive dissonance, or perhaps a combination of different issues, then at this point it is only speculation. And just like it is the author's speculation that it must be cognitive dissonance at work, it is my speculation that it is not. (I can be easily be proven wrong by simply being given a unique definition of "fanboy" that doesn't happen to match my own definition.)

For instance, regarding cognitive dissonance, you stated "it's not about any external factual or event-driven trigger, the event which triggers it is merely a choice." While an external fact or an event isn't needed to TRIGGER cognitive dissonance, an external fact or event IS needed to prove cognitive dissonance. In the case of the UFO Cult, the fact or event that was needed to prove their cognitive dissonance was the fact that the world DIDN'T end. If they had been humble at that point and said, "oops, our bad... I guess our information was wrong..." then there wouldn't have been a case of cognitive dissonance. The fact that, instead, they insisted that the aliens changed their minds and decided to spare Earth proved that there was "something else" at play rather than "logic" (in this case, cognitive dissonance.) In the case of the children playing with toys, the threat of punishment needed to be removed from both groups in order to see the two groups act differently. The outcome of this test was classified as cognitive dissonance. If both groups of children had acted the same, and in an expected fashion, cognitive dissonance would never have been considered in this case.

So, in the case of a fanboy... if you can create a study, and separate people into groups, and run some tests, you can prove cognitive dissonance. In the meantime, it is merely speculation.

In your example, Xbox fanboys always pointed out that the PS3 could not provide graphics nearly as good as Gears of War and was doomed. Then Uncharted came out and UTIII after that. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they simply became more vehement and attacked the less attractive games, focusing their argument on third party games.

Now, to be clear, I am a PS3 owner... I don't think the XBox 360 is crap... I just don't have time for two consoles, so only play one. However, couldn't it be reasonable to assume that some XBox 360 fans had more than one reason to like the XBox? Maybe the first reason was the amazing graphics and the second reason was the huge library of games. Maybe many just focused more on reason #1, never feeling much of a need for a one-two-punch, so-to-speak. Then, when #1 was no longer relevant, they started focusing on reason #2. Also, couldn't one person say they think that Gears of War has better graphics than Uncharted? You may disagree, but again, we're not comparing numbers here.

It can easily be said that 20 is greater than 10. However, to say "better graphics" might mean different things to different people. What is the definition of "better" when it comes to graphics? More polygons? Higher resolution? Faster frame-rate? More artistically designed worlds? Is it a combination of all of these and, if so, which is more important compared to another? And might some see the Mona Lisa and think it is wonderful and others see it and think it is ho-hum? Is there a standard out there that says one group is wrong and the other group is correct? Or is it a matter of personal taste? Some people might not like games with colors that are too vibrant, whereas others only like vibrant colors and think that darker tones make games look washed out. These differences in opinion alone could turn the tide between thinking a game has better or worse graphics. During the times of CDs versus vinyl records, there were constant debates about sound quality. Many said CDs sounded better. Others said vinyl records sound better. Scientifically, one could argue that vinyl is analog and will always be superior to the digital encoding of a CD. On the flip-side, others could say that a laser (and an encoding scheme with error-correction) is more precise at gathering and playing back sound information than a record player's needle and a dust-laden record. Again, unless there is a clear guideline to prove that one side is, in fact, scientifically correct and the other side is, in fact, scientifically wrong... you can't suggest (in a scientific-sounding article) that cognitive dissonance is at play. It MIGHT be... but it has just as much of a chance of being true as it has at being untrue. If there is only a 50/50 chance, why write an article claiming one side is true unless it is merely to strike up debate about both sides? Maybe one day such a study WILL be performed... and either I will need to say "looks like I was wrong"... or "I guess I was right." Until that day comes, it is my opinion that I am correct and that cognitive dissonance is not a factor (or is not the only factor) in the case of fanboyism (as I believe it to be defined.)

[LightofDarkness]

Funny I was going to add that we won't ever be able to determine the root of the behaviour, as I'm not about to petition a college for research funding to carry out double blind studies, to my last post. Not for sure, at least. But as a good observation, it can be well applauded. I'm pretty sure we can agree, purely via speculation and observation, that it could very well be the cause. No, we won't know for sure backed up by mountains of empirical data and research papers, but it's a damn good observation nontheless that provokes discussion. I think somewhere along there we began arguing semantics and wires were crossed. What you are arguing is that it's not fact and should not be treated as such, but no one really did anyway. It's just a good observation and a pretty good way of explaining the phenomenon. We could even call it a good hypothesis. But it's not really a topic that warrants vast amounts of research either. Just an interesting point. What I was arguing is simply that. As well as how much of their behaviour (constant denial, rejection) points towards cognitive dissonance as a possible cause for it.

[fermcr]

Truth is fanboys are morons... and that's it

[enjoi187]

guy with ps3 tattoo.... http://uk.gizmodo.com/ps3%2...