The Psychology of Fanboys

Testiiiiing writes "CoolTechZone.com's Gundeep Hora publishes his thoughts on why fanboys act the way they do. 'For fanboys (and I use the term with utmost respect, at least for this article), their appetite to support their favorite company to beat the big, bad corporate heavyweights gets delusional at times. And why not? After all, we all like to cheer the underdog... reasonably. In addition to cheering for the little guy, fanboys also think it's their responsibility to spread the word about their favorite company. Combine their need to do marketing on behalf of their adopted companies and their products with the passion to make others see things their way, and you have a powerful group of people.'"

Comments

But how do you explain the M$ fanboys?

[Anonymous Coward]

M$ is clearly not an underdog, and I work with a guy who is quite a fanboy....

Re:But how do you explain the M$ fanboys?

[PinkyDead]

They're not fanboys. They're minions.

Re:But how do you explain the M$ fanboys?

[mrbluze]

$ is clearly not an underdog, and I work with a guy who is quite a fanboy....

Fanboy, zealot, fanatic, fundamentalist, bigot.. other stuff. All the same in essence.

It's all just people who believe beyond reason in something. I know.. boring but true. When people know only a bit of what there is to know about something, or therabouts, they get really idealistic and passionate about it. It's human nature. Then, after time, if they get to know enough, they become cynical, or at best, just plain realistic.

Fanboys are the result of feelings of ignorance and insecurity. The more a person feels the pressures of both, the more he tries to convince others of what he thinks.

Re:But how do you explain the M$ fanboys?

[Elemenope]

Oh come on, that was barely a Godwin honorable mention at best. It was a highly oblique comparison that didn't even invoke the "N" word or the "H" word.

But you're still guilty. Were you following orders, minion?

Re:But how do you explain the M$ fanboys?

[Hijacked Public]

I think that is some kind of perversion of brand loyalty.

Many people derive a large part of their identity from the brands of product they buy and view any negative commentary on those brands and directed at them personally. If a guy has Windows computers, a Windows handheld, a Windows DVR, and knows a hell of a lot about Windows, and you tell him that Windows sucks he may, at the very least, see that as an attack on his consumer acumen and lash out at you.

Then you have the people driving Dodge vehicles with graphics of Calvin pissing on a Ford logo. Or vice versa. And Nascar fans. Or sports fans in general. I enjoy handmade cutlery and every so often visit web forums dedicated to just that. The brand loyalty people are there even, as this thread will clearly show.

In a psychological sense Fanboyism is a lot deeper than the article suggests, and it is a consequence of a culture as materialistic as Western culture tends to be.

Re:But how do you explain the M$ fanboys?

[dave420]

I've found myself defending Microsoft quite a few times. It's not because I'm a die-hard Bill's-cock-sucking cheerleader, but because I actively like engaging in rational debate, and when someone says something to me, framed as fact, which is clearly not true, I will point out the inaccuracy of their statement. That's not being a fanboy, but being rational. I do the same for Mac, Linux, my fridge, Pluto, whatever. I like technology, so I want to get to the bottom of the discussion, not get to the bottom of the discussion with "my team" on top, as I don't have a team.

Fanboys aren't always logical. They may be logical 99.9% of the time, but that 0.1% will cause someone like me to call them out on their bullshit. That's the problem with fanboys, in my opinion. I'm a technologist, not an appleologist or a linuxologist or a windowsologist. I couldn't give a flying fuck what logo is on the software/hardware/candy I use, as long as it does what I want it to. I want to be proven wrong. I want to learn. I don't want to be using the second-best technology just because my favourite CEO says it's the best when real-world application tells me, and others, otherwise.

Re:But how do you explain the M$ fanboys?

[BasharTeg]

It's called Commitment and Consistency, and it's one of the fixed action patterns described by Dr. Robert Cialdini in Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. In my opinion this is one of the most common fixed action patterns today. People buy in to technologies through Social Proof, and then once they consider themselves part of the group, Commitment and Consistency kicks in.

"Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment."

I'd like to point out that although there are many good reasons to run Linux and I certainly appreciate it as a product (I run Linux, FreeBSD and Windows), there are many people who run Linux but can't give you a reasonable explanation as to why. It's a perfectly legitimate choice if you were to pick operating systems out at random, or if you could not afford a commercial operating system, or for many other reasons. However, most "fanboi" type Linux advocates and users don't have a logical reason for using Linux. Instead, they rely heavily on social proof. Linux users are "sticking it to the man", a perspective which fits with the age and demographics of many Linux "fanbois". More specifically, Linux "fanbois" will describe Microsoft's business practices as a reason to run Linux. This is a valid reason to run Linux and to advocate Linux if you're informed on what exactly Microsoft's business practices are, but most Linux "fanbois" will only say that Microsoft is a monopoly and that they bundle products. They have no knowledge of the specifics, they're only parroting what they read in forums and someone's blog. They claim there is evidence out there to support their position (And there is!) but they have no knowledge of it. Basically, you could say they're right for the wrong reason. The "reasoning" that drove them towards the "right" answer is Social Proof. The Linux movement, composed of Linux advocates, manages to convince not only intelligent people who choose the operating system for logical reasons, but also empty minded "fanbois" who are convinced by Social Proof that Linux is superior, and that by running Linux they will be part of an exclusive club of the Elite who run Linux (starting to relate to Scarcity). This easily convinced "fanboi" then spends the time to get Linux working on his computer. This isn't always an easy task depending on driver support, learning how to install an operating system in the first place, and other technical factors that can make switching to Linux difficult for a novice. Once that difficulty has been overcome, the "fanboi" feels that he has invested a great deal of time and energy into Linux, therefore there must be some kind of payoff. The "fanboi" is very unlikely to be able to even use Linux for anything other than an internet appliance, running a web browser, email software, etc, from X, so very little of the actual benefit of Linux is lost on the "fanboi". Yet after having invested himself in Linux and "learning how to use it" (even though he didn't really), the "fanboi" has finally reached Commitment and Consistency. Having put time and effort into Linux, committing himself to it, he can't believe that he spent all that time and effort for nothing. Even if Linux was a horrible operating system (which it isn't), the "fanboi" would still be a solid believer in the superiority of the system he installed, because he cannot accept that idea that he might have wasted his time installing something either horrible OR closer to reality: something he isn't knowledgable enough to use.

There's nothing wrong with any of this, with one major exception. The "fanboi" may end up learning Linux really well which makes for a great job skill and a deeper understanding of computers as a whole. What's wrong with the "fanboi" is the fact that he and his ilk act as advocates of the system while speaking from a position of ignorance, based on Social Proof (other really smart people run Linux) and Commitment and Consistency (I run it so it's t

Re:But how do you explain the M$ fanboys?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this arguement, because it is one of the more nonsensical things I see on Slashdot, and I see ALL THE DAMN TIME.

Does anyone (other than Twitter) really, honestly think that Microsoft actually *pays* people to post pro-MS messages *on slashdot*? I mean seriously, it's absolutely rediculous. I can imagine MS paying people to spread a pro-MS message, but on Slashdot? Give me a break. The slashdot community is not some powerful cabal of systems administators that can make or break any tech product, and I highly doubt MS really cares about what gets posted here.

I've seen several reasoned, articulate rebuttals to anti-MS bullshit* around here, and nearly every such post gets modded into oblivion and the poster labelled as a fanboy shill. It's really quite sad, because in the same thread there will usually be several incoherent anti-MS rants that somehow get +5 Informative.

*that is not to say that all all anti-MS stuff is bullshit - most of it around here is quite legit. But there is an abundance of FUD, too.

Re:But how do you explain the M$ fanboys?

[BlackCobra43]

Ballmer shot first

I usually get called...

[daveschroeder]

...a "fanboy" (or, more often, "fanboi", and sometimes even "fangirl") when I disseminate correct information about Apple on slashdot, clarify a misleading story, or correct completely and utterly factually and provably incorrect claims. It's not even about trying to "convert" anyone to anything. I usually respond by asking if the person calling me a "fanboi" could point out anything incorrect that I said in my post. That is usually followed up with brilliant posts about sex acts.

So, here's another question: this article is called "The Psychology of Mac Zealots"; what's the "psychology" of people who instantly call anyone who posts anything about Apple a "fanboy"? The article talks about how "fanboys" might be right, but also says that being anonymous and abusive (and therefore annoying) when making their point is a hallmark of a "fanboy". So how can a person who is neither (and also is correct about a factual point) a "fanboy"?

It isn't about "rooting for the underdog" or trying to create "converts" (directly, anyway). It's about wanting correct information disseminated about something you're interested in. And if it adds factual information to the discussion, what's wrong with that? To me, saying that something is obviously better or "rocks" or that something else "sucks" with no logical reasoning to back it up is what makes someone a "fanboy".

Cue the posts calling me a "fanboy fanboi"!

Re:I usually get called...

[garcia]

Cue the posts calling me a "fanboy fanboi"!

I'd like to follow that up with a dissemination of correct information. You are a "fanboi fanboy". Thanks, just wanted to clear that up before this thread got out of hand.

Re:I usually get called...

[joss]

> I usually get called a "fanboy" (or, more often, "fanboi", and sometimes even "fangirl") when I disseminate correct information about Apple on slashdot

That's because you're posting on a Linux fanboy site.

Re:I usually get called...

[MontyApollo]

I don't know about your case in particular, but people that seem to defend Apple and "clarify a misleading story" on Slashdot do seem to be overly sensitive to these issues. A lot of commentary about MS or Vista is misleading or wrong, but nobody gets overly indignant about it. Whenever there is a story about Apple that is remotely critical, there is usually a storm of protest to "clarify" the story or to often call it flamebait.

I think the group effect is fanboism even though the individuals may not be guilty.

It is pretty annoying though the way the Apple fanboys mod down any comment remotely critical. Rightly or wrongly, you might be associated with these people. People flame MS all the time and get modded "funny", but the exact same comments directed toward Apple make certain people genuinely upset.

Re:I usually get called...

[daveschroeder]

That's an interesting point. I'd just respond by saying two things:

- If you're a user of a product by choice, you probably believe the positives outweigh the negatives, one would hope, so naturally you're going to have less negative things to say about it in general.

- Personally, my main concern is submissions and highly moderated comments with incorrect information; nearly always it's negative information, so the items being corrected are already skewed to the negative side, meaning that the corrections will nearly always be "positive".

If some moron is going nuts about "ZOMG iPhone r0xxxx and it's better than every smartphone EVAR" (or the reverse), I don't see any need to respond to that at all. But if someone says "We don't know if iPhone has a removeable SIM, so Apple is really screwed in Europe", and then I say, "Uh, yes, it's already been proven that it does have a removable SIM and there is no technical reason it couldn't be used on any carrier in Europe if Apple chose to sell it unlocked," that, in my view, doesn't make me a "fanboy", even though it casts Apple's situation in a positive light. In fact, incorrect information nearly always casts the subject in a negative light. Someone saying "the MacBook Pro is the greatest laptop ever" doesn't need to be "corrected" because that's a subjective opinion.

Hardly.

[bynary]

In addition to cheering for the little guy

Sony is hardly "the little guy". In other words, fanboyism exists at all levels of the market.

Let's talk psychology

[Billosaur]

The fanboy is fixated, a product of the Skinner box of technology. They find a particular product/service to be so useful, so much like what they have always wanted (read: reinforcing), that the idea that there is anything different/better out there is inconceivable. Also, deprive them of their fixation, and they go into withdrawals.

The fixation is unhealthy and limiting. People with fixations are frequently unable to adapt to changes in their environment. They cling to a thing even after that thing ceases to bring them the comfort/serenity that it first did. They will viciously attack anyone who disparages they chosen tool, unable to see the light of even the most cogent argument.

I've personally never let an individual piece of technology/software or service consume me. Some are nice, some are useful, some are downright cool. But this is the Internet Age -- if you wait five minutes, something new and better will invariably come along. If you don't allow yourself to be open to new ideas and ways of thinking, you're bound to be left behind.

Fanboy: Possibly the most abused term ever

[AKAImBatman]

When someone uses the term "fanboy", it tends to conjure up an image of someone who is so fanatical in their support that they ignore all logic and reality in pursuit of ensuring that their company is the one that wins "the war". (Whatever that may be.) As such, it tends to be a rather derogatory term used to discount someone from a discussion because their fanaticism makes their opinion useless.

Unfortunately, there's a growing trend of abuse in relation to the term. More and more I'm hearing *real* fanboys preemptively use the term to discount others. For example, any true fan of a game system should be willing to acknowledge its faults as well as its strengths. I very much enjoy my Nintendo Wii, but I know that its low cost came at the expense of raw horsepower. That doesn't bother me. Similarly, PS3 fans should be willing to acknowledge that their system is incredibly expensive (in comparison to the rest of the market) and that there is a fairly small game library at the moment.

Yet what I regularly hear is the PS3 fanboys jump in and yell, "Anyone who likes the Wii is a Nintendo fanboy! After all, how could you not like a $600 Bluray player! The game system is FREE!" Or something to that effect, anyway. ;)

This constitutes an outright abuse of the term. Now I'll admit that it doesn't help the situation that many Wii fans (and even worse: fanboys) don't like Sony or their business practices. So they tend to cheer on any difficulties that the company may be having. (I'll even admit to this myself. I don't want Sony around if they're going to install rootkits, shut down distributors, sell exploding parts, ignore customer service, or the billion other anti-consumer things they've done of late.) That still doesn't justify the abuse.

Similarly, a lot of Windows users are simply familiar with what they are used to. So they're not so much as fanatical themselves, they're just highly resistant to solid logic that's often used by the Mac community. They're also quite used to the Mac users of yore, who were very much fanboys. (I'm sorry, Mac OS 8 was NOT that great of an OS.) So they also abuse the term in an attempt to get people to stop pestering them about how much better the Mac is. They're comfortable, so they don't want to be bothered. Sometimes they even become a sort of inverse fanboy in that they hang onto ever possible wrong they see with the opposition. (Case in point: Java is slow.) Never mind if it's still true or not. It was once at least sort of true, so that's good enough.

So next time you think of using the term "fanboy", think for a moment. You may be abusing the term and making yourself look bad at the same time.

You gotta be kidding me

[Sunburnt]

How, exactly, did this trolling article make it to the top of the Firehose? Have we become Digg while I was sleeping?

Man, I must be new here.

sigh....

[twoboxen]

I guess it's a slow news day. How am I supposed to avoid work all day when this is all slashdot has to offer :(

Who isn't a fanboy?

[wandazulu]

Isn't everyone a fanboy for some reason or another? Aren't the Ford guys who put that Calvin sticker peeing on a Chevy logo (and vice versa) fanboys? And how about all those Harley Davidson tattoos out there, would you call that 300 lbs leather-clad biker a fanboy? And then there's the people who watch a particular tv show and say "Hey, you gotta watch this..." and then is hurt that you don't have any interest in watching a bald guy picking songs from a juke box in a Jersey restaurant.

Finally, I know a guy who is as close to a luddite as you can get..no computer, no tv, just a regular phone and a radio for electronics. Prefers reading to everything else and doesn't give a whiz about what bike he rides, what clothes he buys, anything; whatever's on sale and fits he gets. But if you ask what he's reading, he'll say he's reading Grapes of Wrath for the umpteenth time and then he'll talk your ear off about how Steinbeck is the only good writer America ever produced, and on and on for an hour or more. So that makes him a Steinbeck fanboy, doesn't it?

Money

[GWLlosa]

Tech/Gaming hobbies can be expensive. Just ask someone who has played WoW since launch how much of their money Blizzard has now. If it weren't for the fact that Blizzard/WoW is "amazing/ohmygod/awesome/cool", then it'd be possible that that money was misspent, right? Your average person is convinced he is not a fool. Fools don't make stupid decisions. Therefore, your average person is convinced that that PS3/WoW/iMac they just bought must be worth every penny. Given the prices on some of these things, the products (and their companies) must therefore somehow be 'better' than they seem. Result: Delusional Fans.

Cheering for sports teams?

[HockeyPuck]

How is 'fanboyism' any different from cheering for your favorite sports team, political candidate or having faith in your religion.

And in keeping with the tradition of analogies on /.

Apple hardware is like the Yankees, someone paid far too much and got so little.

Either way, both the Yankees and Apple suck.

Yours Truly,
Curt Shilling