This is one of your most important posts that should be required reading for people entering this or any other platform. I try to maintain firm boundaries and explicitly invite specific access to people who are paid subscribers. Part of that relies on me to not feed emotional needs and making myself less available from time to time. Some people can get confused between the persona of me they built in their mind and the real me, which they can't know because we don't have that kind of relationship.
Thank you for articulating the complexity of parasocial relationships and for the guidance on boundaries.
Thank you for this comment. Living alone and struggling often with depression, sometimes I respond too readily and make the problem worse for myself. I have to own that and do better. Your comment is a good reminder that simply being less available is one way I can do that.
It can be hard, especially when one's emotional state is craving attention and connection. I mess it up too and then am reminded that boundaries are necessary for a reason, even when I'm craving attention/affection/engagement. It's usually the cuckoo, adversarial commenter whose comment seems so absurd that alerts me to my own behaviour.
“She’s never looked you in the eye, never heard your voice, never once had to sit in a room and feel your presence.”
Lucky woman!
More seriously, this is a very important article that encapsulates a number of great points about being a functioning adult: limits, boundaries, real life relationships versus online ones and realistic expectations.
Very well stated, logical , interesting and well worth remembering. .I believe that I am conversant with most psychological terms except for the very technical, but somehow I had missed any discussion of parasocial relationships. Since I grew up in the 40's and "50's, I well remember how many individuals developed attachments to TV personalities in those early days in a way that they seldom had done with radio personalties. Certainly much deeper and more complex than simple fandom.
I think that this is yet another reason to limit one's time on social media, and certainly limit the time of young children and adolescents in that bubble which so many seem to be deeply immersed.
I have disciplined myself to pay no attention to the overwhelming majority of notifications that I receive on my phone and respond to them very infrequently. And for several hours of each day i either do not have my phone in my possession or have turned it off. Probably easier for me than many, since I grew up in an era where almost all personal interactions were either face to face or my means of letter writing. I have no desire to go back to those "good old days" , but am certainly aware how much more complex and in some ways more burdensome "interpersonal" relationships are today .
One more piece of advice ... look for ways to establish the emotional connections you've described WITHIN one's local community. The more one is able to do so, the less reliant one is on such parasocial relationships and more able to respect boundaries.
Yes, I know may be hard to do so, and scary. But that is what we all need to do. And there is a real need for third space where one can develop such emotional connections - churches, hangout spots where you don't get kicked out (like years ago I was in a large knitting group that met every two weeks in Borders or B&N bookstore, can't remember; we mad sure to buy food and then new manager unceremoniously kicked us out), civil organizations (remember all those toastmaster clubs, Lions, veterans' posts?), and so forth.
Now, I'm sort of in a weird position because I'm in what is a religious minority group here in the US that is rapidly growing (or not depending on who you ask) that is quite in the news due to Orthobros (don't get me started). In addition, my previous priest's wife is a rather well-known author who is good friends with Jonathan Pageau, who is friends with a Really Large Personality. Which means that I have a big chance of rubbing up against people who know other people who know other people. And so sometimes I have to be careful how I respond to posts on Facebook and on X. Because I WILL meet some of them someday. Heck, two Sundays ago at coffee hour at my parish I saw somebody I couldn't quite name who he was but I KNEW his face. I wanted to say hello to him but since I couldn't remember what his name was ... And then last week the latest video from his YouTube channel popped up and finally I could remember who he was.
Right now I'm working with other people on translating the church service/lexicon into ASL. One member is relatively prolific on the social media. And a clip from the OCDA conference, which I attended in January, showed up on a "I've visited several Christian churches" video that had over 118K views when I watched it. So it's getting out there and it is inevitable that something like you've described will occur.
Damn. As usual, you've nailed so much that's useful in thinking about the relational and psychological implications, and it's also a really handy guide for anyone who wants to make a go of Substack. There's no rulebook, and it's especially daunting for anyone who doesn't have a strong internalised set of social rules. It all gets extra blurry too when some writers DO offer access for a cost (livestreaming, personal chats, coaching etc).
One of the things I thought really seriously about when starting up was whether to be anonymous in a way that includes NO personal detail, or perhaps a statement that one should assume anything personal I offer is fiction (as per The Last Psychiatrist). Because what people project onto you, in the absence of something, demonstrates so much about what they assume, think, fear and expect. The less you say, the more one "fills in the gaps", and the more unwell someone is the more they tend to do this because uncertainty is crazymaking. I imagine this creates increasingly greater drama as you describe ... the bigger your profile grows, the less you're able to respond individually.
It's why traditional psychoanalysis with more "neurotic" people (the worried well) involves the therapist being almost a complete unknown, because in the knowledge gap the pathology presents itself (and the patient is self-reflective enough to be curious about their own process). Whereas therapy with personality disorders or cPTSD requires a heap of transparency and "being a person" or shit gets wild (and unsafe) really fast.
A lot of lonely, isolated people out there, looking for love...affirmation...attention...validation...wanting to be seen. Humans, iow. Frankly, I can take 'em or leave 'em irl but engaging via the comment section with a writer whose opinions and the way they express them is a pleasure for me. That's enough. No personal relationship is expected, required or hoped for.
Amazing article. I found Substack a few years ago, right after getting out of a 30-year marriage. I found a certain single mother Substack author whose daughter was graduating college as my son was. My imagination clicked into overdrive creating a romantic fantasy. I knew the dynamic was ridiculous, but the idea lingered. We still haven’t met. I’ll send her this.
I couldn’t help thinking, as I read, that there may be some similarities between the tendency to read more into a parasocial relationship than is really there, and what’s happening with people thinking they are forming actual “relationships” with ChatGPT and other AIs (as described recently in rather disturbing articles in the NYT and Rolling Stone), again thinking there’s more there than there really is. The difference of course being that the persona in a parasocial relationship could make a real connection if they wanted to, but often (fairly enough) chooses not to; whereas the AI is just acting per its programming and giving people what they seem to want to hear. So they play out rather differently, but I think these phenomena both arise out of that unmet need for connection.
Yes. Many AI models are basically programmed to do this kind of manipulation on purpose and very effectively. I do a lot of experimenting with some AI models as part of my job, and this is an aspect that's becoming more solid. A small example -- I have two internet friends, a married couple, who are a great deal older than me (married over 50 years). I started using their first names because they urged me to, though it was a little uncomfortable at first. I have noticed that for awhile it was the case that when I told one of these models directly that I grew up in the South, sometimes it didn't adjust anything and sometimes it did. But now it always does. It's obviously had a programming upgrade to include more performative courtesy for Southerners.
I've written several pieces on my concept of being grounded: familiar with life in the real world of dirt and grass and animals, trees and sky and clouds, in the country not the city. And at the same time familiar with technology: how it works, how it has evolved, and is continuing to evolve. Perhaps helping to maintain a balance to keep from getting off on some emotional track that seems real but isn't.
And it probably helps that my Substack I started in August '23 is now up to only 20 subscribers from the original 12, mostly friends and family. That's OK. My subscription is free because I'm retired, and don't need the money or the hassle of bookkeeping for the IRS. And it bears out what I stated in my opening, that it's hard to be heard when you're nobody from nowhere, at least as far as the Internet is concerned.
But things do grow, and it can be easy for them to get out of hand. I like to keep things neat and ordered, at least on my computer, so I've maintained a folder in my mail app for "Comments and Likes." It started out with a few comments, mostly again from family and friends. Then as I began commenting on other's stacks, the numbers began to pick up, as did the personalities. Right now that folder holds 1725 likes and comments from Other People. It is nice to be noticed, but it can be overwhelming if you let it. That's where the real-life grounding comes in. As far as the real physical world is concerned, that's all just a bunch of pixels on a monitor. At the same time, it's the thoughts captured in those pixels that count. Maintain that balance.
I am so glad i didnt seem to get this gene. Or the sportsball gene. I just dont seem to notice if one doesnt reply to a comment, or get butthurt by it. Or get overly excited by a like or reply back.
Maybe this comes from being on the internet now for being on the internet for 32 years and interacting with people who might be a dog on the otherside of the country/world. Is it possible that I got "socialized" to this faceless people thing before the rise of social media? OTOH I never had celebrity crushes, or got "into" people on tv.
I suspect this extends into the political realm. All the obama is jesus types, or the trumpalos sure seem to have the parasocial relationship with their targets.
I enjoyed the bit about the fact that this isn't Only Fans. People are purchasing or browsing the writing, not the writer. I know lines can get blurred when we express personal life things, but it's still curated writing.
Also, I wanted to respond to this quote: "Don’t mirror the intensity. If someone comes in hot—praising you too much or projecting emotion—don’t match the energy out of politeness. Stay grounded."
When this happens it could be because a person comes on with a Drama Triangle role already in their head, like they want to save/rescue you, and you can match their energy which would mean acting like a victim who needs their help. Or vice versa, they come on complaining about a problem looking for a savior, and you match with being that savior. That only blurs the line more.
I've had that happen, and I have had to explain with a cool head that's not what this relationship is, and they get confused or angry. But it's just because their bubble has burst.
No matter what if someone puts an overlay on you, they will likely get mad at you when it bursts, regardless if it was all their fault.
But hopefully your article will help people to be more aware and not fall into that trap, or even see it in others and warn creators, like I have tried to do at times. Because so often creators feel confused when the person flips outs. This helps them to understand what is going on and understanding is such a huge help.
I subscribe to one person on Substack who is truly a friend. We seldom see each other face-to-face, but our relationship goes back a number of years. Your post is so true. We must cultivate real live relationships in our lives and not let parasocial relationships have dominion.
Exactly. I’ve written about this as a digression many times, though this is the most direct and comprehensively I’ve done so. I mention Josh a lot because so much of our audience overlaps and it’s even easier for people to have parasocial tendencies towards him (he’s often the first person to give language to their family dysfunction). I’m in large part drawing/modeling lines. This is real life…this is parasocial internet stuff.
This is one of your most important posts that should be required reading for people entering this or any other platform. I try to maintain firm boundaries and explicitly invite specific access to people who are paid subscribers. Part of that relies on me to not feed emotional needs and making myself less available from time to time. Some people can get confused between the persona of me they built in their mind and the real me, which they can't know because we don't have that kind of relationship.
Thank you for articulating the complexity of parasocial relationships and for the guidance on boundaries.
Thank you for this comment. Living alone and struggling often with depression, sometimes I respond too readily and make the problem worse for myself. I have to own that and do better. Your comment is a good reminder that simply being less available is one way I can do that.
It can be hard, especially when one's emotional state is craving attention and connection. I mess it up too and then am reminded that boundaries are necessary for a reason, even when I'm craving attention/affection/engagement. It's usually the cuckoo, adversarial commenter whose comment seems so absurd that alerts me to my own behaviour.
“She’s never looked you in the eye, never heard your voice, never once had to sit in a room and feel your presence.”
Lucky woman!
More seriously, this is a very important article that encapsulates a number of great points about being a functioning adult: limits, boundaries, real life relationships versus online ones and realistic expectations.
Very well stated, logical , interesting and well worth remembering. .I believe that I am conversant with most psychological terms except for the very technical, but somehow I had missed any discussion of parasocial relationships. Since I grew up in the 40's and "50's, I well remember how many individuals developed attachments to TV personalities in those early days in a way that they seldom had done with radio personalties. Certainly much deeper and more complex than simple fandom.
I think that this is yet another reason to limit one's time on social media, and certainly limit the time of young children and adolescents in that bubble which so many seem to be deeply immersed.
I have disciplined myself to pay no attention to the overwhelming majority of notifications that I receive on my phone and respond to them very infrequently. And for several hours of each day i either do not have my phone in my possession or have turned it off. Probably easier for me than many, since I grew up in an era where almost all personal interactions were either face to face or my means of letter writing. I have no desire to go back to those "good old days" , but am certainly aware how much more complex and in some ways more burdensome "interpersonal" relationships are today .
One more piece of advice ... look for ways to establish the emotional connections you've described WITHIN one's local community. The more one is able to do so, the less reliant one is on such parasocial relationships and more able to respect boundaries.
Yes, I know may be hard to do so, and scary. But that is what we all need to do. And there is a real need for third space where one can develop such emotional connections - churches, hangout spots where you don't get kicked out (like years ago I was in a large knitting group that met every two weeks in Borders or B&N bookstore, can't remember; we mad sure to buy food and then new manager unceremoniously kicked us out), civil organizations (remember all those toastmaster clubs, Lions, veterans' posts?), and so forth.
Now, I'm sort of in a weird position because I'm in what is a religious minority group here in the US that is rapidly growing (or not depending on who you ask) that is quite in the news due to Orthobros (don't get me started). In addition, my previous priest's wife is a rather well-known author who is good friends with Jonathan Pageau, who is friends with a Really Large Personality. Which means that I have a big chance of rubbing up against people who know other people who know other people. And so sometimes I have to be careful how I respond to posts on Facebook and on X. Because I WILL meet some of them someday. Heck, two Sundays ago at coffee hour at my parish I saw somebody I couldn't quite name who he was but I KNEW his face. I wanted to say hello to him but since I couldn't remember what his name was ... And then last week the latest video from his YouTube channel popped up and finally I could remember who he was.
Right now I'm working with other people on translating the church service/lexicon into ASL. One member is relatively prolific on the social media. And a clip from the OCDA conference, which I attended in January, showed up on a "I've visited several Christian churches" video that had over 118K views when I watched it. So it's getting out there and it is inevitable that something like you've described will occur.
Further evidence (as if we need any) that technology is outpacing our ability to adapt.
Seeeeeriously.
Yep — as I said in another comment, the same thing is taking people down AI rabbitholes.
Damn. As usual, you've nailed so much that's useful in thinking about the relational and psychological implications, and it's also a really handy guide for anyone who wants to make a go of Substack. There's no rulebook, and it's especially daunting for anyone who doesn't have a strong internalised set of social rules. It all gets extra blurry too when some writers DO offer access for a cost (livestreaming, personal chats, coaching etc).
One of the things I thought really seriously about when starting up was whether to be anonymous in a way that includes NO personal detail, or perhaps a statement that one should assume anything personal I offer is fiction (as per The Last Psychiatrist). Because what people project onto you, in the absence of something, demonstrates so much about what they assume, think, fear and expect. The less you say, the more one "fills in the gaps", and the more unwell someone is the more they tend to do this because uncertainty is crazymaking. I imagine this creates increasingly greater drama as you describe ... the bigger your profile grows, the less you're able to respond individually.
It's why traditional psychoanalysis with more "neurotic" people (the worried well) involves the therapist being almost a complete unknown, because in the knowledge gap the pathology presents itself (and the patient is self-reflective enough to be curious about their own process). Whereas therapy with personality disorders or cPTSD requires a heap of transparency and "being a person" or shit gets wild (and unsafe) really fast.
A lot of lonely, isolated people out there, looking for love...affirmation...attention...validation...wanting to be seen. Humans, iow. Frankly, I can take 'em or leave 'em irl but engaging via the comment section with a writer whose opinions and the way they express them is a pleasure for me. That's enough. No personal relationship is expected, required or hoped for.
Amazing article. I found Substack a few years ago, right after getting out of a 30-year marriage. I found a certain single mother Substack author whose daughter was graduating college as my son was. My imagination clicked into overdrive creating a romantic fantasy. I knew the dynamic was ridiculous, but the idea lingered. We still haven’t met. I’ll send her this.
Well said.
I couldn’t help thinking, as I read, that there may be some similarities between the tendency to read more into a parasocial relationship than is really there, and what’s happening with people thinking they are forming actual “relationships” with ChatGPT and other AIs (as described recently in rather disturbing articles in the NYT and Rolling Stone), again thinking there’s more there than there really is. The difference of course being that the persona in a parasocial relationship could make a real connection if they wanted to, but often (fairly enough) chooses not to; whereas the AI is just acting per its programming and giving people what they seem to want to hear. So they play out rather differently, but I think these phenomena both arise out of that unmet need for connection.
I think you are 100% correct.
Yes. Many AI models are basically programmed to do this kind of manipulation on purpose and very effectively. I do a lot of experimenting with some AI models as part of my job, and this is an aspect that's becoming more solid. A small example -- I have two internet friends, a married couple, who are a great deal older than me (married over 50 years). I started using their first names because they urged me to, though it was a little uncomfortable at first. I have noticed that for awhile it was the case that when I told one of these models directly that I grew up in the South, sometimes it didn't adjust anything and sometimes it did. But now it always does. It's obviously had a programming upgrade to include more performative courtesy for Southerners.
Well done; something to think about.
I've written several pieces on my concept of being grounded: familiar with life in the real world of dirt and grass and animals, trees and sky and clouds, in the country not the city. And at the same time familiar with technology: how it works, how it has evolved, and is continuing to evolve. Perhaps helping to maintain a balance to keep from getting off on some emotional track that seems real but isn't.
And it probably helps that my Substack I started in August '23 is now up to only 20 subscribers from the original 12, mostly friends and family. That's OK. My subscription is free because I'm retired, and don't need the money or the hassle of bookkeeping for the IRS. And it bears out what I stated in my opening, that it's hard to be heard when you're nobody from nowhere, at least as far as the Internet is concerned.
But things do grow, and it can be easy for them to get out of hand. I like to keep things neat and ordered, at least on my computer, so I've maintained a folder in my mail app for "Comments and Likes." It started out with a few comments, mostly again from family and friends. Then as I began commenting on other's stacks, the numbers began to pick up, as did the personalities. Right now that folder holds 1725 likes and comments from Other People. It is nice to be noticed, but it can be overwhelming if you let it. That's where the real-life grounding comes in. As far as the real physical world is concerned, that's all just a bunch of pixels on a monitor. At the same time, it's the thoughts captured in those pixels that count. Maintain that balance.
I am so glad i didnt seem to get this gene. Or the sportsball gene. I just dont seem to notice if one doesnt reply to a comment, or get butthurt by it. Or get overly excited by a like or reply back.
Maybe this comes from being on the internet now for being on the internet for 32 years and interacting with people who might be a dog on the otherside of the country/world. Is it possible that I got "socialized" to this faceless people thing before the rise of social media? OTOH I never had celebrity crushes, or got "into" people on tv.
I suspect this extends into the political realm. All the obama is jesus types, or the trumpalos sure seem to have the parasocial relationship with their targets.
Or, maybe its the fact that in this era i have a very stable supportive relationship that meets all my needs?
Another thing that helps us non-persona in Substack:
Go to Settings --> Notifications --> Engagement, and turn off both Likes and Replies.
Replies can be filtered in the Activity tab anyway, and most of the rest gets lost in the jumble.
Another solid post that benefits both readers and writers. Thank you!
I enjoyed the bit about the fact that this isn't Only Fans. People are purchasing or browsing the writing, not the writer. I know lines can get blurred when we express personal life things, but it's still curated writing.
Also, I wanted to respond to this quote: "Don’t mirror the intensity. If someone comes in hot—praising you too much or projecting emotion—don’t match the energy out of politeness. Stay grounded."
When this happens it could be because a person comes on with a Drama Triangle role already in their head, like they want to save/rescue you, and you can match their energy which would mean acting like a victim who needs their help. Or vice versa, they come on complaining about a problem looking for a savior, and you match with being that savior. That only blurs the line more.
I've had that happen, and I have had to explain with a cool head that's not what this relationship is, and they get confused or angry. But it's just because their bubble has burst.
No matter what if someone puts an overlay on you, they will likely get mad at you when it bursts, regardless if it was all their fault.
But hopefully your article will help people to be more aware and not fall into that trap, or even see it in others and warn creators, like I have tried to do at times. Because so often creators feel confused when the person flips outs. This helps them to understand what is going on and understanding is such a huge help.
Thanks Holly. I’m learning so much from you.
I subscribe to one person on Substack who is truly a friend. We seldom see each other face-to-face, but our relationship goes back a number of years. Your post is so true. We must cultivate real live relationships in our lives and not let parasocial relationships have dominion.
Exactly. I’ve written about this as a digression many times, though this is the most direct and comprehensively I’ve done so. I mention Josh a lot because so much of our audience overlaps and it’s even easier for people to have parasocial tendencies towards him (he’s often the first person to give language to their family dysfunction). I’m in large part drawing/modeling lines. This is real life…this is parasocial internet stuff.