Reasons for internet unpleasantness

[Chatter]

...I'd venture to say that the vast majority of nasty fights I've seen online are a direct result of this view. I think if people generally were more conscious of the fact that there are real people behind the usernames - people of varying ages, from diverse backgrounds, with real feelings - most everyone would get along much better. Of course there would still be assholes who treat others like shit for their own amusement, but I really think such people are a tiny minority, at least on the forums where I've been a member.I think drama of some sort is a natural component of human social interaction. It seems to breed on internet fora, probably inpart b/c of the partial dehumanization of the other people behind the keyboards that vm mentioned, and also simply because we're missing a lot of the face to face social feedback. If I see that the first sentence of my diatribe about your ridiculous beliefs about whatever makes your expression turn hurt or angry, I'm going to act on that observation, even subconsciously, and likely not continue down that path. If I'm able to sit and compose my entire screed without any feedback, and then poast it, you're going to get the whole thing.Why is there so much drama and unpleasantness on internet fora, assuming there is more than in other sorts of human interaction? Do anonymous usernames play a role? Is it the dehumanisation of posters? Is it the lack of significant consequences for such behaviour? Is it the lack of feedback present in face to face dialogue, such as facial expressions and tone of voice?

What sort of "real world" setting can we best use to compare internet forums to, in order to help answer this question?

Replies such as "fuck off wanker" are most welcome.

Oh, and Adam, that's an unusual typo you have made with "poast". Are you, by any chance, using a Dvorak keyboard?

[Hugo Holbling]

This something we've discussed on several occasions at another forum. You might find this paper of interest: Kierkegaard on the Internet: Anonymity vrs. Commitment in the Present Age (http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/paper_kierkegaard.html) by Herbert Dreyfus. Here is an excerpt:

Kierkegaard might well have denounced the Internet for the same reasons. I will spell out Kierkegaard’s likely objections by considering how the Net promotes Kierkegaard’s two nihilistic spheres of existence, the aesthetic and the ethical, while repelling the religious sphere. In the aesthetic sphere, the aesthete avoids commitments and lives in the categories of the interesting and the boring and wants to see as many interesting sights (sites) as possible. People in the ethical sphere could use the Internet to make and keep track of commitments but would be brought to the despair of possibility by the ease of making and unmaking commitments on the Net. Only in the religious sphere is nihilism overcome by making a risky, unconditional commitment. The Internet, however, which offers a risk-free simulated world, would tend to undermine rather than support any such ultimate concern.

[Chatter]

Thanks, Hugo. I think I've read this essay before, but I'll have another go at it.

[Adam]

Why is there so much drama and unpleasantness on internet fora, assuming there is more than in other sorts of human interaction? Do anonymous usernames play a role? Is it the dehumanisation of posters? Is it the lack of significant consequences for such behaviour? Is it the lack of feedback present in face to face dialogue, such as facial expressions and tone of voice?

Well, to continue my previous naval-gazing (and that's exactly what it is...I have no empirical evidence, merely my own personal observations and speculations), I do think that what we think of as drama is a natural component of human interaction, for a number of reasons.

We're wired up, to an extent, to have a high degree of interest in the behaviors and motivations of those in our social groups, as a matter of practical survival. Get a few dozen such folk behavioralists together and let them hypothezise about each other's motivations long enough, and you're bound to have some mistakes. When those mistakes are misfires of the 'hostility detection routines', you get drama. The potential for such misfires is greater in the context of the internet, IMO, due to the lack of physical and verbal cues I mentioned earlier. We're all familiar with how difficult it can be to differentiate sarcastic comments from serious ones without the aid of an appropriate smiley.

We're also natural alliance builders. We're likely to prominently display our allegience to our in-groups in numerous practical and symbolic fashions. Taking a friend's, or an ally's, side in an argument for no other reason than the maintenence of that relationship is not uncommon. In the real world, it's not likely that one will have half a dozen friends on hand to take one's side in an argument at the moment it occurs. In a forum thread, however, one's stance persists forall to read over the life of the thread, and one's friends and allies have abundent time and opportunity to jump in, leading to the dogpile effect we're all familiar with. While I'm on the topic of social in-groups, it seems worth mentioning the phenomenon of grandstanding to impress others, whether individuals one looks up to and desires recognition from, or individuals of the appropriate sex that one wants attention from. Again, this is a fairly normal occurrence in every day life, but one that is magnified by a forum thread's persistence in time.

Finally, there's the anonymity and lack of consequence inherent in internet fora. I may enjoy playing office politics (that's the general 'I'...the individual named Adam hates office politics), but there's a limit to how far I can go if I want to keep my job. Similarly, I may tend to jump into arguments to defend my friends, but there's a limit to how vicious I can get if I don't want to get pnched in the teeth. In the relatively anonymous context of the internet, there are very few real consequences to my actions. The worst that can happen is that one is banned from a particular forum, but that's what new accounts and identities are for. I think vm makes a good point about remembbering that there are real people behind the keyboards, as the loss of one's real internet friends if one behaves like too much of an ass may be the only real consequence of note in the strange social environment of forum life.

What sort of "real world" setting can we best use to compare internet forums to, in order to help answer this question?

I have no frickin' clue. The best analogy I can come up with is a social club of some sort, but I've never been a member of such an organization, so I can't say. I guess a workplace might have some semi-valid parallels, especially a workplace rife with office politics.

Replies such as "fuck off wanker" are most welcome.

Happy to oblige. Fuck off, wanker.

Oh, and Adam, that's an unusual typo you have made with "poast". Are you, by any chance, using a Dvorak keyboard?

No, I just have a chronic inability to hit just one button at a time with my oversized caveman hands, and the 'a' is right there next to the 's'. Raaawr....Adam smash puny keyboard!

[Adam]

Looks interesting, Hugo. I have it tagged to read.

[viscousmemories]

What sort of "real world" setting can we best use to compare internet forums to, in order to help answer this question?
I've never thought of or found a satisfying analogy. I've seen people try to compare online forums to libraries, bars, house parties, school, work, cafes, etc. and in my opinion - for various reasons - none of them really work.

Why is there so much drama and unpleasantness on internet fora, assuming there is more than in other sorts of human interaction? Do anonymous usernames play a role? Is it the dehumanisation of posters? Is it the lack of significant consequences for such behaviour? Is it the lack of feedback present in face to face dialogue, such as facial expressions and tone of voice?
I don't think we need to assume that there's more drama and unpleasantness online than in other sorts of human interaction, but I do think it's reasonable to assume that it has different causes and manifests in different ways.

I think the anonymity, dehumanisation, lack of consequences and feedback are all important considerations. There's also the permanent nature of comments on a forum. Someone might make a thoughtless comment in passing, only to have it critically dissected by someone who comes by a week later. There's also an unusual diversity in ages, nationalities, education, experiences, interests, time zones, etc. in the group.

Unfortunately I'm having difficulty drawing any interesting conclusions from all this at the moment, but I'll click submit anyway in the hopes that these thoughts will inspire someone else to brilliance.

[Veritas]

Simple. It's easy to hide behind a monitor and say controversial things you wouldn't dare to in RL, when no-one's gonna smash your face in.

[viscousmemories]

I'm sure that's true for some people but I don't think it applies across the board. I've discussed controversial subjects with people my whole life and I haven't had my face bashed in for doing so since I was in 5th grade. Granted I'm a fairly big guy and of course I generally have enough sense to adapt my comments to my audience - but for the most part I don't think immunity to violence has a tremendous influence on what I post.

[Veritas]

I think people are able to pick up on who would really say what in real life. If you get the feeling someone is trolling you and they'd never dare say those things in real life, that's annoying.

If I'm exchanging views with someone and I get the feeling they would say those things in real life, I might not agree with them but I would at least respect their honesty, if not entirely agree with their method of presentation.

[Carnivale Ed]

What sort of "real world" setting can we best use to compare internet forums to, in order to help answer this question?
The secret ballot? It's by no means a perfect analogy, but the same freedom from consequence is at play.