General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Is Everyone on the Internet So Angry (toward one another)? (Scientific American)
1. This is a year old but certainly still pertinent.2. Don't get me wrong, there are many reasons to be angry and outraged, but how people interact online is often times hateful and counterproductive.
3. I expect snark and hatefulness in response to this post, or maybe it will just sink into oblivion.
* * *
A perfect storm engenders online rudeness, including virtual anonymity and thus a lack of accountability, physical distance and the medium of writing
These days, online comments "are extraordinarily aggressive, without resolving anything," said Art Markman, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. "At the end of it you can't possibly feel like anybody heard you. Having a strong emotional experience that doesn't resolve itself in any healthy way can't be a good thing."
<snip>
A perfect storm of factors come together to engender the rudeness and aggression seen in the comments' sections of Web pages, Markman said. First, commenters are often virtually anonymous, and thus, unaccountable for their rudeness. Second, they are at a distance from the target of their anger be it the article they're commenting on or another comment on that article and people tend to antagonize distant abstractions more easily than living, breathing interlocutors. Third, it's easier to be nasty in writing than in speech, hence the now somewhat outmoded practice of leaving angry notes (back when people used paper), Markman said. [Infographic: A Typical Day on the Internet]
And because comment-section discourses don't happen in real time, commenters can write lengthy monologues, which tend to entrench them in their extreme viewpoint. "When you're having a conversation in person, who actually gets to deliver a monologue except people in the movies? Even if you get angry, people are talking back and forth and so eventually you have to calm down and listen so you can have a conversation," Markman told Life's Little Mysteries.
Chiming in on comment threads may even give one a feeling of accomplishment, albeit a false one. "There is so much going on in our lives that it is hard to find time to get out and physically help a cause, which makes 'armchair activism' an enticing [proposition]," a blogger at Daily Kos opined in a July 23 article.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-everyone-on-the-internet-so-angry
adric mutelovic
(208 posts)Do you have any idea how large "everyone" is?
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)It's fascinating to me what people get hung up on order to miss the point being made.
Really, simply fascinating.
adric mutelovic
(208 posts)How do explain the exaggeration phenomenon I cited above?
+1
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)Yet in most cases of extreme snark, I detect IMMENSE anger and bitterness beneath the surface.
I'm not a psychologist. Never played one on TV either.
But, as someone who enjoys conversation -- authentic conversation, with respectful back-and-forth rather than mere broadcasting...with people using various techniques to see who can broadcast the loudest -- I really find online interactions intriguing.
My observations over the last 15 years, with DU being no exception, support those in the article. Just my experience and opinion, of course.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)And keeps us from focusing on them. Easy peasy.
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)fan the flames, so to speak, keeping us at one another's throats, for the precise reason you state: distraction.
They've accomplished that goal for a long time, that's for sure.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)They use anonymous people as their "whipping boy", to vent the venom they store up, knowing that they will never meet the person they have just abused.
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Also, nutty people stuck at home with nothing but booze get bored and enjoy imaginary drama.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)In person, politeness is used as a mask of deceit.
Perhaps the Emily Post mask will replace Guy Fawkes?
annabanana
(52,791 posts)Good Night Folks!
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)Edit to add: Well, anonymous to one another, not the NSA or Booz Allen.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Many years back, I started to write an essay that I titled "The Unhappy American" about all the anger I seemed to see in society.
" The Unhappy American
"The world is full of hate," Charlie Brown says to Schroeder, who replies, "Do you really think that's true?" "I know it is true," Charlie Brown says, "the whole world hates me."
Tracy Ullman did a series of skits where she played the daughter of two gay men. In one skit she took a job at a fast food restaurant, and wanted to quit. She told her parents, "I took this job to learn about the real world, and I think I have learned enough."
"What could you have learned in just half an hour?" They asked.
She replied. "I have learned that it's cold, it's cruel, it's dirty, and it's full of people who hate you and are mean to you just because you are different."
Both of those statements are hyperbolic, but quite often in my life it seems like they are true. ..."
That some of that spills over on the internet is not really surprising.
Most of my discussion experience is on DU or other liberal websites, so the part that I see seems to be tied a little bit to parts of the standard liberal philosophy. The liberal, to their credit, is a warrior against bigotry. However, to their shame, the main strategy in this battle seems to be - hate. Supposedly we will win the battle against bigotry by heaping derision upon all those bigots out there. So the job of the bigot-warrior is to seek out bigots wherever they may be found and then put those bigots on a virtual pillory where they can be told just what sort of disgusting vermin they are. Like so http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2997022
To be wrong, is not just to be wrong, it is to be wrong - and evil.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/37
Do we think things because we want to
Posted by hfojvt in The DU Lounge
Mon Feb 12th 2007, 01:53 PM
or because they seem true to us? It may depend on the person and the case. When there are rewards involved, like people who want to believe that tax cuts are a good idea because they want that extra money. But what about when there is no obvious dog in the hunt? Some of the stubborn arguing comes from a core belief - I want to believe that I am intelligent and informed, and even beneath that, I want to believe that I am worthy of respect and affection. Sort of like the Nomad effect. Nomad's prime directive was that everyone who made a mistake must be destroyed. Is that the human prime directive - everyone who makes a mistake must have their ego destroyed? Often that seems to be the theme in arguments or discussions - you are not only wrong, you are contemptible for being so.
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)Maybe it isn't that the interactions are more vitriolic online than in person; maybe it's just that there is SO MUCH MORE interaction online. Sheer numbers.
Plus, a lot of times in the "real" world, a lot of the nastiness is said behind someone's back, not to their face; but it's being said nonetheless.
Anyway, thank you for this. Much appreciated. Well done.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)tribalism seems intrinsic to human, if not animal nature for pack animals. You have pack members, with whom you have certain rules of behavior and then you have non-pack members who are to be mercilessly attacked by the pack and driven out of pack territory.
Humans, though, because we have language, do not just drive the other tribe out of our territory, we sit around and talk about the other tribe. I forget the precise term, but in sociology, such talking is a way to maintain tribal unity. In such ways, members of the tribe are reminded about how they are supposed to speak, the proper way to say shibboleth, the things members of the tribe are supposed to believe, and the tribe is united in their hatred of the other tribe.
Now, I have previously written about the sharks (Freepers, tehadists, repukes) and the Jets (DUers, Occupiers, Democrats) but the Jets are not totally unified either as there are various sub-groups. In DU terms you might have BOGgers (Barack Obama Group) and Firebaggers (after FiredogLake). as well as suspected trolls. Members of one sub-tribe will feel a need or obligation to attack those in the other sub-tribe and against trolls, or suspected trolls, well there are no holds barred in fighting THEM.
The other is the selection process. If you read something that inspires or informs you, you are not likely to post a reply. What is more likely to motivate a reply is something you disagree with. Even if you agree with the post 80%, you are likely to respond with corrections about the 20%. There is a certain amount of "positive" posting like knr, +1, +2, + 1,000. Although I put positive in quotes because I have seen many of those where 1 person posts, say to me, "you are a pompous arrogant jerk" and they get a positive reply "+1", "well said". But flame wars and bitter arguments are probably going to stand out in memory more than a once a week positive remark. A pat on the back does not stand out the way a punch in the nose does.
And words, or ideas, can make people angry. Myself, I really hate Reaganomics. So if somebody writes something espousing Reaganomics, then I might not respond so nicely, and everybody else has their hotbutton issues. We are discussing politics often on the internet, something we perhaps avoid in real life. People who care one way or another, are passionate about their politics. I find that internet discussions about genealogy do not generate nearly as much heat. And politics rarely spills into it, although one person did object to my signature line about George W, Bush.
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)Great stuff, hfojvt.
I suppose it's a matter of different personality types, too. And, maybe certain personality types are more inclined to engage online more than others.
For example, you wrote:
That may be true of a lot of people; I don't know. I do know that doesn't describe me. In fact, I'm just the opposite. That's probably why I created a Good News group here...lol (plug!).
Unless people have something constructive to add, I wish they'd be quiet, to be honest. That's one of the things that annoys me most about online spaces. A lot of people are more concerned about broadcasting their views -- often not in an intelligent way, just spewing forth some irrational diatribe or inserting a curt, snarky remark -- rather than contributing to a real conversation. (I'm not referring to this thread, btw; I invited humor with my intro in the OP.)
I guess this is a matter of perspective, too. Because of the general negative climate, kindness stands out to me, whereas animosity tends to blend with the other white noise. I notice the general atmosphere of attack but the specific attacks don't stick with me for some reason...lol. Weird, now that I think about it.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)It's easy to spew vile remarks behind the internet. Most internet users are young and male. Therefore, I'm not that surprised that the teenage sons of two Senators were caught making highly inflammatory statements on Tweeter and other social sites. What I wonder is if these young guys truly believe the crap they write or is it the typical braggadocio of many young males. I've noticed that guys tend to do and say things in groups that they would never do or say when they are by themselves.
Personally, I treat the internet as a means of having a conversation with actual people. I never write anything I wouldn't say to a person if they were standing in front of me. But, there are many people who hide behind the anonymity that the medium gives them and say things they would never have the guts to say in person.
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)indeed
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)just kidding
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Just kidding! I'll try to do better!
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It is alienating to do that kind of useful arguing in person.
Arguing with someone I'll never know is a low-risk endeavor.
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)Thanks, lumberjack_jeff. That's a new perspective for me.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)From another person who feels argument helps crystallize & refine their thoughts. Also forces you to find more information & often gives you information you didn't have before.
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)for this insight and for the comment below.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I generally prefer to know as little as possible about the person with whom I'm arguing. If I'm worried about giving insult, I'm not communicating honestly; I'm giving a hug. If I'm saying something calculated to be insulting, I'm also not communicating honestly, nor am I refining my thoughts, I'm engaged in a fistfight.
Neither is useful.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)without accountability and with anonymity we are terrible people
OneGrassRoot
(22,923 posts)We've seen how vile people are on twitter and Facebook even when people KNOW who they really are.
And that young woman who ranted in Dunkin Donuts last week.
Just wow.
I'm not sure what to think about it all right now, to be honest. It's really disconcerting.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)branding of ordinary politeness as hypocritical, uptight, racist/sexist & it seeped into the popular consciousness.
Little modeling of politeness in popular media, etc. either.
Iggo
(47,587 posts)2. See 1.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)CrispyQ
(36,556 posts)A lot of people feel they've "played by all the rules," but they are not getting what they were told they would, a good job, a secure retirement, generally, some kind of monetary payoff. We work more hours than the rest of the developed countries & most of us are one medical disaster away from financial ruin. Ten thousand of us show up for 50 jobs at McDonald's.
As a country, I think we suffer badly from the "rugged individualist" mentality. Our sense of community is very exclusive, not inclusive. The internet has changed things, too. It's always easier to be a jerk to someone you aren't going to run into. It's easy to be a jerk anonymously, when people you know don't know what you said.
I won't even go into our cesspool of a culture that glorifies bad behavior, from the behavior of our entertainment stars, to our government officials, to people on "reality" TV. It all filters down & you end up with a general acceptance of lower standards of conduct everywhere.
I like the ones that have to get the last word in. I let them feel exceptional!