The Internet's Age of Rage

RackNine sends this excerpt from an editorial at the Guardian: "The worldwide web has made critics of us all. But with commenters able to hide behind a cloak of anonymity, the blog and chatroom have become forums for hatred and bile. ... The psychologists call it 'deindividuation.' It's what happens when social norms are withdrawn because identities are concealed. The classic deindividuation experiment concerned American children at Halloween. Trick-or-treaters were invited to take sweets left in the hall of a house on a table on which there was also a sum of money. When children arrived singly, and not wearing masks, only 8% of them stole any of the money. When they were in larger groups, with their identities concealed by fancy dress, that number rose to 80%. The combination of a faceless crowd and personal anonymity provoked individuals into breaking rules that under 'normal' circumstances they would not have considered. ... One simple antidote to this seems to rest in the very old-fashioned idea of standing by your good name. Adopt a pseudonym and you are not putting much of yourself on the line. Put your name to something and your words are freighted with responsibility."

Comments

Eternal September

[betterunixthanunix]

I believe this was first noticed in 1993.

Body Language

[Wolfling1]

Whilst deindividuation is a recognised problem, I also believe the absence of non-verbal cues is a huge issue as well.

When we queue for a teller at the bank, there is a natural interaction between us that is completely non-verbal. We can see the woman who is stressed by an obnoxious child. We can see the fragile old man who needs extra time. On the Internet (and in traffic), these signals are not present. We often gauge each other's behaviour and responses in the context of our own lives and emotional state.

And this all occurs in the overarching context of our progressively deteriorating grasp on the English language. Smileys, and more recently Lol-speak, are an attempt to flesh out our inability to express our emotions in the written word. Lol-speak, or meme-speak is starting to help, but its had the whole of about 10 years to evolve - compared to a few hundred thousand years of the evolution of our non-verbal communication.

Is it any wonder that tolerance is lacking?

Thankfully, we're not completely stupid, and we're starting to adapt to the problem. Hence my personal favourite phrase on the Internet: Don't feed the trolls.

Re:Body Language

[epyT-R]

'deindividualization' is actually 'REindividualization.' IE bypassing today's increasing pressures to conform, individuals are saying what they really think, and, according to this article anyway, that's a bad thing. I disagree completely. Feelings, consensus, and politeness should never outweigh rationality, truth, and objectivity. If they do, then we've lost the whole point of communications in the first place.

I grasp your concept about cues, but it's also supposed to be understood that those on the internet are unaware and (usually) don't care about any particular user's personal problems. The user is supposed to understand this by default. This isn't a rule I made up, it's just part of the deal. There just aren't any other cues other than the language used by the user and the peers he is communicating with. I remember a time when this was considered a good thing because irrelevant attributes were not used to judge.

Whose tolerance? If anything, the tolerance of the overly sensitive, emotional types that make up the majority of society is what's lacking. This was always true, but, like the anonymous users they whine about, systems like the internet allow them to hit critical groupthink mass as well, forcing their censorious expectations on ever growing amounts of communication between individuals. No matter what they say, their feelings do not justify censoring uncomfortable truth, which is the real reason they would like to stamp out anonymity whereever they find it.

Re:Wow 20%?

[SilverHatHacker]

What I've seen is that "most adults" have been indoctrinated with the idea that morals are an outdated tool used by society to control the weak-minded. Quite often they will respond with variations of "how dare you push your moral code on me" and "I can decide for myself what's right and wrong". With that kind of self-oriented view of right and wrong, none of this surprises me.

Re:The obvious point that no one ever talks about

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I don't know that that is what is actually going on. Based on what I observe from others, and what I observe in myself, I think the type of communication we are talking about encourages us to think differently. Are you voicing a hostile thought, that you always had, because it is now safe to do so or are you now having a hostile thought (which then gets voiced) that you would not have had before because only now it is safe to think like that?

Works in MeatWorld also...

[cbybear]

I've been biking to work for over 4 years now. About 3 months ago I attached a GoPro HD camera to my helmet to record my bike ride. It is very obvious on my helmet, impossible to miss if you see me on the bike.

Almost instantly I noticed a drop in car aggression towards me. And so far I've not had anymore "drivers get out of the car and threaten violence" situations. I decided on a camera for legal reasons. Police always told me whenever I reported something that it was my word against theirs. So I expected the camera to help with that. I was a bit surprised when a lot of the problems just stopped.

So anonymous behaviors extend into the real-world and are combatted in the same way. De-anonymousization...

--kev

Re:Wow 20%?

[hey!]

What I've seen is that "most adults" have been indoctrinated with the idea that morals are an outdated tool used by society to control the weak-minded.

I don't think they've been indoctrinated. What you're describing is people rationalizing something that makes them feel bad about themselves. In a way the truth is worse than systemic indoctrination. It's systemic disillusionment.

When you're a kid, they tell you that you are special. Even if nobody can see what makes you special, we're taught to have faith that there is something inside you that is wonderful. Then you become an adult and very quickly it goes from "you are special" to "who the f**k do you think you are?" It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, because so many people are insecure because time is ticking away and their special-ness hasn't manifested itself. People are so desperate to keep up appearances they'll crawl all over other peoples' egos to do it.

Now me, I've been in situations where I've done the right thing even though nobody would know, but that's because I'm so egotistical I *still* think I'm special. I don't have proof of that, nor do I need it. My geek narcissism is sufficient to make me think of myself as wonderful. Now I suppose that by some standards I'm a fool for passing up on opportunities that "everybody" takes, but my way has its compensations. I don't have to worry that other people will find out I'm not as good as they think I am, because I'm too self-centered to care what other people think. But there is one person whose opinion matters a great deal to me. I'd hate to disappoint him, because he's in a position to know if I'm not up to scratch.