Slashdot Mirror
Why Are We So Rude Online?
kodiaktau writes "An article in the WSJ discusses why internet users are more rude online than they are in person. The story discusses some of the possible reasons. For example, a study found that browsing Facebook tends to lower people's self control. An MIT professor says people posting on the internet have lowered inhibitions because there is no formal social interaction. Another theory is that communicating through a phone or other device feels like communicating with a 'toy,' which dehumanizes the conversation. Of course, a rude conversation has never happened on Slashdot in the last 15 years."
Like what?
Anonymity has always caused assholishness. People were assholes in cars before being assholes online.
I had a guy here wish me to be in hospital after a traffic accident in the cycling thread.
If one met someone like that IRL, one would generally back away, call them a fucking psycho or, perhaps if one was so-inclined and felt suitably threatened, punch the guy in the face. Usually 1 and or 2 though.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm not sure that explains it all. My girlfriend and I both hate our phone conversations but love our in-person conversations, and we certainly know each other. There's something about communicating with a device that ruins a lot of the non-verbal stuff we take for granted.
I doubt that. Social networks which don't warrant anonymity (e.g. Facebook) prove to have the same rude audience as totally anonymous sites. My hypothesis is that it's
a) the larger audience. Especially male persons seem to be more aggressive if the audience is larger (yes, there are extensive studies about that, if needed I might be able to google up a citation). People who are totally nice and gentle in 1-1 situations become total jerks if many people are watching. The Internet is as an audience second only to the Super Bowl and the Soccer World Championship.
b) the decoupled reaction of the audience. Face to face the reaction starts while you are still acting, and you start to adapt while not even finishing your sentence. A lot of overreaching rudeness is thus dampened before it can be acted out. In not fully real time conversations as chats, the reaction already comes late, and via email, on message boards and profile based social sites, it can be hours until the reaction is there. Until then your own rudeness rules supreme because no social control can be exercised on you.
So no, anonymity is not the problem. Size of audience and delayed social control is.
fuck you. that's why
If one met someone like that IRL, one would generally back away, call them a fucking psycho or, perhaps if one was so-inclined and felt suitably threatened, punch the guy in the face. Usually 1 and or 2 though.
Physical proximity is not the opposite of anonymity. What I think is going on here is consequences. If there are painful consequences for rude behavior, even if nobody knows who you are, then there's disincentive to be rude.
First, most people are rude in general. We put a mask of politeness on top of it when in public for fear of "causing a scene" (or picking on the wrong person who *isn't* afraid of causing a scene back).
I find it amazing how many people will let, say, someone push in front of a queue. In some, perfectly civil, countries it's positively mandatory to fight with your fellow man to be the next person served. In others, you can jump in front of a queue of 50 and barely be tutted at, for fear of "causing a scene", even if you're not some huge bruiser.
But inside our heads, we're all thinking "Arsehole" when that happens, even if not with that exact word. Some people will expose that internal thought to the outside world, most won't.
On the Internet, the same reason you can have more in-depth conversations about controversial topics, tell people you've never met things about you that you haven't told your own friends, and air views just to cause a nuisance because you find it funny: Anonymity, or at least pseudo-anonymity, let's you not worry about causing a scene. The worst you'll get is some online reaction that you can block, ignore or just not visit that site again.
I've done it myself. Aired my views on a topic which doesn't have a definitive answer, been shouted down, not bothered to read the other people's rants and opinions or just not bothered to read that thread ever again.
Everyone is being rude all day long - calling their boss, the person in the other car, the person on the other end of the phone, or any number of other people names in the privacy of their head. Sometimes they let it slip because it's consequence-less or they don't care about the consequences. And on the Internet, the consequences are generally SEVERELY limited so it's easier to say what you think without rationalising too much and having to stop insulting people.
Everyone, in the privacy of their head, has thought "You're a dickhead" about someone they know or have met. The Internet just lets you air that without anyone ever knowing that it's YOU saying it (if you've half a brain about not putting your personal information on the net).
I wouldn't focus too much on the machine part of the equation.
Anonymity along with the internet bringing different cultures together creates a situation were people can get annoyed and frustrated combined with a degree of safety that allows them to become jerks with little to no repercussions.
In my travels, I have always found things people do different enough to annoy me mildly, sometime even a lot. The other people do not know it annoys me, they are used to it because it is normal for them. When we are face to face, we think more about hurting someone's feelings or the fact that they might punch us in the nose or something. When we are isolated by technology, we don't have to think about those things. But mostly, you will find other people's behavior to normally be different and that difference can be or can cause the rudeness on the interweb tubes thingy..
Well, this writes itself. People in cars are just so crazy as opposed to when you see them face to face.
It's not about being anonymous or not, it's simply the mode of communication.
which is totally what she said
See Jeremy Clarkson of Top Rear.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
They don't want to trick or guild-trip you, they want to see themselves being polite and convincing.
So the small talk is addressed to themselves, not you.
Knowing this will not soften your hate. Sorry !
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
The sad truth pointed out by both of those studies is that approximately 60% of us -- all of us, even those of us who claim to be, and act like, normal ethical people in polite society -- will commit acts of cruelty upon another human being, even to the point of delivering potentially lethal electrical shocks to someone obviously in distress, if the social sanctions against it are removed.
That isn't what those studies showed at all. They demonstrated that people will act against their own morals when someone in authority tells them to. In the Milgram experiment many of the subjects protested but ultimately carried on at the behest of a man in a white coat telling them to. In the Stanford Prison Experiment the prisoners compiled with the guards demands, even though there was no legal or ethical requirement for them to do so, and the guards fed off their collective authority.
In both cases the conclusion is that when there is authority involved people will tend to both comply with it and get caught up in enforcing it, even if doing so goes against the normal moral code and involves things they would not do as an individual.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
But see, I take away a different conclusion entirely, from both studies. Morals aren't really morals if you drop them for an authority figure. To me, morals are what you as a person believe, and will not abandon just because someone in a lab coat tells you to. That's the disquieting truth of both experiments: the majority of what people regard as their own moral conduct is actually just socially-reinforced behavioral norms. That's the point of the pigeon example; or, to put it more sharply: if you could get away with committing an act of cruelty, with no negative consequences whatsoever, would you do it? Both studies suggest that most people would, and the experience of people living under Pinochet -- or any number of other horrible dictators -- verifies this.
The reason is very simple, if somewhat disheartening. Take a look at some of the literature on human behavior, particularly the studies on the "banality of evil" (texbook scenarios are the Milgram Experiment and the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment).
The sad truth pointed out by both of those studies is that approximately 60% of us -- all of us, even those of us who claim to be, and act like, normal ethical people in polite society -- will commit acts of cruelty upon another human being, even to the point of delivering potentially lethal electrical shocks to someone obviously in distress, if the social sanctions against it are removed.And those were both cases in which the victims had voices and (in the latter case) faces by which the perpetrators could witness the suffering they were causing.
In short, the majority of people will be cruel, spiteful bullies if they believe they can get away with it. For me, a good example is (oddly) watching how people treat pigeons (??): they're harmless, no more dirty than, say, hoboes, and live around us. But they are negatively viewed as carriers of disease ("rats of the skies" is such a cliché, and what's so bad about rats, anyway?), and most people wouldn't think twice about trying to scare them and threaten to cause them harm. It seems a bit melodramatic, but I often wonder why a person would want to be mean to some random harmless animal. I think, sadly, that it's because most people like being mean, and just need a venue to get away with it.
The Pinochet regime in Chile figured this out pretty quickly: you don't need to make people commit acts of cruelty against their will. All you have to do is provide a venue for cruelty without consequences, and the people will come out of the woodwork of their own accord. And Facebook/YouTube/your local news station's comments section are just such venues.
Don't be so pessimistic!
The Milgram experiment shows us not that people are inherently evil, malicious or spiteful but that in the right social context people will follow an authority figure's instructions even if it overrides their normal moral response. The origin of the experiment was as a response to the question of if Nazi soldiers were responsible for their actions in war or if their superiors should be held accountable.
The Stanford prison experiment showed that when given a 'role' such as prison guard people will begin to 'act' as befitting their role, behaving as they think they should behave and becoming mentally trapped by the subjective experience of the situation as opposed to the objective reality.
The truth is as always more complicated than 'people are just evil'. It's a matter of context and the situation we find ourselves in as much or more than base nature and upbringing are concerned.
But don't just trust me, keep and open mind and investigate for yourself. As a matter of fact the two linked Milgram and Stanford studies are VERY interesting reading!
It is a phenomenon very similar to road rage if we think about it.
Agreed.
And road rage is basically about attempting to have 'power' over someone else. That defines the human condition in many people. They have poor 'anger management' skills. An example: At their job (and in their private life) they HAVE to take orders from others, this creates anger in them, but they can't express their feelings in a correct manner, and that anger builds, and builds. Now put them in 'control' of a 'powerful' automobile, or an online forum, and look out! They'll take out their un-vented anger on anyone who 'dares' (to their mind) to dis-respect them in the slightest. It all comes down to us wanting to have 'control' in our lives. And when we feel we don't have control, the easiest way to regain control, is to yell, lash out inappropiatly, to attempt to 'bully' people to get our way. A childlike response to the situation.
If anyone reading this sees themselves here, or has an angry, controlling person in their lives, I'd suggest you google "angry people" and "anger management" and read up on it. Spending your life upset and angry all the time is a terrible waste, and it just hurts you and the people around you. Have a great day! :-)
I always liked this one, "An Ethical man knows what is right, a Moral man does it."
There's something about communicating with a device that ruins a lot of the non-verbal stuff we take for granted.
You can't look at her tits when you're talking to her on the phone.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!