[HN Gopher] Ask HN: Why are people in real life so different?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: Why are people in real life so different?
Aside from the trolling and otherwise immature behaviour we see in
certain online communities (usually ones with a lot of very young
people), I've actually observed that people in real life seem so
much more complacent and uncritical compared to people online.
Maybe there's a sample bias because of the online communities I
visit (like HN) and the real world that I live in, but in general,
I've observed that people in real life seem overly concerned about
keeping things "harmonious", with all the small-talk, the lack of
real listening, talking past each other, not voicing differing
perspectives, etc. They also seem to lack patience in various
things, whether that's discussing or examining something (can't
think of examples right now), and would rather "go back to their
own lives". In contrast people online seem so much more generous.
I'm guessing this is partially because "being on the internet"
naturally filters people. But what else is there? What's your
experience with people online vs in real life? Why do you think
this is the case?
Author : samh748
Score : 119 points
Date : 2022-05-15 16:39 UTC (6 hours ago)
| [deleted]
| Animats wrote:
| "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down".
| thenerdhead wrote:
| I think you'd be surprised. Try asking questions that are deeper
| and you'll get deeper conversations. I hate small-talk, and every
| conversation in real life tends to be deeper than one online. I
| find more people online simply wanting to point out how wrong the
| other person is. Hell, I do it too.
|
| I think the most interesting comparison I've had is knowing of
| someone's reddit username and how they acted in real life. They
| were significantly different. The person in real life was kind,
| thoughtful, patient. Their reddit account however was filled with
| hate, know it all, and eager to argue.
|
| I think the old saying of an individual is a different person at
| work/home/play may also extend to online too.
| loxias wrote:
| Opening my mouth takes more effort than typing.
| SMAAART wrote:
| Anonymity often brings out the worst in some people.
|
| In the middle of that mud we can also find honest feedback, often
| unfiltered and not-sugar coated.
|
| IRL people are often too overly concerned about too many things
| that don't matter.
| Guthur wrote:
| In my day we used to ask why people are so different online than
| in real life...
| GeorgeTirebiter wrote:
| Text is such a low-bandwidth human-to-human interaction format,
| compared with f2f.
|
| I find, for example, that folks sometimes 'read into' what I
| write -- something that I, in fact, did not write -- in order to
| bolster their own arguments. This is a form of attacking the
| Straw Man, and I think the low-bandwidth text format is the
| reason for this sort of projection.
| greatwhitenorth wrote:
| There is a real world consequence if people in person act like
| how they act online. Anonymity makes people act like monkeys
| since there is no consequence. There are still people who use
| their real names online and act like morons but they are a
| minority and have low IQ.
| sweetbitter wrote:
| While it is easier to be mean online, it is also easier to be
| nice. On the internet I like to be very lighthearted and
| optimistic, and I find that many people IRL do not appreciate
| this. Also, you can be nice to other people by helping them do
| something, building something, whatever, and then you can
| dispose of an identity easily if you get emotionally attached
| to it. IRL if I did one thing or another, it would make me
| anxious to feel obligated to keep up a reputation whose surface
| area just keeps growing excessively (in terms of the number of
| words/actions), people may rely on you or expect you to act in
| a particular way. With anonymity you can mitigate this.
| seydor wrote:
| I think it's because of an ill-perception about what online
| forums are. They are not meant to be like real life, they are
| places for debate. When people debate they take stances that
| don't necessarily match their beliefs, and that's normal. Every
| online conversation is derailed because people let their emotions
| take over instead of remaining detached and treating it as a
| game. And while people can disagree impolitely, once they stand
| up from the table they are not going to kill each other.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| - I think people are more likely to be polite in person (perhaps
| it is more obvious that retaliation might happen or perhaps it is
| just being socialised to different norms).
|
| - In person, I think people are more likely to 'fill the space'
| in small groups and so the average thing that is said is low-
| entropy and polite whereas online (at least here) there is more
| of an attitude of only contributing when you have something to
| say and I think on average it is easier to have something to say
| that is critical than positive (and often there may be many
| unique seeming criticisms and fewer positive things even if the
| latter should carry more weight). In large groups where it is
| more likely that critical opinions may exist, I think people are
| just less likely to speak up in the real world.
|
| - there may be more criticism online but that doesn't mean the
| feedback is good online or in the real world. I think it's very
| hard to tell apart the useful (ie good) feedback from the
| useless.
| turzmo wrote:
| People in real life socialize for various reasons. For company,
| for dating, for connections, for future invitations. Deep
| discussions are not really conducive to any of those goals,
| especially in mixed company.
| [deleted]
| akomtu wrote:
| They don't trust you enough to tell you what they really think.
| Here on HN you get a downvote. IRL, the "downvoter" may get
| really vindictive, and if you aren't out of his reach, socially
| and physically, expect some real repercussions.
| swayvil wrote:
| The internet in a channel into peoples' unconsciousness. That's
| why they talk this way.
|
| Like talking to somebody who's talking in sleep.
|
| Reading/browsing is a kind of trance.
| sysadm1n wrote:
| > What's your experience with people online vs in real life?
|
| I've seen my fair share of 'Keyboard Warriors'[0] over the years.
| For some reason people feel more empowered once there's a
| keyboard there, because hey, computers are cool, let's ride that
| wave.
|
| [0]
| https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Keyboard%20W...
| sulam wrote:
| It's not just keyboards. People feel empowered to behave more
| aggressively when they are in anonymous (or perceived-to-be
| anonymous) situations. You see it in driving, people behave
| very differently behind the wheel, and their aggressiveness
| goes up when they're alone in the car vs being observed by
| people they know.
|
| In the limit I think this probably comes down to primate
| dynamics regarding in vs out-groups.
| turdnagel wrote:
| You think people feel empowered because computers are cool? I
| think it's more likely because of the (pseudo-)anonymity. When
| people are unafraid of the consequences, as there would be if
| you acted like a jerk in person, they're more likely to be
| nasty. A similar phenomenon can be observed on the road -
| people feel safe in their cars - hence "road rage".
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Many reasons
|
| - I've observed that people in real life seem overly concerned
| about keeping things "harmonious"
|
| In real life, leaving is not just closing a browser tab. When you
| are stuck with people, you try not to make it a bad time for you
| and the others.
|
| - They also seem to lack patience in various things
|
| Same reason, it is harder to ignore people in real life
|
| - In contrast people online seem so much more generous
|
| People online are often in front of a larger audience, your post
| can be seen by dozens of people, and you want to project a
| positive image. Also, online, you only show what you want to
| show, maybe you just took the seat from an old lady on the bus,
| but no one is there to see it.
|
| Online, people are different, I am different, you are different.
| It is simply a too different situation for people to be the same.
| 6510 wrote:
| The way I see it: You are different people on different media.
| The environment and participants might also change you like day
| an night.
| DerekBickerton wrote:
| See this: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-
| fuckwad-theo...
|
| > _The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (GIFT) is a postulate
| which asserts that normal, well-adjusted people may display
| psychopathic or antisocial behaviors when given both anonymity
| and a captive audience on the Internet_
|
| Also there is spell-check and programs that correct your grammar,
| so people seem well read and articulate but it's things like
| Grammarly that are making them seem 'Highbrow'.
|
| Worth noting that most communication is done _asynchronously_
| meaning people have loads of time to articulate their feelings
| and post perfect replies, whereas in real life we have a short
| real-time window to articulate our thoughts.
| muzani wrote:
| It's not quite true in my observation. Many RL people are much
| more aggressive. Many are less.
|
| I think people portray themselves differently in different
| contexts. Everyone is a caricature, but which side they emphasize
| depends on who's watching. Someone might be a skirt chaser among
| college friends, a board game freak on Instagram, and a virtue
| signaler on LinkedIn. It's still the same person, with the same
| opinions.
|
| The other side of the coin is algorithms. I like chess memes and
| basically the internet will highlight all of my friends who are
| into chess memes. When I'm angry at anti-vaxxers, suddenly
| everyone else is. Whenever I complain about the drop in KFC
| quality, I find that everyone I know is just _furious_ about KFC.
|
| It's why I stopped using FB and Twitter; it's basically a warped
| mirror. Plus the algorithms encourage being a caricature. It's
| the PewDiePie effect - the difference between a gamer and a
| millionaire celebrity gamer is that the celebrity is always
| hyperactive and screaming at stuff. There's also a kind of tribal
| effect in play.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| Anonymity allows you to be freed from your inhibitions. If
| statements in real life were made as callously then people might
| fear for their employment, housing situation, family issue,
| schools, etc., being impacted in some manners. Those enforce
| boundaries that your inhibitions generally restrain you from
| breaking. As you get older then you are less restrained due to
| lack of boundaries. 2 cents.
| pgt wrote:
| Consequences.
| stigz wrote:
| I agree with you that a given person typically has a different
| personality online vs. offline.
|
| However, I disagree with you that people are more "kumbya" in
| person than online.
|
| My experience has been people are much more aggressive and mean
| in person. People are constantly shit-talking, passing undue
| judgment, road raging complete strangers. It's absolutely
| terrifying.
|
| Online, I still feel there is ugliness, but I tend to find people
| will put together clear and reasonable arguments. Especially in
| communities like this one.
| [deleted]
| prohobo wrote:
| I think there's definitely self-selection, the anonymity effect,
| and the fact that when people say things online they're usually
| in a safe place and have time to ruminate.
|
| Mostly you just need to catch certain people at the right time to
| have those kinds of discussions.
| lovelearning wrote:
| In my case, I'm able to express my opinions better while writing
| than talking. I had vocal and speech defects in childhood that
| made me a hesitant talker. Though they improved over the years,
| the mental inhibitions have persisted.
|
| Another (more recent) reason for my multiple personae is that I
| hold some unwelcome views about politics, society, religion etc.
| They can result in actual physical harm or state intimidation
| where I live.
|
| So not only do I have different personae in real life and
| virtual, but I have multiple virtual personae too for different
| interest areas. The anonymous ones are where I'm most open and
| honest.
| anon_d wrote:
| You have been intensely socialized to behave like a robot in
| person. To wear a mask and not do anything that stands out.
|
| People expect this, so doing anything "off script" around other
| people makes them EXTREMELY uncomfortable. If they are strangers,
| they usually "filter you out", pretend they don't notice, and
| create distance. If they are associated with you, they will
| immediately begin pressuring you to stop in increasingly less
| subtle ways.
|
| Everything about our social interactions is completely scripted.
| We are choosing between pre-approved scripts that we learned
| movies and shows. In our public behavior, we are literally just
| executing software that has been uploaded to our brains.
|
| You mostly don't notice this because that's all you've ever
| known. However, if you deliberately force yourself outside the
| script YOU WILL NOTICE, and you will notice very, very intensely.
|
| As a consequence, most of the "interesting" people that you meet
| in real life are hiding, taking on the same exterior behaviors as
| everyone else.
| 3grlkjlkj35 wrote:
| botulidze wrote:
| As kids, we learn and mirror behavior of our parents. Over
| internet we don't see our parents' behavior, so we start
| mirroring whatever the average behavior is used.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| When I post to HN, I'm _not_ talking, not chatting. I 'm posting.
| Creating a constructed statement to add to a focused discussion.
| If we chatted, I'm sure it would be a substantially different
| experience. Also, IRL, I'm not a Capitalist.
| woodruffw wrote:
| This is a great framing: the thing we call "talking" online
| isn't really the same thing we do when we talk to our friends
| (or random strangers). It's a lot closer to writing a position
| piece, except almost nobody writes those for fun (and yet we
| all love to argue on the Internet!).
| twoxproblematic wrote:
| Fermat963 wrote:
| "Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting
| people and not getting punched in the face for it," Mike Tyson.
|
| The "punch" here is metaphorical and could be any stakes that the
| person would be at risk of losing: social etc.
| rewtraw wrote:
| or maybe not metaphorical...
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/boxing/mike-tyson-video-...
| jphoward wrote:
| People don't feel guilt online, generally, because they either
| forget the person they are talking to is a vulnerable human, or
| they just imagine them as someone deserving of their vitriol.
|
| However, as soon as they are sat in front of someone and are
| picking up on the visual clues in facial expressions and body
| language which make it clear that what they are saying is
| actually affecting a real person with feelings, almost everyone
| has a profound sense of empathy or guilt.
| sph wrote:
| In other words, our mirror neurons and empathy aren't made for
| online communication. On the Internet, we're all psychopaths.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| > On the Internet, we're all psychopaths.
|
| That might be the best one-line summary of the problems with
| social media I've ever seen.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Except that it's not. The concept most people don't fully
| understand here is that of worldview.
|
| On the internet, people often are honest, and say what they
| really think. This reflects their (often divergent) beliefs
| about the world.
|
| Again, in the context of meta-discussions like this, most
| people do not know what a belief is. For example, it does
| not mean only religious belief. It does not mean "a false
| idea that someone else has". Beliefs are actually
| foundational concepts and viewpoints in everyone's brain.
|
| And the most core beliefs are generally reductionist
| regardless of who you are. Think about looking off into the
| distance. You can't have an infinite concept of what's out
| there so it all fades to a point.
|
| A big part of the problem in many of these online conflicts
| is that the opposing parties are effectively occupying
| different realities. But even more difficult is that each
| is 100% certain theirs is the correct version. And even
| more difficult is the fact that as I said, they don't
| understand this concept of worldview or realize that no
| worldview is perfectly accurate. Actually most don't
| understand the difference between a worldview, a normal
| viewpoint, and a true fact about the universe.
|
| Even more difficult is the fact that worldviews are closely
| linked to group identity. So much of the behavior is raw
| tribalism (trying to protect/promote your own group
| subconsciously) attached to worldviews, but the people
| think they are just defending true facts about the world.
| UmbertoNoEco wrote:
| They still have a point though. I have had some friends,
| co-workers or acquaintances who from time to time express
| what there are to me very outlandish opinions, but most
| of the time I just let them slide or jokingly counter
| them because I know, that in the great scheme of things
| it does not matter very much. Had the same opinions being
| expressed by some faceless person in social media I would
| have reacted very differently. I dont think of myself as
| especially different from the average user and the
| experience using social media reinforces that point.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Nearly. In Internet debates we're all sociopaths. People
| can be very empathetic online, but not when they're
| disagreeing about fundamental values.
|
| But let's not pretend this is exclusively an online
| phenomenon. One-to-one debates can be civilised in person.
| But as soon as you get more than a handful of people
| involved there's a real possibility of violence - even if
| it's only ridicule and condescension.
|
| The odds of physical violence scale quickly as the numbers
| increase.
| sph wrote:
| > In Internet debates we're all sociopaths. People can be
| very empathetic online
|
| Psychopaths can be empathetic. I had a nice discussion
| with a self-professed psychopath here on HN and that was
| my take away. Instead of feeling bad in the gut like you
| would if you were to insult a stranger face to face, a
| psychopath would learn that some actions are not OK even
| if it's hard to imagine the impact they're having.
|
| Same with Internet discussions. I'll try not to be an
| arsehole online, but it's much harder to connect with a
| person through text, whereas in person I loathe the
| feeling of making somebody feel bad. It's a visceral
| emotion that's completely absent when chatting through
| text.
| AnonCoward4 wrote:
| I agree with that assessment. Which means it should come as no
| surprise to anyone, if people are harsher online to people they
| literally do not know. It's not nice, but the alternative is
| also not very pleasant, which is real life and the constant
| misuse of status and lack of anonymity. Although it kind of
| creeped up to the internet as well.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Would this apply to remote work culture?
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| It could, but you don't get a paycheck from online forums.
| Remembering that someone is paying you will sometimes work to
| curb excessive misbehavior.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Yes, in my experience. But the difference is somewhat
| diminished because even though you (mostly) don't see the
| people in person, you do get the benefits of a _long term_
| relationship. E.g., you get a better sense of what 's safe to
| discuss candidly with each person, and in some cases you're
| invested in each other's welfare.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Yeah, I can see that. What I usually used to do when
| working remotely is to try to at least meet each coworkers
| once. Ideally, once a month to have lunch if they're not
| too far away.
|
| But, I feel like the in-person advantages far outweigh
| anything remote work has to offer. It's so much better to
| build relationships with real physically close humans. It's
| the best part of being alive I feel. Obviously YMMV, but we
| should acknowledge that hiding facial expressions with
| masks or behind internet tubes is not ideal and has major
| subsconcious implications for communication between humans.
|
| One of the reasons why I love visiting Asian cities like
| Hanoi and Jakarta is that people are less allergic to being
| close to each other. Complete opposite of Sweden and some
| parts of US.
| deadalus wrote:
| It is not easy to see the humanity of someone over the internet.
| In real life, we realize that 'others' are just like us and that
| the differences are minuscule.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| Because we are not yet invented an ability to punch people in the
| face over standard TCP/IP.
| anticensor wrote:
| _Hypermotion Transfer Protocol_?
| tlb wrote:
| HN is a strongly self-selected group of people, with rules
| against bad-faith arguments. But you can find groups like that in
| real life too.
|
| The special thing about online is that when an obscure topic
| comes up, someone from the 0.0001% of people with deep knowledge
| of that subject can chime in. That dynamic basically never
| happens IRL, because you need a million eyeballs.
|
| Like, outside of NASA, where would you encounter such a cluster
| of people with specific knowledge as in
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31136285 ?
| puffoflogic wrote:
| The only bad faith argument I've ever seen on HN is calling any
| argument you disagree with and can't refute a "bad-faith
| argument".
| skinnymuch wrote:
| Keep in mind, many times people making bad faith arguments
| don't even realize it.
| puffoflogic wrote:
| I think that demonstrates that the meaning of "bad-faith"
| is, well, in bad faith. A correct definition of "bad faith"
| makes it a question of the speaker's state of mind. Not
| only can the speaker always judge this for himself, but he
| is the only one who can judge it.
|
| The only way a speaker could fail to realize his argument
| is in bad faith is if that is a question not of his own
| state of mind but of the listener's opinion.
| otterley wrote:
| > HN is a strongly self-selected group of people, with rules
| against bad-faith arguments
|
| I'd love to see those rules enforced someday. There are plenty
| of examples of such arguments to be found here.
| dang wrote:
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.
| ..
| otterley wrote:
| I meant for real, Dan - like bring down the ban hammer more
| forcefully. Let's get serious about cleaning up this place.
| dang wrote:
| You seem to be assuming that we don't enforce HN's rules.
| We do enforce the rules, but only on the posts we see. We
| don't see every post--there are too many.
|
| You, or anyone, can help by flagging posts that break the
| site guidelines, and in egregious cases by emailing
| hn@ycombinator.com.
| kX4A8o4mVmX8aW wrote:
| Flagging goes both ways. There's a flagged post in this
| account's short history where I pushed back on a
| transphobic comment. Now various comments up from mine
| and down another branch are all flagged. Transphobic and
| anti-transphobic comments are all flagged to oblivion.
|
| Probably the hope is that there are more nice people than
| not-nice people so on the whole the not-nice comments
| will disappear. From that one experience though it looks
| like it's at least as much about who's fastest to flag.
| otterley wrote:
| Do you maintain metrics on the ratio of flagged posts or
| comments to those you take action on? Or categorize why
| such posts are flagged/removed?
|
| I've only ever heard you say "trust us, we do this," but
| I can speak from experience that I have personally
| flagged some posts and comments that end up remaining
| anyway.
|
| This is, of course, your site and you can moderate it as
| you please, but the quality of participation has been
| falling (IMO -- yes, I'm familiar with the guidelines
| saying not to complain about it) and it's been turning
| off participants who otherwise would have very wise,
| informed, and useful things to say.
|
| For example, a distinguished engineer who did a lot of
| seminal work in performance benchmarking while at Sun and
| later wrote Linux's original source control system is
| gone now, dissuaded by the emotional and nonsensical
| conversations he was getting into here. IMO his opinions
| and insight are at the 99th percentile of in terms value
| here, and this site is far worse off for the absence of
| people like him.
|
| Anyway, I don't want to get into a big debate here; just
| wanted to give my two cents.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| >dissuaded by the emotional and nonsensical conversations
| he was getting into here
|
| If they were conversations, then he must have been
| contributing to the emotion and nonsense, otherwise he
| could have just ignored it.
|
| I don't know who your engineer is, but in some
| professional forums, I have seen prima donnas leave in a
| huff because they just couldn't stand to be challenged
| and couldn't refrain from going off-topic by discussing
| the personality of the other person(s).
| otterley wrote:
| > If they were conversations, then he must have been
| contributing to the emotion and nonsense, otherwise he
| could have just ignored it.
|
| This is the precisely the kind of crap I'm talking about
| that brings HN down, where commenters just assert facts
| with no information whatsoever.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| The only fact asserted here is that conversation involves
| more than one party.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Agressivenes in moderation (hah) can be
| counterproductive. Also, everyone has a bad day once in a
| while.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| It's a bit of a balancing act. If you're too ban-happy
| you'll get an echo chamber (some would say that HN
| already is one) and if anything goes the trolls drive out
| serious participants. I think it's remarkable that the
| discussion here is as good as it is, compared to e.g.
| reddit or other forums.
|
| There has to be a little room for jokes and sarcasm and
| "devil's advocacy," as that's part of how real people
| talk about things.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Exactly. The only people you should really be banning in
| an online community are repeat offenders who understand
| the rules and continue to disobey them in a way egregious
| enough to be harmful to the community.
|
| That's a far smaller set than "people who post bad /
| stupid / annoying things."
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| I think dang is already doing an inhuman amount of work.
| He's easily the most active _and_ most thoughtful
| moderator I 've ever seen. He's a machine. Hard to
| imagine how things can be better than it's now unless we
| overhaul then entire moderation model and make it more
| distributed, like Slashdot (not saying that Slashdot
| specifically is better; it isn't) .
| CyanBird wrote:
| Dang needs to hire some of the old moderators of
| TeamLiquid's forum heh, that'd be interesting to see
| Lammy wrote:
| Other peoples' intent is fundamentally unknowable. Labeling
| someone's speech as "bad-faith" is repackaging an
| individual's subjective dislike of certain arguments into a
| justification for denying everyone else the ability to
| evaluate that argument and make their own individual
| judgement.
| otterley wrote:
| That's ok; we don't need that kind of noise here. There are
| plenty of other interesting things to talk about in this
| world. Not all comments are worth publishing or reading.
| Editorial discretion is one of the distinguishing
| characteristics of different discussion fora. The great
| thing about the Internet is that you can always start your
| own if you disagree with the editorial choices of some
| forum owner.
| lazide wrote:
| Which, if there is enough consensus, is generally pretty
| accurate and saves everyone a whole lot of brain
| processing. Only so many things can be evaluated and judged
| a day per person.
| tlb wrote:
| Please downvote or flag them.
| MathCodeLove wrote:
| I very rarely see a bad faith argument gain any traction and
| not get immediately shot down here. Not to say it doesn't
| happen, but IME it's more common that a bad faith argument
| gets called out and flagged than it is that the bad faith
| argument gets support and stands.
| [deleted]
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| For in-person discussions, we should probably factor in the
| nature and depth of the relationship.
|
| For example, if I'm just chatting with someone at the park, I
| don't expect them to welcome a serious critique of views they
| espouse.
|
| But if I've known that person for a long time, and we're invested
| in each other, then I'm more likely to challenge or at least
| discuss touchy matters.
|
| Internet discussions, depending on the forum, tend to be
| somewhere in the middle. Being in a particular forum signals that
| people _want_ to discuss certain topics. And anonymity allows a
| certain boldness, but it also means greater risk of being
| misunderstood or being treated uncharitably.
| brabel wrote:
| There's also the fact that when you're online there's a zero
| risk of being punched in the face when you say something the
| other person is likely to find unpleasant.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| It's dehumanization. We use that word in a bad way most of
| the time but in the case of online discussions, it's quite
| normal. Like I know that you're a real person and you know
| that I am a real person; however, when were talking online
| that fact can get ignored by our brains.
|
| It goes from "I'm talking to a person" to "I'm responding to
| brabel". In a physical conversation it's impossible to
| achieve the same level of "dehumanization" because you're
| staring at the person.
|
| That's my Sunday couch quarterback explanation.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Online you may also be communicating with GPT3
| imtringued wrote:
| >"I'm responding to brabel"
|
| More like you are responding to a graffiti he has left on
| this website. Just like people draw (often stupid) messages
| on the walls of public toilets.
| eastbound wrote:
| But you're discussing topics and sometimes bringing data
| or links to resources that are impossible in real life.
| Oral language conveys an extremely poor density of actual
| information, compared to a book for example - that's why
| politicians win using oral language.
|
| Reading online is like reading in a book: You can learn a
| lot, on topics where you'd need to travel 1000km to find
| the first expert.
|
| Unfortunately, writing online isn't made with the same
| dedication as writing a book: We don't spend time
| collecting proof and links and quotes and performing
| regressions and meta-analysis before presenting our
| results. But HN rules entice people to do that, and
| people doing it was the strength of HN until ~2010.
|
| If that's what one calls depersonification, I'd argue
| that an engineering book is very depersonated too, and
| it's its strength. No emotions, just raw information all
| the time.
| jsemrau wrote:
| Also in real conversation it's unlikely that one just adds
| a quick comment and leaves.
| abnercoimbre wrote:
| I was going to say it's mostly about the threat of physical
| violence (or lack thereof.)
| trhway wrote:
| it is lack (or significantly lower risk) of pretty much any
| threat. In real life people with different opinions are
| punished in many ways, not just physical (is anything i'd
| say the pure physical punishment is frequently not the main
| concern). Being anonymous online (or hard to reach in some
| other way, like say residing abroad) allows at least some
| freedom of speech.
| earleybird wrote:
| The idea that there are folks who believe that people
| with differing opinions should be punished that I find
| disturbing.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Equal parts "non-zero threat of physical escalation" and
| "empathy triggered by proximity to another human."
|
| It's hard to stare into someone else's eyes and feel...
| nothing.
|
| It's pretty easy to look at text on the screen and forget
| the person on the other end is like you.
| analyst74 wrote:
| As a very logical person who developed social intelligence much
| later in life. One very surprising thing I noticed, unthinkable
| to my younger self, is that many people only engage with people
| they are interested in.
|
| If upon initial judgement and they find you not interesting,
| they basically tune you out, and won't attempt to find out what
| interesting things you have to say.
| chasd00 wrote:
| > If upon initial judgement and they find you not
| interesting, they basically tune you out, and won't attempt
| to find out what interesting things you have to say.
|
| if they find you not interesting then why would they hang
| around? They've already made the decision. To them, you'll
| have nothing interesting to say ever.
| elzbardico wrote:
| On the other side, you only need to be really interesting
| once, or at most a few times. After they judge you attention-
| worthy you can basically stay quiet and they will drive the
| conversation for you, speaking as if there's no tomorrow.
| bschne wrote:
| Firstly, online communities are usually less comparable to all of
| your IRL social surroundings, and more comparable to special-
| interest conferences, festivals, or other places where many
| somewhat more like-minded people with a shared context meet.
| There's definitely _a lot_ of self-selection going on here.
|
| Secondly, I believe there's a flipside to many of the things that
| can go wrong when interacting online. Maybe if you read something
| without knowing the other person, and without having a ten-year
| history with them, and you can re-read and take time to ponder
| your answer, it also allows you to be more thoughtful and not let
| all the baggage people have with each other in the way?
| saltmeister wrote:
| scarface74 wrote:
| In real life, there are things we are told not to talk about in
| polite company - money, religion and politics. Besides that,
| "over sharing" makes people uncomfortable.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| Introduce different scenarios to get unpredictable results from
| people whom you may easily have prejudged as mature, critical, or
| patient (to use some of your own words) such as:
|
| road rage
|
| committee membership
|
| sports parenting
|
| online activity
| samh748 wrote:
| I don't understand why comments so far are talking about people
| online being inconsiderate. I'm talking about the opposite. Was
| my post unclear?
| adra wrote:
| If not unclear then by far unrepresentative of the internet as
| a whole. People on the internet are way more likely to be
| garbage variety drive by haters that seem to cling to mildly
| controversial topics like it's their sole outlet for
| aggression.
|
| The only reason that civility could be retained is when there's
| strong representational or economic incentives to do so.
|
| If you're on Facebook? (Wouldn't know since I've been off their
| stuff for years), one irrationally bad comment could have a
| lasting stain on your future representation. People
| defriend/mute you, and though it may not mean anything to you,
| it's definitely a negative incentive for a lot of people who
| attribute much too much emphasis of a snap decision a peer did
| out of boredom/indifference.
|
| Secondly, economics. If you're a person accumulating weath as a
| function of influencer/content creator in all its many forms,
| you're usually a "nice" or an ass-hole persona. If you're the
| nice person attracting an audience around optimism, showing up
| to dump drama on your people will start to polarize your
| communities. Think of the notable people on the internet and
| think of those that skirt the line. There probably aren't many
| you can point to that are equal parts positive/pot stir.
| uberman wrote:
| Your post was clear, however I think most people disagree with
| your observation.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| It's the same root cause, I think: offline, you have much more
| context, plus intonation and body language, which lead to the
| expectation that you will be better understood. Online, it's
| hard to forget this is absent if you are not careful. The
| results can go either way.
| paines wrote:
| Maybe you preceive things differently than others...
| meotimdihia wrote:
| it's not strange at all. We are different when we are in
| different environments.
|
| It is obviously online is different from offline. Usually, online
| brings our inner character out.
|
| If you learn Buddhist, this is very easy to understand.
| gammabetadelta wrote:
| the incentives are different online vs. irl.
|
| very few folks are comfortable being the [nerd, asshole, dweeb,
| etc] in real life. being labeled as not nice, will exclude you
| from social activity.
|
| when people go out, they just want to relax and being critical is
| hard work, plus many of them know they are bad, so they shy away
| from it.
|
| online your words is all you have, so you have to rep yourself
| harder to stand out.
|
| in the real world, your looks can get you far in both directions.
| kansface wrote:
| People who comment or make content online represent a very small
| minority - maybe a few percentage depending on the platform. That
| is decidedly not a representative sample.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| People in the real world want to form personal connections; geeks
| think communication is about information exchange, but that's not
| it (usually). We are social animals, we need each other, we all
| greatly desire human connection.
|
| People in the real world aren't exchanging information or
| socially entertaining themselves in whatever way we do online -
| what are we doing online? It's not about personal connections in
| any real sense. It's not about exchanging information - it's
| mostly infotainment.
|
| What are we doing? Is there anything comparable in humanity pre-
| Internet?
| yodsanklai wrote:
| Being anonymous make it easier for people to express their "true
| self", and there's more empathy when you actually see people
| you're talking with.
| Tao332 wrote:
| While this is sometimes true, I like to think the nastier
| elements are an emergent side effect of the medium, and not
| some "true self". Maybe it's an aspect that's suppressed in
| polite society, but not the whole personality.
|
| I might be naive.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| You're anonymous on the streets in a big city too, but people
| don't become their "true selves" just because of that. On the
| other hand, swathes of the internet are not anonymous, and that
| doesn't stop immaturity.
|
| I'm not convinced by this argument.
| CyanBird wrote:
| > become their "true selves" just because of that.
|
| Yeah, because of the danger of a physical altercation, that
| potential drawback is taken away while interacting online
|
| What's the drawback of making some alt accounts/sockpuppet
| accounts and going harass someone you dislike? Getting an Ip
| ban at most I'd gather rather than getting your nose broken
| by a punch from someone on the street
|
| There is little to no credible deterrence in online
| discussions
| staticman2 wrote:
| In real life you see a real human's body language and can see if
| you are upsetting them by being critical, which may make you
| uncomfortable and cause you to hold back.
|
| On the Internet I can bash anyone on any topic without obvious
| indicators that there is a real human being on the other end of
| the conversation that I may be hurting.
|
| Also this community tends to attract contrarians who believe they
| know better that the majority of people on many topics, for
| better or worse.
| uberman wrote:
| Do you actually feel that there is more "real listening"
| happening online?
|
| On line anonymity allows every one to act like that one dad on
| the sideline of his kids game cursing out the refs.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| #1 skin in the game.
|
| In person interactions can have greater immediate consequences
| than online actions. If someone is in your social group, you
| might see them again and have to deal with the consequences of
| actions/behavior. Positive impressions can reward you in the
| future.
|
| #2 Reputation and anonymity
|
| You can't easily reboot your IRL identity and reputation, but
| usually can on forums like HN
| Tao332 wrote:
| > skin in the game
|
| Literally. If people acted IRL the way they do online, there'd
| be a major uptick in face punches.
| AnonCoward4 wrote:
| Which means the internet is the better place to be for any
| person. The problem is usually if one side is not anonymous,
| then it's different, otherwise anything is fair game in
| regards to discussions I think, but maybe you find a good
| counter example.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Not necessarily although there are advantages. While
| generally taboo, physical violence does have positive
| effects on Curbing some Behavior
| AnonCoward4 wrote:
| Yeah, however that is not what happens if you just let
| that behavior described above slide. Punching someone
| because they said something to you is usually wrong
| especially if they don't even know each other (so it
| can't be personal, really).
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I've definitely been in a number of situations where what
| passes for craft and hateful online speech what get
| someone severely beaten oh, and I don't think that's
| necessarily A Bad Thing. It's not a solution to the
| greater problems of society, but a punch to the face or
| the threat thereof it certainly keeps people from
| verbally assaulting people in real life.
|
| Of course there are problems with people acting as
| adjudge and dishing out physical punishment, but that
| doesn't mean that Justice isn't served in some instances
| kodah wrote:
| HN is only a positive place if you agree (and see things the same
| way as) the current tide of active users. The good thing about HN
| is that they usually come and go.
|
| IMO, seeking "harmony" sounds like a logical reaction to the
| toxic political activism we've experienced across the spectrum in
| the past decade. I find myself doing this too; why would I want
| to expend the emotional labor to convince people of things that
| matter to me? It doesn't benefit me in any way, and cathartic
| things like shaming aren't really healthy.
| swayvil wrote:
| Be a good person, support the current thing.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| To quote a great pugilist who recently laid his hands on someone
| outside of the ring (and not for the first time), I think the
| answer is really simple:
|
| "Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting
| people and not getting punched in the face for it."
| muzani wrote:
| A similar quote I love from Conan the Cimmerian: "Civilized men
| are more discourteous than savages because they know they can
| be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general
| thing."
| renewiltord wrote:
| The people in my real life are not like you describe and they're
| much more intelligent than most HN goers. I use HN and other
| sources for volume on-demand, not quality. i.e. I get a higher
| quality of discussion out of my friends, but I can't drop-in to
| one of those 3 minutes before my next meeting (or, like now,
| while I'm waiting for my parents in the Whole Foods parking lot).
|
| This is actually my biggest reason why I like cities: friends
| like these are all close by.
| elteto wrote:
| The experience of communicating online is a very impersonal one:
| I type what I want to say in a square box and off it goes. I
| can't hurt the feelings of my audience if I can't even comprehend
| who that audience will be.
|
| There's also the anonymity aspect in some venues, which further
| removes behavioral barriers. If I can't be blamed/identified in
| real life then the consequences of my online speech are null and
| there's no incentive to not troll or "talk my real feelings out".
|
| Basically we all have a "dark" side: opinions, prejudices, and
| ideas that are deeply repressed by our need to conform in
| society. Online there's no need to conform to anything.
| FunnyBadger wrote:
| The simple answer: online lacks all the visual and aural feedback
| mechanisms that are automatic in face-to-face interaction. That
| radically changes how people act.
|
| All the social norms that have 100,000 years of biological and
| sociological development that are kept in-check by visual
| feedback from others around us are taken away online.
|
| This also applies to things like sales - face-to-face direct
| sales is far more efficient and effective than doing the same by
| phone or online. You can close deals far higher $$ amounts face-
| to-face because people can "read" each other. Online works just
| fine for simple, low $, low risk transaction - that's Amazon's
| sweet spot, for instance.
|
| I've been in high tech sales for 30 years - with early experience
| at HP selling test equipment with average selling price (ASP) of
| $20K-$1M. I'm still in that general market. The sales training
| you get at Fortune 20 companies addresses most of this difference
| both directly and indirectly. The latter in includes noticing how
| direct sales works and what can be sold that way vs. what can not
| with telephone and online sales (the risk level of $1M piece of
| equipment even for the largest corporations absolutely requires a
| lengthy face-to-face process).
| chasd00 wrote:
| face-to-face for most things but not all. I'm routinely on the
| phone with project presentations that involved multi-million
| dollar licensing agreements and then another 2 or 3x that for
| an implementation team. Not once have I ever done one in real
| life. Ironically, in a past life I did go onsite to pitch a
| project in front of a board. It was for a grand total of about
| $75k.
|
| One thing that I have to admit, and this is a bit weird, but on
| deals that big by the time "orals" or the main presentation
| happens the decision is 90% already made in favor of one of the
| bidders. That kind of back room selling/negotiation i'm not a
| part of and may very well be face to face all the time.
| moneywoes wrote:
| Any big lessons learned throughout this time? Or books /
| practices you would suggest? I'm trying to sell some cheap
| software to primarily people in one industry (ecommerce) would
| you suggest getting in a video call being the most effective
| strategy?
| nathias wrote:
| It isn't about the threat of physical violence, I think it has to
| do with replying to a broader sense that exists out there while
| in person you first have to build up that sense with the person
| you're talking to and this takes more effort and time and so
| necessitates different behaviours. Text is imo the main factor,
| if we switch to audio people behave more like in real life.
| 3qz wrote:
| The main reason is that almost all content online comes from
| people who are mentally ill. Commenting or creating anything
| online is really weird. Normal people don't do this, so you're
| interacting with a very different group of people on your
| computer than in real life.
|
| > people in real life seem so much more complacent and uncritical
| compared to people online
|
| This is just to avoid conflict. I'm sure they feel the same way
| internally
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > mentally ill
|
| What does that mean? We're all 'mentally ill' to some degree,
| in some situations, etc.
|
| > almost all content online comes from people who are mentally
| ill
|
| Wow! But I agree: Almost all content online comes from people,
| and all people are 'mentally ill' - or just normal.
| smnplk wrote:
| "commenting or creating anything online is really weird"
|
| You are commenting right now here on HN. Are you ok ? ;)
| 3qz wrote:
| no
| Bancakes wrote:
| We have a word for people who live life read-only, consuming
| their surroundings - NPCs. Not sure who's really mentally ill
| in this situation.
| chasd00 wrote:
| To paraphrase the climax of the movie War Games, "In some
| games, an NPC is the only winning character".
| [deleted]
| HomeGear wrote:
| >The main reason is that almost all content online comes from
| people who are mentally ill.
|
| I wasn't brave enough to say this, but since you have, I want
| to agree. Gaming, Discord, forums, etc - filled to the brink
| with mentally ill individuals.
| tester756 wrote:
| what "mentally ill" means in this context? like literally?
| swayvil wrote:
| Suffering a distortion of perspective. From focus, trauma,
| drugs, obsession...
| slightwinder wrote:
| I call bias and filtering on your side.
|
| Online, people behave far more awful than IRL. Probably you
| filter this by labeling it as trolling or immature, or by
| selection. People IRL are more focused on "harmonizing", because
| there is usually a more direct consequence for bad behavior. In
| the worst case, it's souring your relationship with people you
| need to live with, which most people simply don't want. But this
| is not a bad thing, because being too critical can be very toxic
| and harmful. IRL people are more focused on stability than
| letting the world burn, because they don't need to experience the
| consequences. This on the other side has the strange effect of
| hyperfocused attention and opinions. People are more limited to
| their own filter-bubble, being very uncritical of their own
| bubble, but hypercritical of everything outside.
| atlgator wrote:
| I've found that a lot of people cannot handle reality. They've
| cultivated this bubble of positivity around them. Anything that
| would pierce that bubble, however minor, is met with extreme
| anxiety and in some cases violent behavior. This isn't universal
| but very common among millennials and Gen Z.
| dirtball_ wrote:
| I've found this to be very common among all generations,
| particularly boomers/greatest generation. Everyone has
| ingrained beliefs and nobody likes when those are contradicted,
| particularly in public and with factual points that can be hard
| to rebuff, at least on the spot.
|
| There are so many things I have to be careful not to say to my
| parents and older relatives lest they burst a blood vessel, as
| well as my senior neighbors and coworkers. My peers, however,
| are used to hearing all sorts of things and are usually happy
| to discuss or debate any topic without taking things personally
| or as an insult to their heritage or tradition.
|
| I think that there are always going to be generational
| differences, and that it isn't helpful to blame generations.
| Instead, we should all work to identify and solve issues rather
| than point to the "others" and say they are at fault.
| f6v wrote:
| > Maybe there's a sample bias because of the online communities I
| visit (like HN)
|
| Boy, are you in for a surprise. HN is often an echo chamber.
| neilk wrote:
| Cultures differ.
|
| There are some cultures where direct communication and quickly
| exposing conflict is normal. It seems to me that they consider it
| impolite to waste people's time by hiding conflict. I have
| personally experienced this from German and Dutch people, and I
| believe it's also the norm in Scandinavian and Icelandic
| countries.
|
| If you're experiencing a huge skew between places like Hacker
| News and "real life", I guess you might live in North America.
|
| However, this isn't to say that indirect communication is
| useless. North America is odd because there's a tradition of
| valuing democratic free speech even when it's upsetting. But
| personal manners have become increasingly indirect - to preserve
| harmony, to avoid premature judgment of differing experiences, to
| preserve pride, to provide space for enthusiasm. These aren't
| always bad things either.
|
| So, I would say, for North America in 2022, harmonious small talk
| isn't exactly useless - it's how you slowly gain the credibility
| to say more substantial things. An Oklahoman educator I follow
| online, who has remarkable success engaging right-wing and rural
| Americans to discuss science, said "Nobody cares that you know
| until they know that you care". This might be especially true for
| the North American mode.
| Bancakes wrote:
| In real life you have to work with what you've got and act
| friendly with everyone. On the internet, I can let my real self
| go and find people I actually like and see a future with.
| yason wrote:
| One factor is the time of day. When I meet people I'm usually
| busy with work, my thoughts or trying to achieve something else
| than a good discussion. When I'm online I'm alone, often in the
| evening, I have plenty of time and space in my head to get
| interested in arguments, viewpoints, and the experiences of
| random people I don't know.
|
| I can also use my time effectively online: thanks to the
| asynchronous element of internet discussions I can find topics
| and arguments as I please and I can also withdraw from a
| discussion if I see the thread is going in a direction that won't
| be interesting. When talking with someone it's much harder. Thus,
| IRL, good discussions tend to happen with good friends who I can
| trust to not waste my time, and during specifically allotted time
| slots when I'm meeting them, and we both also have to be in the
| mood for a serious conversation.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I think many things but I'd say speed of conversation is a big
| one. On the internet, I think we give people more time to respond
| than in person. An email, a few days. A HN post, a few minutes to
| hours. A text message, a few minutes to a few hours. In person?
| Often a few seconds at most. (Maybe on phone or video call as
| well)
|
| I think the immediacy can make it scarier for many of us to
| respond.
| dheera wrote:
| In real life you fear offending people you already know. For
| example I personally hate [insert company here] for multiple
| reasons, but I'm not going to express that in person in front of
| a friend or acquaintance I know who works there because it's
| likely irrelevant to the context under which I made a connection
| with that person.
|
| There are routinely two groups of people I can speak total truth
| to, and those are (a) total strangers, and (b) very close
| friends. Online forums fall in the former category, as do random
| people who chat me up on trains that I know I will never see
| again.
|
| Anything in-between requires some tiptoeing here and there.
| DanielBMarkham wrote:
| People are the same. I believe the confusion here is thinking
| that the things we type and the things we say and act in person
| have the same meanings, both internally and socially.
|
| Long discussion goes here, but human language is a socially-
| contextual performance art which has roots in the creation and
| teaching of the construction of tools. Vagueness, non-verbal
| messaging, social signaling, and all of the other aspects of
| language are built in order to transfer that tool knowledge with
| the minimum amount of effort. To be even further reductionist,
| you don't have to make that spear out of the exact same rock I
| used as long as you get a point on the end of a sufficiently long
| stick. Language's inability to be precise and have millions of
| shades of meaning based on other things besides words is a
| feature, not a bug. It's an evolutionary survival trait, probably
| needed by any sentient creatures.
|
| Contrast that to what we're doing now on HN: typing messages back
| and forth. That is not the use of human language, at least not as
| we understand it today. Printed text is not language. Symbolic
| representation of sounds has a singular, yet fundamentally
| different goal: the unambiguous transfer of knowledge. The closer
| that knowledge that we want to transfer is to the human
| experience, the worse printed text works for that purpose. This
| is why fiction can be a 12-part novel while a chemistry formula
| might take up one page.
|
| So when we see text messages flying back-and-forth, it engages a
| different part of our brain. Continuing my simplification, when
| we view and interact with text, we're really looking to play some
| advanced video game where the correct text and replies "proves"
| an exact version of the world that others might not share. This
| is why so many online arguments end up end semantic wordplay
| games. It's not that people are petty, it's that we're trying to
| take that hominid brain system and bolt it into a logical,
| mathematical framework. Tech folks commonly say something like
| "If a implies b, and b implies c, then a implies c" Unless you
| use a set theory definition of a,b, and c, this can be shown to
| fail rather easily. [1]
|
| tl;dr, when I type the word "dog", think of a dog, and have a
| conversation with my grandmother about her dog, although we want
| to think of the word as being the exact same thing in all three
| contexts, it is not. It just appears that way. That's why you
| think people are acting so differently. They're not. It's just
| different things are going on in different social/physical
| contexts without our realizing it.
|
| 1.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Syllogistic_fallacie...
| [deleted]
| crorella wrote:
| I think overly confrontational people gets isolated sooner or
| later. There are certain times and places to talk more serious or
| pungent themes... like parties or sharing a beers or whatever,
| but not every single time you meet.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Loud minorities. You only notice the bad parts.
|
| Hiding behind a pseudonym/anonymity allows people to hold back
| less.
|
| You probably don't talk much to teens/children irl. You do
| online.
|
| Less / no social repercussions to being a cunt.
|
| People who are bitter and angry and troll on forums may not go
| outside much irl, so you don't meet them.
|
| If you are outside the US, you get to experience the exported
| political polarization from the US which you may not have where
| you live.
| tester756 wrote:
| >People who are bitter and angry and troll on forums may not go
| outside much irl, so you don't meet them.
|
| I believe this is myth, was it even proved?
|
| I've seen it being repeated for at least decade yet it always
| felt like "one quick, somewhat logically sounding explanation"
| but is it even real?
| lazide wrote:
| The people I know who go out a lot IRL tend to not be bitter
| and angry where I can see them anyway. But I've never seen
| any actual data.
|
| I guess to gather it one would need access to a randomized
| subset of the populations browsing histories and forum posts.
| Maybe the NSA can help? (/s)
| tester756 wrote:
| >where I can see them anyway
|
| What does it mean - facebook/tiktok?
|
| What if you just aren't aware of other sites/apps (discord,
| reddit, etc) that they do use?
| lazide wrote:
| Only one way to find out I imagine - tap it all! (Hence
| the /s)
|
| It wouldn't surprise me to find out a non trivial
| percentage of folks are flaming trolls online to work out
| anger or whatever they can't IRL.
| civilized wrote:
| On social media, thousands see your post but only a few react.
| They're the ones that found your post much more interesting than
| the average person who saw it.
|
| In real life, only a few people hear what you say but they feel
| socially obligated to react in some way. So you get bland, polite
| reactions. They're the people that, if they'd seen your post on
| social media, wouldn't have replied at all.
|
| In a nutshell: on social media, you broadcast to a huge potential
| audience, and your actual audience chooses you. In real life,
| your ideas only get to a small number of people who may not have
| chosen to listen to you. The interest levels of these two
| audiences are naturally very different.
| TillE wrote:
| This is actually an excellent point, a self-evident one which I
| hadn't really considered before.
|
| There is a vast chasm of difference between online micro-
| communities (eg, I'm a regular in a couple Twitch channels with
| 10-20 viewers) and the average large subreddit, and this is one
| key reason why.
| bityard wrote:
| > On social media, thousands see your post
|
| That's either wildly optimistic, or most people spend a lot
| more time building up their online persona than I do.
| civilized wrote:
| But how would you know? Typically you don't see the number of
| views, you only see the replies.
|
| You can see the impression count on Twitter, and typically
| it's much, much greater than the number of replies or other
| interactions.
| lazide wrote:
| How many do you think read this reply? At least that many,
| I'd wager.
| codetrotter wrote:
| TikTok, Reddit, Hacker News. These are all social media where
| your posts has a good chance of being seen by thousands of
| people.
|
| Facebook and Instagram, not so much unless one does exactly
| like you say, building a following.
| Blackstone4 wrote:
| Most people are familiar with the internet dialogue as you
| described and don't want to get into arguments with highly
| opinionated people...
| guilhas wrote:
| Most people are often busy, and tired, work, cook, clean, tidy,
| pension, legal stuff, health stuff, car stuff, children, pay
| mortgage, pay bills, family, friends, personal activities,
| problems... Life is complicated and bureaucratic, so not everyone
| has time to "examine serious things"
|
| Then there are channels to discuss things
|
| Your family will prefer to hear about job, children, partner,
| dreams, personal activities, achievements... and not about if
| invading Ukraine, Syria, Iraq... was a smart decision
|
| But there are meetups, for example, where people want to discuss
| certain subjects, and are prepared to, I wouldn't want to discuss
| programming with most of my friends
|
| > But what else is there? What's your experience with people
| online vs in real life? Why do you think this is the case?
|
| People are different everywhere, work, home, family gatherings,
| alone, with friends, partner...
|
| And online is the same, from real life, and on different websites
|
| Being pseudo anonymous also help you to talk about something that
| otherwise you would only discuss with a person privately, or not
| at all, about yourself, or generally controversial
|
| I might not share political stuff on Facebook, to avoid alienate
| friends that will get annoyed without context or proper
| discussion, a connection that was made to share mostly personal
| stuff, not politics. But I can go 'all in' on Reddit or Twitter
| or other proper channel to discuss those subjects, since I don't
| care about each person personal feelings and emotions since I
| don't know them, and either way I am just trying to get specific
| point across, weather I am right or wrong
|
| If you tell your boss all your personal opinions you will
| probably be fired soon, or your work might be judged on personal
| grounds rather than professional, possibly creating a
| discriminatory environment
|
| In conclusion, everyone disagrees about most things, so avoiding
| conflict is necessary for a healthy life. You should discuss
| things with people that want to hear from you about it, are
| prepared to handle it and give you something in return
| [deleted]
| whatshisface wrote:
| HN is the only community in the world where you will receive
| positive reinforcement for being disagreeable and contrarian.
| That's partly because we have a high diversity here, and a norm
| again downvoting to express disagreement - which means there will
| almost always be someone around to upvote a well-researched
| comment.
| zh3 wrote:
| I do recall being at a dinner back in the '80s, where someone
| starting going on about how evil a MUG player was because he
| killed so many personae (particularly his own) and what he'd do
| if he ever met said person in RL.
|
| At which point, someone else said "That's him sitting over there"
| pointing to a player on the opposite side of the table. Next
| thing it was "Wow, really pleased to meet you!".
|
| It was a lasting lesson to me about what people say online and
| how they actually behave in RL (and taught me to ignore people
| saying they would firebomb my house if they didn't get their
| points back).
|
| Unfortunately there are unstable people who get really confused
| between RL and what goes on in their head; the media have a field
| day with them.
| [deleted]
| pessimizer wrote:
| I think there are two opposing differences.
|
| For bravery and boldness:
|
| Online, you can dip out of a conversation any time you want, so
| you can make bold claims and back out of defending them when you
| start losing. You can also sneak away, quickly look things up,
| refine your argument and return with everyone else having no idea
| that you started off talking complete bullshit. In real life, to
| do that you have to actually call an Uber. Whatever
| conversational mess you got unto, you have to sit in.
|
| For aggression:
|
| I think people are generally _nicer online_ (although our
| perceptions of that are skewed by very stupid twitter
| replypersons), when they are posting in a community they want to
| continue to post on (and are reasonably bright.) In real life
| they are also nice when speaking to strangers or mild
| acquaintances. In both cases it is because all people know of you
| is what you 're saying, so you don't want to scare them off. For
| friends and loved ones, however, you can argue abstractions much
| more aggressively because they know that you love them and that
| the subject is irrelevant to that.
|
| So online people are bolder because they have escape hatches, but
| less aggressive because they want to impress. Offline people are
| more timid because they have to stand by what they say, but more
| aggressive with people they have real relationships with because
| they can rely on those to put that aggression into context.
|
| At parties with people who aren't close, you get the worst of
| both worlds. People afraid to be bold and people afraid to
| offend. [edit: that's what alcohol is for, though.]
| II2II wrote:
| > Online, you can dip out of a conversation any time you want,
| so you can make bold claims and back out of defending them when
| you start losing.
|
| Or you can walk away from a conversation where you have
| aggrivated the other person, or when the other person turns out
| to be a raving lunatic. Not everyone is dead set on proving
| themselves right or avoiding the insecurity of being wrong.
| newsclues wrote:
| Real time vs taking the time to think and form an argument
| perhaps has an effect?
| atoav wrote:
| The thing is in the online world you are _at places where people
| expect to discuss_. On top you simply _don 't see_ the people who
| don't discuss or comment and just spectate.
|
| If you go to a debate club in real life you will be able to
| debate just as well, because everybody who is there is there to
| debate. Ot would be weird for someone to be there if they did
| not.
|
| If you talk to some random person at work it is very likely that
| they just want to get shit done with as little hassle as
| possible. This usually does not involve debating about things
| endlessly.
|
| I love a good debate. I grew up with debates in comment sections
| and I am of the type that you can mud-wrestle with until you
| realize I enjoy the thing. Yet even I don't _always_ want to
| debate. Sometimes I prefer to eat my food in silence, or not talk
| to the guy sitting next to me on the subway.
|
| I like debate when I am in the mood for debate. This is often,
| but not always and not anywhere.
| narag wrote:
| It's impossible to convince most people of even the most obvious
| truths. The wisest path is to fake agreement, keep your thoughts
| for yourself and move away ASAP.
|
| Online it seems you can get away with more honest talk without
| consequences. Or at least it used to. Now it's getting more like
| offline.
| HKH2 wrote:
| Befriending someone makes it easier to convince them of
| something.
| narag wrote:
| Not sure why you think I _want_ to convince anybody. The
| original poster asked why people seems so conformist IRL, as
| oppossed to online. I just explained that most people learned
| that being Don Quixote is dangerous.
| swayvil wrote:
| For some, agreement is submission and defeat, which cannot be
| tolerated. So word games happen.
|
| Word games are a big thing here, in the land of words,
| disconnected from reality. We can argue literally anything.
| Black is white, up is down, desirable is undesirable, disease
| is health.
|
| Thus we get a lot of bullshit.
|
| Science is one great shovel for clearing that away.
| AnonCoward4 wrote:
| > It's impossible to convince most people of even the most
| obvious truths.
|
| You should maybe ask yourself why you need to convince them.
|
| > The wisest path is to fake agreement, keep your thoughts for
| yourself and move away ASAP.
|
| That's not wise, that's dishonest to the other person and to
| yourself. The last part (avoiding the other person) is
| obviously a completely valid option, but only one of several.
| narag wrote:
| _That 's not wise, that's dishonest to the other person and
| to yourself._
|
| Yeah, you're probably right.
| scotty79 wrote:
| IRL you are in real physical danger of being physically attacked
| for offending someone's sensibilities. It's no wonder that people
| prefer to err on the side of caution if nothing else is at stake.
| aeroplanetext wrote:
| > people in real life seem _overly_ concerned about keeping
| things "harmonious"
|
| "Overly" concerned... most people I've met that think harmonious
| social interactions are unnecessary ended up actually just being
| assholes, jerks, or weirdos.
| kburman wrote:
| I read somewhere that "give people a mask and they would reveal
| their true self" and seems to answer my most of the questions
| when I find some online forum very toxic.
| currio wrote:
| Topics of conversation are usually different in real life. They
| are mundane and rarely controversial.
|
| Online conversation topics frequently lead to heated opinions.
| xwdv wrote:
| In the _real_ world, there is always a low level threat of
| violence that keeps people in check. People get bolder as the
| threat of violence approaches zero.
|
| In the civilized world, men will not be so quick to argue
| fiercely with other men as the probability of a violent outcome
| is higher. Contrast with women, who will often verbally assault
| without limit, simply because they enjoy the benefits of the fact
| that it is not as socially acceptable for a man to pound their
| face in, and because other women are not as likely to resort to
| violence.
|
| It is ironic that the threat of violence is necessary to keep
| society peaceful and civilized in a scalable way.
| User23 wrote:
| I don't see it as particularly ironic. It's more recognizing
| that violence is fundamentally part of being alive. We can look
| to nature and history for plentiful examples. Violence, human
| or otherwise, can't ever be eliminated, so the only alternative
| is to harness it. Various civilizations have been more or less
| successful at this. Without the threat of violence, the law
| itself is nothing more than a set of polite suggestions.
| hooande wrote:
| To answer this scientifically, you would need to observe the same
| sample of people both offline and online. If you compare
| conversations with people you work with or chose to socialize
| with to conversations between random strangers on the internet,
| you have a pretty clear difference between your experimental and
| control groups.
|
| People communicating in person to tend to be more likely to avoid
| conflict and insults. (I think this is because it's easier to
| walk away from an online conversation, while you're stuck with
| someone in physical space). But in my experience, a jerk is a
| jerk. Online or offline.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| > " _I 've actually observed that people in real life seem so
| much more complacent and uncritical compared to people online._"
|
| Well, "Most of What You Read on the Internet is Written by Insane
| People" -
| https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...
| The more polite summmary at the end is: "If you consume any
| content on the Internet, you're mostly consuming content created
| by people who for some reason spend most of their time and energy
| creating content on the Internet. And those people clearly differ
| from the general population in important ways."
| OnionBlender wrote:
| Uncritical of what? I avoid talking about religion and politics
| with everyone (family, co-workers, acquaintance) for obvious
| reasons.
|
| Ignoring those hot button issues, I still need to be careful not
| to be critical of people.
|
| - At work I've had a co-worker nearly get fired for telling
| another she "doesn't know what she's talking about". He got
| "written up" but ended up finding a better job a short time
| later.
|
| - At work I need to avoid certain words that might be viewed as a
| "micro aggression".
|
| - I need to avoid offending certain family members or they'll
| start yelling or storm out. Some family members get super
| offended if you make any kind of suggestion on how they can fix a
| given problem.
|
| - Around strangers I need to avoid anything that might piss
| someone off and have them retaliate with force. I once honked at
| a car for not moving during an advance green and he followed me
| for miles. (The guy was flashing his lights and flipping me off
| the whole time).
|
| (Edit: Added line break for lists)
| UncleEntity wrote:
| -- Some family members get super offended if you make any kind
| of suggestion on how they can fix a given problem.
|
| Some members of the species aren't really looking for a fix
| when they are complaining about something but just need to
| vent. Life is much simpler if you simply nod and say "oh,
| that's horrible".
| OnionBlender wrote:
| Yeah, that's the lesson I learned a long time ago. A lot of
| people interpret advice as criticism and some family members
| react badly to (what they consider to be) criticism.
| [deleted]
| User23 wrote:
| > Some family members get super offended if you make any kind
| of suggestion on how they can fix a given problem
|
| Unsolicited advice is generally offensive. If they wanted your
| advice on how to fix their problems they would ask you. If they
| don't and you go ahead anyway then you imply that you are
| superior to them and just come off as obnoxious.
| OnionBlender wrote:
| I didn't want to make my post too log with details but one
| particular family member has a pretty over the top reaction.
| They'll start yelling and threaten to leave. I learned to
| never say things like, "you should" or "have you tried" to
| them. I'm good at not setting them off but my dad often has
| to stop my mom from giving advice or else this person will
| freak out.
| annyeonghada wrote:
| >Unsolicited advice is generally offensive. If they wanted
| your advice on how to fix their problems they would ask you.
|
| It is not generally offensive to offer a suggestion about how
| to solve a problem, what's offensive is abusing people time
| by rehearsing the same complaints over and over again while
| ignoring any kind of solution. If they whine constantly about
| a problem but never seek any way to solve it, it is just
| attention-seeking behavior.
|
| >If they don't and you go ahead anyway then you imply that
| you are superior to them and just come off as obnoxious.
|
| No. It implies that the person has already had the problem
| and solved it successfully or they have the knowledge to
| solve it successfully or they are trying to brainstorm what
| they would do.
| lazide wrote:
| I've generally found the interpretation you espouse to be
| looked upon quite favorably among engineers, and quite
| disliked among the general population. FYI.
| blablabla123 wrote:
| After all it's the perception that counts.
|
| From my experience the perception is usually rather
| negative. I think the reason for this is it's hard to
| impossible to have the full context which can include
| effort spent already on something as well as actual need
| and other information that is just not available to the
| other person.
| PebblesRox wrote:
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| An online environment can tolerate a bit more conflict than in
| person. There's actually more time and opportunity to really
| talk, you can go find a group of people with X interest readily
| in a way you can't do in person and it's somewhat safer to be
| opinionated and yadda.
|
| In person, it's hard to arrange, say, a local amateur astronomer
| group and have meetings once a week or once a month with
| telescopes someplace dark. Online, you can talk about astronomy
| with others who are interested and share links, tips, trade
| anecdotes, etc. any time of the day or night.
|
| It's a completely different social environment and this
| significantly impacts how people interact, thus it impacts
| individual behavior either in real terms or perceived terms.
| bradlys wrote:
| Because people don't want physical violence and - tbh - have you
| ever been in a heated discussion before? Sometimes it does result
| in physical violence.
|
| There's also an aspect to online discussion where there's a
| naturally slower cadence. Things can escalate very quickly
| offline because you're physically there and engaged. You're
| incentivized to not escalate it cause pain/damage. People
| escalate very quickly for no reason all the time. I've
| experienced the result of this first hand plenty - again, people
| are horrible at managing their emotions. Most people are not
| really any smarter than a three year old when it comes to
| managing their emotions - they just put up a big barrier to make
| it seem like they're better at it. When violence is a subtext -
| like a dog that might bite you - you're cautious about your
| approach and try to build trust before you do shit that could get
| you bit. Online - people face no repercussions and will escalate
| because no consequences.
|
| Tbh - if there were consequences then people wouldn't say shit as
| much. Some people here will point out FB/Twitter comments but I
| really want you to think about that - are there really any
| significant consequences except for celebs? For most people -
| their shit isn't read and no one is going to read what they said
| in the past. If you change that dynamic - people will change
| their behavior online. If it becomes clear how many times Jim
| said the n-word negatively towards some folks online - he'd be
| socially outcasted and a loner for life. But most people just
| don't know... thus Jim does not suffer and does whatever he
| pleases without issue.
|
| I've seen this in forums with many real names attached. If you're
| not going to see or be affected by someone - you just don't give
| af because why should you? Being nice to your common man that you
| don't know? What am I, a good person? No! Also - niceness isn't
| rewarded on the Internet very often due to the prolific amount of
| trolls living in BFE with nothing better to do. (Know many of
| these people. People forget how boring most of the US is. We
| don't all live in major cities with great attractions)
| planb wrote:
| Online, you only see people with strong opinions, that actively
| decide to take part in the discussion. You don't see the people
| silently scrolling by the comments. In real life (in Most Social
| situations), people are physically near and feel obliged to talk
| to others, even if they don't really want to.
| johnwheeler wrote:
| It's because the disincentives aren't the same. This is a stupid
| question, but I'd never say that to your face :)
| Flying_High wrote:
| It may just depend on where you live. From what ive noticed, most
| people have a clique and stick to it. If youre not part of their
| group, then you will probably never have a clue they exist.
| whereas online, the line between cliques are scewed, so it bleeds
| through.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| My wife tells me that I'm _exactly_ the same, on the Internet, as
| I am in real life.
|
| Maybe not such a good thing, as not everybody loves me, around
| these parts...
|
| But the good news is, I piss off just as many people IRL, as I
| do, here.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-15 23:01 UTC)