Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday April 18 2019, @10:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the argument-for-the-sake-of-argument dept.

To Swedish blogger John Nerst, online flame wars reveal a fundamental shift in how people debate public issues. Nerst and a nascent movement of other commentators online believe that the dynamics of today's debates—especially the misunderstandings and bad-faith arguments that lead to the online flame wars—deserve to be studied on their own terms. "More and less sophisticated arguments and argumenters are mixed and with plenty of idea exchange between them," Nerst explained in an email. "Add anonymity, and knowing people's intentions becomes harder, knowing what they mean becomes harder." Treating other people's views with charity becomes harder, too, he said.

Inspired by this rapid disruption to the way disagreement used to work, Nerst, who describes himself as a "thirty-something sociotechnical systems engineer with math, philosophy, history, computer science, economics, law, psychology, geography and social science under a shapeless academic belt," first laid out what he calls "erisology," or the study of disagreement itself. Here's how he defines it:

Erisology is the study of disagreement, specifically the study of unsuccessful disagreement. An unsuccessful disagreement is an exchange where people are no closer in understanding at the end than they were at the beginning, meaning the exchange has been mostly about talking past each other and/or hurling insults. A really unsuccessful one is where people actually push each other apart, and this seems disturbingly common.

[...] political scientists who study disagreement, unsurprisingly, disagree. Though Nerst has claimed that "no one needs to be convinced" of the needlessly adversarial quality of online discourse, Syracuse University political scientist Emily Thorson isn't buying it. "I actually do need to be convinced about this," she said in an email, "or at least about the larger implication that 'uncivil online discourse' is a problem so critical that we need to invent a new discipline to solve it. I'd argue that much of the dysfunction we see in online interactions is just a symptom of much larger and older social problems, including but not limited to racism and misogyny.

So, old political scientists think they've already identified the root cause of "bad behavior" and that online argument isn't a significant factor, or at least that's the argument they put forth in their e-mail vs the younger blogger... Dismissive, much ;-)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 18 2019, @11:17AM (5 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday April 18 2019, @11:17AM (#831573) Homepage Journal

    From the yellow journalism, political screeds and fearmongering of previous generations to the trolls, slut shaming and broad-brush creation of non-existent "tribes," we've seen this kind of behavior since Ugg bad-mouthed "those ratbags over in cave 17," without any irony.

    This is nothing new here on SN either. It's often hard to have a substantive discussion without knee jerk reactions and negative, nasty spew from those who, for a variety of reasons, are unable or unwilling to engage with an open mind.

    Those reasons are varied, including, but not limited to, (as other Soylentils have noted) 'you can't rationally argue a position with someone who didn't rationally come to that position', those who embrace conflict/being contrary because it amuses them or gives them a feeling of value that they stand out by being nasty, obnoxious or cantankerous. There are those who have deep feelings of insecurity and need to make themselves feel better by shitting all over others. There are those who get off on pushing people's buttons, and there are those for whom being nasty, confrontational and abusive is performance art. And these aren't mutually exclusive.

    All of these have offline analogs, and none of them are new. The only real difference is that when sitting behind a keyboard, many people who wouldn't dream of doing such things offline, revel in it online (cf. GIFT [penny-arcade.com]).

    While not every interaction needs to be serious or even relevant, those who seek to disrupt reasoned discussion can often do so by being nasty, obnoxious, outrageous or just plain mean.

    I considered linking to a bunch of such comments, but they're numerous enough here that anyone interested can find them without issue. What's more, focusing on specific comments will inevitably lead to folks crying foul because I included "too many" of one type and "not enough" of another.

    Regardless, just as we shun these sorts of folks offline, I suggest just not giving such folks your attention. The moderation system helps (although I always read at '-1'as do many others), but obvious trolls/demonstrably false statements and nastiness are often upmodded by other trolls, sock puppets and others.

    tl;dr: Don't feed the trolls.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:38PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:38PM (#831591)

      While I think you are right, I think it is only fair to say that there certainly are people who are just genuinely ill informed and/or very passionate about something and fall into the trap of going over the top with their language in an attempt to be "more convincing".
      I'm ashamed to say but it has happened to me quite a few times, and in those cases it can be enough for someone to just step up and say "this is really not appropriate to say".
      So I am not sure this "do not feed the troll" is generally the right way to go about it, unless it's really obvious they are in fact a troll.

      I am generally too lazy to actually write a reply, but it's what I think when I see comments that ask for horrible things to happen to people who refuse to vaccinate their children.
      I kind of don't really think these are trolls? I will admit I am easy to fool though.
      I can totally understand the anger and venting, because I do believe these people very much bear a good part of the blame for the 100k+ people who die from e.g. measles +(not to mention the threat to their own children), and often have the gall to be smug about it.
      But it still would be much better if we could just remember that they are humans and we still have an obligation to cause no further harm to them than what is necessary to protect others. And sometimes that means we maybe should not ignore but remind others of that.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:50PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:50PM (#831596) Homepage Journal

        While I think you are right, I think it is only fair to say that there certainly are people who are just genuinely ill informed and/or very passionate about something and fall into the trap of going over the top with their language in an attempt to be "more convincing".

        Absolutely. The list of reasons I gave wasn't intended to be complete. People do and say things for all kinds of reasons.

        I've done as you suggest myself. Most recently here [soylentnews.org]. For me, at least, it's important to own up when I do something like that. In the above example, the person to whom I replied called me out on it. And rightly so, IMHO. And I responded (I hope) appropriately [soylentnews.org].

        As for "not feeding the trolls," Perhaps I should have been more explicit. When it's clear that someone is trying to bait others or being nasty and confrontational, not to further their arguments, but to annoy, anger or otherwise get a rise out of others, they should be ignored. It may not make them stop, but you don't need to be a part of it.

        It occurs to me that those who are, as you said, "just genuinely ill informed and/or very passionate about something and fall into the trap of going over the top with their language in an attempt to be "more convincing"." are most at risk of being drawn in by such trolls *because* they are passionate and miss the red flags that they're being trolled.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:05PM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:05PM (#831600)

      The one thing the article illuminated for me was the prevalence of people "talking past each other" online, and of course in the real world too, but it's so much easier to do online. Sure, I knew it happened and often identified it when it did, but I never really thought about how often it happens, everywhere.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:19PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:19PM (#831611) Homepage Journal

        The one thing the article illuminated for me was the prevalence of people "talking past each other"

        Yes. More's the pity.

        As I've said a bunch of times, it's better to engage those who disagree with you, rather than just talking past (or at) them.

        Even if the differences you have make it impossible for you to convince or compromise, you at least get to understand the opposing position better and, hopefully, improve your own arguments and rhetorical skills.

        That said, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

        Sadly, with the release fo the Mueller report coming in ~15 minutes, we're likely to see quite a bit of people "talking past each other" in the near future.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:22PM (#831824)

      Thanks for your conflations, but sluts definitely need ot be shamed, as they are not only damaging their own lives, but the lives of others around them.

  • (Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Thursday April 18 2019, @11:41AM (1 child)

    by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @11:41AM (#831578) Journal

    Emily Thorson isn't buying it. "I actually do need to be convinced about this," she said in an email, "or at least about the larger implication that 'uncivil online discourse' is a problem so critical that we need to invent a new discipline to solve it. I'd argue that much of the dysfunction we see in online interactions is just a symptom of much larger and older social problems, including but not limited to racism and misogyny.

    This whole world view is starting to develop interesting parallels to original sin.

    --
    В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
    • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:47PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:47PM (#831630) Journal

      uncivil online discourse' is a problem so critical that we need to invent a new discipline to solve it

      One merely needs to look through a list [wikipedia.org] of academic studies to see that very little justification is required. And I think we all know how easy it is to throw a label on something.

  • (Score: 1) by AlwaysNever on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:08PM (6 children)

    by AlwaysNever (5817) on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:08PM (#831581)

    "Including but not limited to racism and misogyny", says she the scholar. In other words, western men are guilty, one again. Get used to it, and don't give a fuck.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:26PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:26PM (#831588)

      You are so right. All this talk of racism and misogyny are just tropes to punish *all* men. No one has *ever* engaged in anything of the sort.

      Enslaved Africans, Jim Crow, Segregation, Redlining. There was no racism there. It was all about doing what's best for an inferior group of humans, right? In fact, those of African descent in the US should be *thanking* those of European descent for taking such good care of them, right?

      No political franchise for women, firing pregnant women, illegal abortion, illegal birth control, disallowing women from controlling their own finances, denying women access to medical and law schools, ignoring domestic abuse as "family issues," dismissive attitudes toward claims of sexual assault and harassment. That wasn't misogyny, right? It was just protecting women from their own unrealistic ideas about their capabilities and purpose in life, right? Women should be *thanking* men for being so good to them. In fact, women should suck any man's cock on demand in gratitude for all those wonderful things, right?

      I'm so glad you brought this up. Especially in this thread. Am I serious? Am I trolling? Or am I just being sarcastic to point up the bankruptcy of your "argument?"

      Does an argument need to be fawning and pleasant to be valid? Does being sarcastic amount to being nasty and closed-minded?

      • (Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:17PM (4 children)

        by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:17PM (#831610) Journal

        You are so right. All this talk of racism and misogyny are just tropes to punish *all* men. No one has *ever* engaged in anything of the sort.

        Did he say that sort of thing has never happened?

        --
        В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:21PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:21PM (#831612)

          No. I did. I always use quote tags when quoting someone else.

          Is there anything else I can clarify for you?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:23PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:23PM (#831614)

          Same AC here. I'd add that it was an interpretation of the implication inherent in GP's statement.

          Also, if fit nicely into the sarcastic tone and added significantly to the point I was trying to get across.

          Once again, if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, I'd be happy to do so!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @07:11AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @07:11AM (#832069)

            it was an interpretation of the implication inherent in GP's statement

            Hardly. It's a straw man, specifically a motte-and-bailey doctrine. Your entire post is invalid because you started ex falso.

            Specifically:

            - it includes all men, past and present, in condeming the sins of our fathers

            - it absolves all women, past and present, from any complicity in these sins

            Neither are correct nor helpful for reasoned debate.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @06:10PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @06:10PM (#832232)

              Actually, what GP said was:

              "Including but not limited to racism and misogyny", says she the scholar. In other words, western men are guilty, one again. Get used to it, and don't give a fuck.

              I guess I was a little over broad. I should have said:

              You are so right. All this talk of racism and misogyny are just tropes to punish *all* western men. No western men have *ever* engaged in anything of the sort.

              That matches GP's statement and implication. Better now?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:25PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:25PM (#831587)

    Before the internet, people would just not discuss touchy topics at all.
    I mean I haven't lived in the US myself, but stories about akward Thanksgiving familiy reunions, pubs with "no politics, not religion" signs etc. aren't exactly a new thing!
    Or the higher number of breakups after Christmas, when families suddenly had to spend time together (that was reported for Germany).
    I'm not going to argue that a flame war is better, or that it couldn't be much improved, but I do think it requires evidence that it's worse than what we had before!

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:32PM (6 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:32PM (#831589) Homepage Journal

      Before the internet, people would just not discuss touchy topics at all.

      That was never the case in my family. We said what was on our minds. And we argued. And sometimes we got mad.

      But we're family and we love each other, even if, sometimes, we didn't always like each other that much. That was more important than anything else.

      I've never been in a bar that told people what they could or could not say. Nor have I ever seen anyone ejected from one for expressing certain opinions. People only got tossed if they were abusive or violent.

      Oh, yeah. There was the time I got 86'd for smoking hashish in a bar. Who knew they would take such a dim view? I guess they figured it cut into their profits.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:42PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:42PM (#831594)

        Well, it's very well possible I just fell for things that were made up in TV series!
        Though maybe it's also possible that your experience is more of the exception than the rule?
        In my family, certain combinations of topics (immigration for example) and people I would avoid, because discussing it seems pointless and exhausting due to far too different world views.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:56PM (2 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:56PM (#831598) Homepage Journal

          Sure. People always have disagreements. And different folks address those in different ways.

          I can't say whether or not my family is typical or an exception. I don't have enough experience for comparison.

          I will say that it's unfortunate that some folks feel the need to censor themselves with the very people who should *always* be in their corner. But again, that attitude is a product of my own experience.

          Getting back to your earlier point, one of the things that being online has changed is that otherwise considerate people seem willing to say nasty and obnoxious things to strangers that (not because of external restrictions) they'd never say to a stranger in person. Again, cf. GIFT [penny-arcade.com].

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:13PM (1 child)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:13PM (#831606)

            In my families (mom and dad were a bit different), lots of stuff was discussed openly, and lots of stuff wasn't - and it was somewhat random.

            On sex, my mom had "the talk" with me when I was 5, which apparently absolved her conscious of ever having to discuss it with me again. My dad's mom bought a set of books for me when I was 12 - a bit more age appropriate, but she certainly didn't want to discuss it. Dad's first mention of the topic was when I was 22 and still unmarried, a bit of dating advice from him. Then there was my high school girlfriend who went on to be Pet of the Month when I was 19, first time I talked openly about that with anyone in the family about that was mom when I was about 35.

            Politics, religion, and race would surface somewhat randomly - LGBT started becoming a favorite topic of dad's at one point... other times, when they were a source of intra-family disagreement, the topics were actively suppressed.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:33PM

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:33PM (#831618) Homepage Journal

              Interesting. I was thinking about adult conversations with family groups (I have a large family), rather than parent/child conversations about (sometimes) uncomfortable subjects.

              I had exactly one conversation about sex with my father. I was seventeen and my gf at the time had been pregnant and terminated the pregnancy.

              I asked my dad what he would tell me if I said I was in that situation and he replied "Well NotSanguine, you got yourself into this. I guess you'll have to get yourself out of it." Thanks, dad!

              What's most amazing about that is that he called me 'NotSanguine'. :)

              The parent/child "let's have a talk" thing is often pretty fraught for the parents. But I think those are less important in the development of attitudes and world views than the things that parents and other family members say in general conversation, when it isn't about "educating" the kids.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheFool on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:15PM (1 child)

        by TheFool (7105) on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:15PM (#831608)

        It's less like discussing within the family and more like being present every conversation you overhear on the street. Forgive me if I'm assuming too much, but - If you saw someone standing on the street corner in real life screaming about the antichrist, you'd probably not discuss anything with them. You'd probably just keep walking, no?

        The internet seems to have changed that dynamic. Now, one would be liable to discuss how wrong they are with them directly, or stand up next to them and start screaming about how religion is evil. The internet removed a lot of that barrier between strangers, and that brought about a lot of weird effects.

        I think your analogy has another insight, though - if we could treat everyone as family, we'd be fine. But I think we are a long way from that, and that such a thing may be impossible.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:41PM

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:41PM (#831626) Homepage Journal

          I think your analogy has another insight, though - if we could treat everyone as family, we'd be fine. But I think we are a long way from that, and that such a thing may be impossible.

          I think you misunderstood my point. I was responding to another poster about how families communicate (or don't). I don't think everyone should be treated as family, nor should everyone consider that others should treat them that way.

          In another comment [soylentnews.org], I addressed the issue with strangers:

          Getting back to your earlier point, one of the things that being online has changed is that otherwise considerate people seem willing to say nasty and obnoxious things to strangers that (not because of external restrictions) they'd never say to a stranger in person. Again, cf. GIFT [penny-arcade.com].

          In a nutshell: Yes, it would be nice, but realistically that's never going to happen.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(1)