In all honesty Sly, I think your anecdotal evidence is somewhat misleading in this respect. It’s my experience that any forum that has been around, has regulars, and especially has an influx of n00bs is going to behave that way. It’s essentially human nature.
Interesting. My personal anecdotal evidence among friends one might subjectively classify as geek and non-geek utterly refute this. Not that “non-geek” friends are more mean or callous, just more comfortable with speaking in those terms. As for asserting intellectual prowess, or being pretentious, that knows no demographic as far as my experience extends.
This has led me to question the idea that it is somehow the “internet” that causes or allows such hostility and interaction, and whether instead it is just the particular body of people using it (geeks in general are still the heaviest users of the internet, I’d bet). Even more specifically, with respect to certain topics of bulletin boards, etc.
Probably, but you sort of cast a wide swath with your original statement. You bring up outright hostility, rudeness, condescension, insular behavior, pretentious behavior, judgmental behavior, a pretty large gamut of negative behavior, of which I doubt any internet demographic is particularly immune, just as no IRL demographic in particular is immune. It’s just people, yo. More and more people of all types are going to continue becoming involved in the internet, and nothing overall change about the way people behave, IMO.
Wait a minute. Oh, you bastard, you had me thinking you were some relative internet n00b and I was being too hard on you or something. The kid gloves are off, pal! (or something)
It is true I cast a pretty broad net here. Obviously it is going to be fairly impossible for me to prove such a vague and open theory as I’m positing here, and I freely admit that. Further, the evidence is all anecdotal.
I started forming the theories recently on noticing that various city sites (that I am looking at for housing searches) seem to have pages and pages of conversation about the city, great places to eat, etc. without flame wars. Likewise, my wife frequents sewing and other crafts hobby sites. Again, techniques are shared, stories told, etc.
Very rarely do you see, “I was out at [city’s French Restaurant] last night, and thought the new chef was excellent,” to be followed by, “Yeah, if you’re a retard who likes overpriced food, that’s the place to go.” Sewing sites do not have flamewars back and forth about whether they are getting the appropriate levels of support from the Michael’s craft store that sold them yarn.
It is anecdotal, and I may just be looking at it wrong, but it simply seems a different type of discourse, using the exact same bulletin board structure with the exact same anonymity.
I think Robert Sharp has the gist of it. I can be somewhat snide in person, but unless irritated I soften it with visual cues. And if I notice people taking it more seriously than I intended I apologise. In written communication you lack the instant feedback that tells you when you have stepped out of line. I imagine most people will also adjust body language and tone pretty naturally from visual and audio cues when engaged in face to face communication, this feedback and finetuning is lost here.
In the case of people writing in their second language this might be compounded, for most of us non english speakers english will be a somewhat blunter instrument than our native toungue.
Edit: I imagine a bulletin board mostly populated by men will also be somewhat more combative.
rofl; great analogy. i say that is definitely true.
i’d even go so far as to say this site, for example, is a completely different ball game, along with casual gaming sites, from the places ‘hardcore’ gamers frequent, far different in attitude. much more flaming and rudeness at the hardcore gaming sites than at casual, i think. this place is downright domesticated compared to some of the other sites i visit regularly.
edit: im alot more ‘talkative’ and ‘extroverted’ IRL than the way i come across on the internet.
I guess I didn’t make a very good point originally in response to the OP’s question. Let me restate:
I think the true knee-jerk reflexive flamers are fundamentally just plain immature. They lack social perspective, they feel personally affronted by opinions they disagree with, and they are hugely ego-invested in their online personas. Very often they also tend to be male.
You can see enormous amounts of this personality type, not just in online gaming groups, but also in online politics forums, gun discussion groups, et al. I’m thinking old school Usenet again here – soc.men, alt.politics.libertarian, the abortion discussion groups. Perfect breeding grounds for continual flaming. P&R here is a feeble shadow of the ridiculous vitriol in places like that.
Basically, people who post that way – who get that upset, over and over and over, and who continually vent that upset – really do need to get a life. Because they are convinced that their endless circle of posting actually achieves something, that every flame is a sword blow of righteousness. That fundamental ego confusion is what causes more flaming than anything else. I know, from having had that exact emotion for years on end.
Which reminds me of my upper-level computer science courses. They were mostly populated with Indian and Chinese exchange/immigrant/etc. students who usually just came in, sat down and learned. There was a contingent of uber nerds, though, who sat in the back corner. They would have the loudest, dumbest arguments before class metaphorically chest thumping their geek creds. I stayed the hell away from them.
Knew a gal once who was into the odd niche hobby of homemade soap. (I never did get an invite to Project Mayhem, more’s the pity.) She had stories of particular soapmaking mailing lists having just vicious flamewars on about such divisive and seriously important topics on whether or not to use soapmaking kits, or if the use of same simply invalidated the whole point of the craft.
I’m predisposed to simply taking the “people suck” viewpoint in all things, but it’s entirely coincidental that I weigh anecdotes that support that more heavily. Also, when I’m in a position to finally call down a cleansing rain of holy radioactive fire from the skys, I don’t want to worry about selective targeting.
I would also think that sometimes people will challenge others online when they won’t face to face because when online, it is much harder to lie or say something outrageous and get away with it. The Bill O’Reilly types can bully and shout and say insane things, but without the time to pick everything apart piece by piece, they may “win” an argument by sheer force of will. Online, it is harder to do this straight up intimidation. So, normally quiet or reserved people may speak up because they can, without having to be shouted at.
I’m pretty much the same on the 'net as I am in person – generally pleasant and normal with a tendency to fly into a rage every once in a while if you catch me in the wrong mood.
