#4

[gamer_parent]

Well, I think most of us can agree that the main reason this is so is less about the anonymity, and all about consequence. Just look tetron's post. It in and of itself shows that there are people out there who just don't give a hoot about their behavior online because they believe what happens online should not effect you at all and should not be taken seriously, since it has no immediate effect on you.

The problem is it actually does, just not in the way that you think.

First of all, having a general culture of ass-hattery online deters diversity and prevents other groups to participate in meaningful ways. Say what you will about having thick skin, it's one thing to realize that there are people out ther who will use hateful speech about your minority and just avoid those environments. (i.e. an african american would probably not purposely go out their to seek out a KKK gathering) It's another thing if it's constantly thrown in your face in public spaces or even worse, in a space that you're supporting financially.

That sort of thing means people will just pull out of the environment, stop getting involved.

I understand when people say that it is their right to freedom of speech to be as hateful and as obnoxious as possible. This doesn't mean you are absolved of any consequences of what you say. Freedom of Speech just means you can't get persecuted by the government for your opinions, not that you're allowed to be a jerk with no consequences. In normal daily life, NOBODY would spout the kind of rampant sociopathic crap that is routinely spouted off in say, 4chan. Why? because such a person would be socially shunned for it. The community at large still believes that being a jerk is a behavior that should not be encouraged.

But in an online environment, you effectively have cart-blanche to be as hateful as you want to be, because a lot of us LET it happen. On 4chan, it's pretty much a requirement. On other message boards, you might have a different culture all together. It is the social culture here that is key. Go to a heavily moderated board (this one is not bad, for example) and generally there are certain types of behaviors that are not accepted, freedom of speech be damned. Go to a board where the culture of the people there are generally congenial to one another, and you'll get the same thing. Being a jerk there will just get you ostracized from the community.

Malcolm Gladwell had an interesting point on this in the book, The Tipping Point. In it, he states that in general, the culture of a community can be controlled and guided while the number of active members is below 150. The reason why is because below 150, most of us can still managed to recognize names, behaviorial patterns, and other distinct identification that makes social consequence a relevant factor.

But once you get beyond that point, faces blur into the masses due to the limited social capacity of our minds and social consequences begin to disappear. It is at this point that external rulesets for enforcing said culture needs to step in or else community cohesion breaks down and you end up with a group schism. The mechansim to enforce such rules becomes EXTRA important as the community grows beyond that size.

If you read the case studies in the book, they showcase that in a lot of instances, a lot of successful culture building entities do so by immediately splitting the community into 2 pieces as soon as the 150 limit is reached, and new leaders/managers for each community are appointed to maintain guidance over the culture.

Interesting theory, in my opinion.

 

[Swny Nerdgasm]

Is it me, or does anyone else seem to notice that the number of people who "have" Asperger's Syndrome seems to be growing among online gaming communities?

 

[mkline]

I agree the Gladwell stuff is interesting. I wonder if that number 150 changes for virtual communities. I wonder if online games force us into more interactions with strangers who aren't part of our regulated cultures, and the human instinct is to wrassle with each other in some way, like chimps guarding the edges of their territory. As I've read these comments,I also find myself agreeing that people need places to express their nasty sides safely. As long as gaming doesn't become a place where you practice this and then transfer to real life, it may be a public service. I'd much rather have somebody gank my ass in a game than steal my car! On the other hand, I think how you treat people in any milieu is really a reflection on the kind of person your are, and I treasure my reputation and self-image. Personally, I'd really feel bad about giving someone the kind of crappy feeling assholes have given me. But that's me and the world is full of all types....

 

[Gray Mouser]

What a great post this is, not only addressing the issues present in video gaming but in life in general.

It's interesting that, as I write my response, there is a segment on TV right now discussing how the superhero genre has changed over time in response to the challenges of then-modern-day society. The Iconic Superman of the 40s, beyond reproach and liked by all, is a far cry from the darker Superman of our time.

If there had been MMORPGs in the 40s, would we have be talking about issues of ass-hattery and douche-baggery, as we are now? Would those times have spawned words like ass-hattery and douch-baggery?

I's agree with much of what has been said before. Anonymity certainly helps the development of online bullies, and the well-known concept that a system is designed to get he exact results that it gets.

I'd add, though, that as players of these games, we try very hard to get them as hard-wired into us as possible. Headsets, macros, keybinds, gear sets designed for whatever we might encounter...anything to make the game more automatic. That's interesting, since the parts of our brains that aid with automatic actions - reflexes - are the "old" parts of our brains, the reptilian parts, responsible for running, fighting, reacting without thought. Anyone who has done martial arts will recognize that we try to train so that our bodies react without thinking. An old teacher of mine used to say, "He who hesitates, meditates horizontally," and anyone in any MMORPG PVP game would agree.

The frontal lobes, that part of our brain responsible for judgment, analysis, and inhibition of more primal reactions. That is, the frontal lobes are supposed to be ass-hattery-preventers. So it's interesting that our keybinds and all of our efforts to plug into the game seem aimed at bypassing that filter. So the results seemed to be exactly what the system is designed for.

So, then, aggression, sexualized play, and alpha personality behavior should not be a surprise, right?

I was talking to Dr. Mark the other day (we're friends IRL, and were co-addicts during our fabulous WoW run), and the Bill Cosby quote from many years ago came up.

"I said to a guy, 'Tell me, what is it about cocaine that makes it so wonderful,' and he said, "Because it intensifies your personality." I said, "Yes, but what if you're an asshole?"

Having experienced the absolute rush of turning on the computer and plugging into the WoW world, where I'd be thwacking other players (I was the PVP-minded guy in our pair), I remember (still) how it felt), and would equate it with a drug-like experience. Hence, isn't it possible that these games push that "pleasure button" that we've seen the rats do in those mazes within those experiments that suggest that people might engage in behaviors that are ultimately harmful? And might not that personality-intensifying experience intensify these hind-brain, uninhibited personality traits?

Love the column - keep up the great work!

 

[SmileyBat]

I wrote a paper about this same question that borrowed lightly from some psychology articles. In short, people are more likely to become violent or indulge in other base impulses when they are wearing masks. The internet provides anonymity that serves as that mask.