Local attitudes and the internet

[Floppertje]

So I was thinking about jerks on the internet. You know the ones I mean.
This lead me to thinking about how some places seem to be worse than others. youtube seems to attract a lot of stupid, but escapists are usually well-behaved. I'm sure we can all point to games that have better or worse communities than others. It even goes so far that on specific forums, you can point to sections that are more likely to devolve into hostility than others. RSI is a good example of this; subscribers tend to avoid the general chat section because people are just so much more friendlier in the subscriber's den.

But these people can't be full-time jerkwads, right? They must have families and friends and be at least moderately agreeable in their day-to-day lives...

And then I realized that there are real-life situations that mirror this. Different places have different rules of behaviour attached to them. Don't shout in a library, don't use your cellphone in a theatre, you get the idea. some have signs, (no smoking, for example) but in other cases the rules are unwritten. You don't bust out your dancemoves while shopping for groceries, even though the store has no specific anti-dancing policy. You just behave the way you are expected to in the place you're visiting.

Do you think this might be an explanation for behaviour on the web? people behave in a certain way on certain websites because that's just how you behave there?
and, if this is true, could we use that knowledge to influence people's behaviour in order to make websites nicer places to be?

 

[Vegosiux]

But these people can't be full-time jerkwads, right? They must have families and friends and be at least moderately agreeable in their day-to-day lives...

Hah! Fool. Ev-erybody knows people are one-dimensional creatures. Ev-erybody.

They said something disagreeable? That's it, code cracked! Now their sheer despicable presence is out there for the entire world to see, and they shall be reviled and shunned for it! You are reviling and shunning them with all your being, yes? Because, guess what, if you aren't that makes you even worse than they are!

Ahem, where was I? Alright, let me be serious.

Do you think this might be an explanation for behaviour on the web? people behave in a certain way on certain websites because that's just how you behave there?
and, if this is true, could we use that knowledge to influence people's behaviour in order to make websites nicer places to be?

I think it comes down to GIFT quite a lot, but I disagree with the notion that it's anonymity that makes people act like "fuckwads", or rather, it's not their anonymity. It's the anonymity of the audience. It's so easy to slip into bad behavior if you don't have this mental image of the fact that there's a person on the other end of whichever wire you're talking to.

Actually, someone should make a study; how people behave not when they can or can't be seen by their audience, but when they can or can't see their audience.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think you are looking at this in a very simplistic way, though that's very common.

A bully, for example, can be good friends with other bullies, or people they don't bully, without not being a bully.

People are often very quick to defend people as not being cruel/whatever, because they haven't been cruel to them personally. Doesn't mean they can't be cruel to others.

 

[Twinrehz]

"No, from around here, man is not a simple construct. It has layers and layers of complexity"

See http://youtu.be/ipMagcF26fM?t=1m54s

If the next sentence wasn't "God speed you magnificent son of a *****", it would probably be possible to take it serious.

Anyway, what was the thread about? Oh, right.

I really don't have anything to add, I just wanted to say that sentence, and give it *some* context. (Although its context doesn't make much sense in the first place). As a side note, if you think that bit was funny, you should consider watching the other 6 episodes. I was laughing my ass of the first time I saw it.

 

[Floppertje]

I think it comes down to GIFT quite a lot, but I disagree with the notion that it's anonymity that makes people act like "fuckwads", or rather, it's not their anonymity. It's the anonymity of the audience. It's so easy to slip into bad behavior if you don't have this mental image of the fact that there's a person on the other end of whichever wire you're talking to.

Actually, someone should make a study; how people behave not when they can or can't be seen by their audience, but when they can or can't see their audience.

True, and that would be an interesting study. But I also think that there are places where there is more asshole-ism than normal, like at football matches that have a high propensity for riots, or maybe certain nightclubs. both the jerk and their audience can be seen.

I think you are looking at this in a very simplistic way, though that's very common.

A bully, for example, can be good friends with other bullies, or people they don't bully, without not being a bully.

People are often very quick to defend people as not being cruel/whatever, because they haven't been cruel to them personally. Doesn't mean they can't be cruel to others.

Well, yes. I'm trying to find a generalized law in this behaviour so simplifying is necessary by definition. I think you're right, that bullies can be friendly to others, but (no offence) you seem a little eager to go the other way, in a 'once a jerk, always a jerk' kind of way. I think that some of the people who act normal on this website can be very rude on other sites, even though there is no real difference in the audience. the thing that is different is what is perceived to be normal behaviour.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think that some of the people who act normal on this website can be very rude on other sites, even though there is no real difference in the audience. the thing that is different is what is perceived to be normal behaviour.

There probably is an element of that, yes, though how big it is is hard to say.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I think you are looking at this in a very simplistic way, though that's very common.

A bully, for example, can be good friends with other bullies, or people they don't bully, without not being a bully.

People are often very quick to defend people as not being cruel/whatever, because they haven't been cruel to them personally. Doesn't mean they can't be cruel to others.

Well, yes. I'm trying to find a generalized law in this behaviour so simplifying is necessary by definition. I think you're right, that bullies can be friendly to others, but (no offence) you seem a little eager to go the other way, in a 'once a jerk, always a jerk' kind of way.

Why? Does being friendly in some places negate being a jerk in other places?

Social pressure to behave "well" is probably lower in the internet, what with the anonymity and lack of consequences and all that, than in most other places. So if someone is behaving like a jerk online, a place where he/her just be him/herself without having to face any real consequences to "bad" behaviour, I assume that this person is just showing his/her true colours here.

Please note though that I'm not thinking of people here who e.g. occassionally ragw a bit when they loose an only game, calling others noobs or even faggots or what not, just emotions boiling over a bit in the heat of the moment, stuff like that, but about about people who consistently behave like assholes, or even go out of their way offending others and deriving pleasure from it.

 

[Floppertje]

Why? Does being friendly in some places negate being a jerk in other places?

Social pressure to behave "well" is probably lower in the internet, what with the anonymity and lack of consequences and all that, than in most other places. So if someone is behaving like a jerk online, a place where he/her just be him/herself without having to face any real consequences to "bad" behaviour, I assume that this person is just showing his/her true colours here.

Please note though that I'm not thinking of people here who e.g. occassionally ragw a bit when they loose an only game, calling others noobs or even faggots or what not, just emotions boiling over a bit in the heat of the moment, stuff like that, but about about people who consistently behave like assholes, or even go out of their way offending others and deriving pleasure from it.

You could easily switch it around. Does being a jerk in some places negate being friendly somewhere else? I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate here, because I think it actually DOES. IMO being friendly should be the standard, so the whole thing should be tilted that way. To put it in a more mass-effecty way: being a jerk gets you more negative karma points than being nice gets your positive ones, because being friendly should be the standard.

I think that's a pretty significant distinction you're making there. someone who calls their teammate a noob because they think their teammate lost them the match is completely different from what you would call a griefer. calling people noobs would be the 'accepted normal behaviour', being a griefer would, it seems to me, stem from a kind of sadistic pleasure you take in hurting or annoying other people.

 

[CloudAtlas]

You could easily switch it around. Does being a jerk in some places negate being friendly somewhere else? I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate here, because I think it actually DOES. IMO being friendly should be the standard, so the whole thing should be tilted that way. To put it in a more mass-effecty way: being a jerk gets you more negative karma points than being nice gets your positive ones, because being friendly should be the standard.

I'm not trying to dodge this question, but I cannot come up with a better response than the one I already gave you right now, so I will leave it at that for now.