Anonymity of the internet - For better or worse?

[Kriminal99]

News articles and other sources often comment on the anonymity of the net and how it causes people to act in a "less civil" manner.

 

My question is, is it really just more realistic?

 

Consider some of the following:

No Punchline

 

In person, any specious argument can appear to make an impact. In writing such arguments have far less impact as there is no "punchline" instant where the implication of the statement hits everyone at once and it sounds or looks witty.

 

As a result written (and therefore Internet) debates are far more influenced by reason, and fallacies that people are typically prone to using and abiding by suddenly seem less natural.

 

For example: A corporate executive or well respected academic gives a speech and a question is asked that aims to poke a hole in the argument. The executive/academic provides a pithy yet specious comeback in hopes of deferring the argument to "who is who" or Appeal to Authority Fallacy. On the internet though, the "pithy comeback" looks a little more just like 2+2=5.

 

Other examples: During a debate about how to be successful, a man pulls out a billfold of 100 dollar bills... perhaps part of money he inherited from his family. During a discussion about how to get attention from members of the opposite sex a person refers to the attractive girl he has known and dated since he was a child. These fallacious yet sometimes impactful tactics are not possible on the internet.

 

No Irrational Horde

 

In person a gang of even the most irrational people can be quite convincing, perhaps just for the short term until you don't have to deal with them anymore. However, they can also have an impact for the long term if you have to be around them for an extended period of time.

 

Imagine trying to debate a crowd of pro-lifers outside an abortion clinic that a woman should be free to choose. You would sooner expect to be assaulted with pictures of dead babies then you would a rational counter-argument. Even in mundane everyday situations this occurs to some degree, like if you debate a claim by a professor or suggest an alternative course of action in a corporate meeting in contrast to what others think should be done.

 

The truth may be (and in my experience) the relative peacefulness of the latter situations only comes from the known threat of rioting if anyone disagrees too strongly with the local majority opinion. We might refer to a crowd reaction implied in the first example as barbaric, but how can we label the other situations any different if they are dominated by the threat of rioting?

 

All of the implied arguments behind this rioting instinct are known to be fallacious, perhaps instead people should just learn to consider that they and their friends might be wrong long enough to hear out opposing arguments.

 

On the internet a crowd of ignorant people is just that - a crowd of ignorant people. Without the ability to riot or intimidate others with the threat of rioting, the most that can be done is sarcastic remarks and other irrational appeals for emotional support from others. Thus people are more likely to voice disagreement based on rational arguments, and to dismiss irrational responses to said disagreement.

 

Message Boards - No immediate pressure to respond

 

In person, people often feel pressured to provide an immediate response as if judgment of their claims and perhaps even their character will be resolved in a matter of seconds. Careful reasoning takes longer, and as a result people often use all manner of irrational tactics to save face in the short term.

 

On an internet message board however, such quick responses may not even be possible, and are far from expected. People view debates at their leisure and expect that at any given moment in the future more responses will be added.

 

Thus people have time to carefully reason out their responses and refrain from less rational tactics.

[Pyrotex]

In principle, the points you make are valid.

Without the face-to-face confrontation, and the ability to pepper one's response with highly emotional facial expressions, hand gestures and other body language, Internet dialogues are more likely to be played out on the basis of argument and reason.

 

However, it is far more difficult to truly persuade or make a difference in someone's attitude over the Internet. Like it or not, even the most intelligent persons often have hard-wired responses to anger, threats, or (more commonly) just sincere expressions of having the moral or rational high ground. Sincerety and authenticity count for a great deal in face-on discussions. I have observed many instances of a person online being proven wrong with solid facts and reasoning, who subsequently carries on as if nothing had happened.

 

The big problem with the Internet is that it removes all social consequences from uncivil or insincere behavior. Make a controversial and strongly worded statement in a church, and you may be shown the door. No violence is involved. But the public chagrin may be enough to modify behavior. The same at a town hall meeting. Even worse, one can be physically recognized and therefore accumulate a "reputation"--which could lead to fewer opportunities to speak publicly. On the Internet, folks with diminished capacities or dysfunctional social training can become persistent pests.

 

So, there are pros and cons to the Internet. It is a different form of public communication than our fore-fathers ever experienced. So, it is natural that there are fewer commonly accepted "rules" or "norms" of behavior, as we have in public discourse. This lack of regulations (and the inability to enforce them if we had them) is taken by some to be a free ticket to vandalistic and lawless excess.

 

I believe the advantages of the Internet (the trend toward rational discourse) probably equal, more or less, the disadvantages. But it will take time to sort this all out.

[Kriminal99]

Loss of conviction due to defeat of your arguments

 

I disagree with your first claim. It is true that people have no incentive to admit that they are wrong over the internet, and that all the things you mention play into a person's OUTWARD response to losing a debate. However I think that when it is shown through clear reasoning that there are logical problems with your beliefs or that they are even outright wrong, the results are inevitable. I also think that is more likely to happen on the internet where people don't stop before voicing all their arguments for fear of bodily harm or illegitimate social repercussions.

 

In my experience few people will actually admit that they are wrong about something, and I do not really care to make them. It is clear to me when they lose conviction and stop responding or start using really fallacious arguments and/or tactics. I often find them 6 months later arguing on the other side of the fence. I don't bother to point it out, all that matters is that they have become more reasonable.

 

In fact I think that if people concede before that point simply because of intimidation, the conviction of their opponent, the threat of a rioting crowd etc... the effect is far less desirable. At worst they will just go back to arguing the same opinion when the less reasonable sort have left. In a situation where they have to see the people who share that view on a daily basis they might claim to agree but have a poor understanding of the subject and no conviction in their belief.

 

The fact that people refuse to admit when they are wrong can be downplayed by a referee who enforces the implied rules of debate. That way, when someone's argument has been shot to pieces, they have no further recourse and no choice to simply withdraw from the argument. In the future when such rules become common knowledge, a sudden lack of rational argument from one side will be a clear sign of defeat.

 

A story about Bandwagon Fallacy

 

I also disagree with your other claims. You are basically trying to legitimize bandwagon fallacy. There is no upside to people censoring rational opinions to avoid illegitimate social repercussions. People may be more vulgar on the internet also because of the lack of repercussions, but then the vulgarity is less impactful on the internet as well.

 

When I was a kid, I picked up on certain things faster than other kids. I just never missed the moral of the cartoon show or movies I watched, and saw how it directly applied to everyday life (especially life at my house). I would challenge other kids claims and behavior when they did something wrong. I learned from the very beginning the average human reaction to this type of situation. They made a certain kind of facial expression that I learned to identify. Usually it involved a bunch of kids getting mad and trying to fight me. At that age, they did a bad job of hiding their true feelings and motives and a bad job of abusing social structure to lash out at people that made them insecure. They just yelled things that clearly indicated fear and anger and came running at me and tried to tackle me.

 

As I got older, their tactics changed somewhat. If some guy who thought he was "all that" (usually a little brother) and his friends got mad because I made him look stupid for acting in an immature manner, they would try and spread false rumors about me. Before that though, it was clear that the situation was quite the same. They made that same face indicating fear and anger, and made arguments that were clearly connected to the selfish arguments they made as kids.

 

As an adult, I see obviously connected behavior when I point out an error in a group's reasoning or that certain behavior is immoral and/or immature. They still make that face, and make fallacious arguments that are clearly connected to the silly and obviously wrong arguments made by the kids.

 

However the tactics they used to try and "tackle" me change. They might try to abuse social structure in various ways. Does this mean that their behavior is more mature and civil? I think not. In fact in my experience on several occasions when said people's attempts to abuse social structure to lash out at someone fail, returning to physically lashing out is quite common.

 

Sure if you have a choice between attacking someone risking bodily harm and just lying to their boss to get them fired, or abusing your supervisor/moderator/police status to get them in trouble you will take the easy road. That says nothing of what kind of feelings are driving their behavior.

 

I wouldn't categorize this behavior as nonviolent just because they don't yet have to resort to violence to deal with their extreme emotional distress.

 

All power comes from responsibility

 

If the fact that "social repercussions" of this nature are driven by immature emotional reactions is not enough to disqualify it as being useful, then perhaps the fact that such behavior is always a direct contradiction of the social structure is.

 

The church scenario? So anyone is allowed to enter the church and even ask questions, except anyone who stumps the priest or others and/or makes them look stupid by failing to understand their teachings due to other things they already know? Is that the purpose of the church? To go their and revel in ignorance? Is that why members donate money to the church?

 

It's easy to make a specious argument that makes it sound like the would be ejectee is somehow different than any other church goers, but it is impossible to make a logical argument that singles them out.

 

This is often the case. Not only that but such deviation from the purpose of any such authority often simultaneously opens a channel to defeat it.

 

A supervisor mad because you disagreed with or confronted him about something? Did he abuse his position to get you in trouble or hinder your progress? A particularly rational argument addressed to his supervisor could get him fired, demoted or you transferred out of his jurisdiction. How well such tactics work depend on how well the company in question understands the need for them.

 

In summary, I think that the average person acts differently on the internet because the average person is a pushover. I have deduced the most strict standards possible for self skepticism and objectivity towards the opinions of others and therefore am supremely confident when I do openly dissent from the opinion of a majority.

[Buffy]

It is clear to me when they lose conviction and stop responding or start using really fallacious arguments and/or tactics.

 

When I was a kid, I picked up on certain things faster than other kids.

 

...Usually it involved a bunch of kids getting mad and trying to fight me....They just yelled things that clearly indicated fear and anger and came running at me and tried to tackle me.

 

If some guy who thought he was "all that" ...and got mad because I made him look stupid for acting in an immature manner, they would try and spread false rumors about me.

 

Sure if you have a choice between attacking someone risking bodily harm and just lying to their boss to get them fired, or abusing your supervisor/moderator/police status to get them in trouble you will take the easy road.

 

So anyone is allowed to enter the church and even ask questions, except anyone who stumps the priest or others and/or makes them look stupid by failing to understand their teachings due to other things they already know? Is that the purpose of the church? To go their and revel in ignorance?

 

A supervisor mad because you disagreed with or confronted him about something?

 

I think that the average person...is a pushover. I have deduced the most strict standards possible for self skepticism and objectivity towards the opinions of others and therefore am supremely confident when I do openly dissent from the opinion of a majority.

I wonder though, why does someone like you who is so superior waste their time with mental midgets like us?

 

Although you say you don't care about showing people what idiots they are compared to you, you certainly spend a lot of time trying to prove it. Why is that?

 

How did your mother react to this behavior when you were a child?

 

Vexed by an evil spirit, like the Gadarene swine and other critics, :phones:

Buffy

[LaurieAG]

A supervisor mad because you disagreed with or confronted him about something? Did he abuse his position to get you in trouble or hinder your progress? A particularly rational argument addressed to his supervisor could get him fired, demoted or you transferred out of his jurisdiction. How well such tactics work depend on how well the company in question understands the need for them.

 

Good point Kriminal99.

 

And don't forget how cronyism can wreak havoc in any corporate structure. I once worked for company where, after 3 months of an 'employee incentive' scheme and 4 winners (a draw one month) the troubleshooters moved in, sacked 2 of the 'winners' and transferred one other.

 

While Aristotle may have said that it is difficult to be both a good man and a good citizen, it is impossible to be a good man and a crony.

[Pyrotex]

...I also disagree with your other claims. You are basically trying to legitimize bandwagon fallacy. ...

As I was making no claims, just voicing observations and loosely held opinions, I disagree with your claim that you are disagreeing with my claims.

[Kriminal99]

I wonder though, why does someone like you who is so superior waste their time with mental midgets like us?

 

Although you say you don't care about showing people what idiots they are compared to you, you certainly spend a lot of time trying to prove it. Why is that?

 

How did your mother react to this behavior when you were a child?

 

Vexed by an evil spirit, like the Gadarene swine and other critics, :hihi:

Buffy

 

Implied uncertainty in human reason

 

This right here is the problem, in more ways than one. Here is another way of putting it. If I go up to a supervisor and say "ah hey man, your shirt is on inside out (or backwards supposing it was business casual or something) it would be silly for him to try and refer to my claim as arrogant or presumptuous or anything of the sort. It is a simple matter of fact... either his shirt is or is not inside out.

 

Yet if I suggest that there might be something wrong with the way things are handled around the office to my supervisor, he might take offense and ask a (to me meaningless) question like "who do you think you are?". How is this any different than the shirt situation?

 

The answer logically must be, the person who responds this way has no faith in his own ability to identify an incorrect argument. For if he could, it would simply be a matter of fact just as the shirt was..

 

Philosophical issues, moral issues, behavioral issues etc ARE matters of fact to certain kinds of people. It is those kind of people that usually make these kinds of arguments to begin with. Why are they clearly matters of fact to some and not others?

 

It all stems from misuse of metaphors, or more generally inductive reasoning. Metaphorical arguments can be used to support mutually exclusive arguments at the same time. That means it is easy to convince someone into believing something that ultimately turns out to be false, because it sounded like a good argument. Thus, human reason is not trusted the way it could/should be if used properly.

 

Under certain conditions, some kinds of people learn to categorize information differently such that they do not have this problem. For example, my dad likes to bs and manipulate people. I saw the problems behind that kind of thinking at an early age, and naturally (without conscious thought on the matter) learned to categorize information differently than others naturally do.

 

As a result, even complex philosophical arguments are like to me what math is to an average person - that is they are precise and provide definite answers.

 

I don't know how much natural ability plays into it, but I do know that experiences are a major factor.

 

But if you don't get these experiences soon enough you may just come to some backwards conclusion about it being wrong to disagree with people on complex issues and thus forever bar yourself from progressing as you from then on refuse to look at things for what they really are...