The emotional poverty of online discussion | INFJ Forum

The emotional poverty of online discussion

Lark

Rothchildian Agent
May 9, 2011
2,220
127
245
MBTI
ENTJ
Enneagram
9
I've read people criticising online discussion for its intellectual poverty before, which I've thought is a little anti-democratic sometimes, although I dont think lousy arguments or failure to display learning and understanding of topics, points and counter points is as bad as the sorts of emotional poverty in discussion I've witnessed instead.

Before I go any further its important that I state that I'm not talking about this forum, although on other psychology or personality forums, which have open forums or topical forums too which discuss politics, culture, philosophy and religion, all the contentious or potentially contentious topics, I've witnessed more than one "I dont visit when there is conflict" or "I dont like conflict" threads.

I think that's pretty serious, there's a climate on these forums which does not tolerate disagreement, difference, diversity of opinion, unpopular opinion and loathes anything which threatens to diverge from the perceived consensus, which is itself usually and broadly speaking not very well thought out, not very clear, reflects by and large the received wisdom or cliches and catchphrases of the big political or cultural tribes. This could be just a matter of the kinds of scenes which exist offline being reinvented or reinforced online but I tend to think that if that sort of climate is fostered online, considered something positive, then I am absolutely certain that it will migrate across to the real world.

In the context of the internet I've seen threats to consensus, quickly branded as this or that sort of bigotry, not simply subject to trolling, yah-boo groupthink and all those sorts of things but bannings, where the posters arent breeching any forum rules either the rules are amended under pressure or really serious attempts are made to provoke a breech of rules to allow for a banning. Having visited and observed this pattern panning out in more than one forum, which I'd thought to begin with I broadly agreed with the politics of those present, ie feminist, liberal (at least fiscally so), perceived as being open minded and inviting, its pretty chilling to see people who given the sorts of language they can summon up and evidence of reading complex texts you could believe are no intellectual light weights believing that they are acting in good conscience and securing their corner of the web from wickedness and bigotry. Its chilling because there's no recourse to reason or the strength of argument, there's even sometimes outright acknowledgement that they can not make an argument, dont like an argument being made or any challenge to their opinion, which they believe is correct anyhow, at and feel its, broadly speaking, anti-social behaviour. Instead there's a recourse to groupthink, appeals to the gallery and finally power via the mediums of forum standards and rules.

That bothers me because it is perfectly reflected in the real world, where groups hold views and opinions which do not arise from their experience, and are not falsifiable by their experience, which are often vague and negatively defined, ie in opposition to ill understood "others" or "institutions" (which are the villains of the piece in contrast to another valourised constitutency, usually a minority, perhaps historically an underdog) and, most importantly, which naked power politics can be used against. I did not always but I have begun to believe that academia has a role in the cultivation of this sort of thing. In the media there are camps which encourage this too, pushing emotional buttons, ramping conflict and enmity to boost ratings with little or no consideration of the consequences of being such "trigger men".

Do you agree with this analysis or have you encountered anything similar or do you think it is flawed and unreflected in your experience online?
 
Here are things that lead to people showing the worst of themselves on forums:

1. Anonymity

Say it online, and you don't have to own it. This makes online discussions an ideal place to discharge negative energies.

2. Lack of facetime

During debates and arguments, people unconsciously perceive and react to their conversation partner. Online, this is different. Everything ends up coming down to the Self instead of involving the other person. This one sidedness isn't healthy or receptive.

3. In groups vs out groups

Especially in MBTI, there is a natural "Us and them" mentality. "Oh, well of course an INTP would say that!" or "Oh, here comes *username* with the rose colored NF point of view." ... etc. In a community that's all about labeling, it's going to be more prevalent than other forums.

4. People identify with their beliefs

People, particularly those who are heavily invested in typology, are looking for a solid, concrete ID. When they get on the forums and defend their "ideas," they are really defending themselves. They have become one with their opinions, and so to be wrong is a direct hit to their sense of "self."

I don't think most people consciously choose to be so venomous. The flaw is in the platform by which they are communicating. It breeds drama automatically!
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
I'd say that people use the forums for different purposes and as a result will present differently

Those looking to discuss various issues will inevitably come over as more serious and contenious than those who are only looking to make friends

Having had a lot of discussions with people now in various places irl and online i'd say that in a lot of cases people believe what they want to believe

They also often have a lot invested in things that form their sense of identity

So if you are going to have a discussion about a religion...let's say christianity then it is going to be easy for someone taking a critical look at that to clash with someone who self identifies as a christian and whose familiy and friends are part of their church community. The person looking only to make friends may steer clear of the sex, politics and religion talk altogether to avoid potentially contentious situations occuring

That's just one scenario

Now imagine putting billions of people from all around the world all coming from different cultures, ideologies, religions and viewpoints onto one internet and see what happens

There is a melting pot effect going on at the moment on a scale that has not been seen before (at least in this historical cycle) and we are all living through it and participating in it

Its exciting and also kind of crazy

Potentially over enough time things could stabilise a bit as a consensus forms...a meeting of minds...but at the moment we are definately at the: ''i'm right'', ''no i'm right'', ''no i'm right'' stage

It's kinda the wild west at the moment
 
Last edited:
Do you agree with this analysis or have you encountered anything similar or do you think it is flawed and unreflected in your experience online?
I’ve absolutely experienced something similar, both online and off.

Have you ever heard of the term “pain body”? Eckhart Tolle uses it, so that can give it a spiritual flavor, but it has psychological meaning as well. Anyway, if you come at these experiences from this angle you might say that you are having an encounter with a “collective pain body”.

Regardless, I think it has a lot to do with this…
They also often have a lot invested in things that form their sense of identity
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mechanist
greaterdickwad_6440.jpg


I've learned that no matter how intelligent those involved, nor how prestigious the website, this holds true. I've seen intelligent. interesting discussions involving rational open minded people devolve into: "Fuck you; please die" and "You're worse than Hitler; go kill yourself"

These were on websites like The New Yorker and MIT Technology Review where you'd expect posters to be a bit above the common trolling of youtube.
 
Found it [MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION]

I think [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] has the most amazing insight to this and I love him for posting that the way he did.

I think time will tell if the internet will become a place of civility or stay in the hate and anger that there is today, that being said it's a lot less hateful than it was when I was a teenager. Mostly due to a lot of rules enforced in chat rooms and things, which caught me off guard quite a bit in my early twenties as I have a potty mouth and cuss like a sailor, but you know it's really all for the best. Rules need to be in place when you have groups upon groups of people, all of which do not necessarily agree with each other. The internet is evolving in that sense and we're getting better. As far as the continued efforts, I think that doesn't matter so much if we blow each other up or kill the planet with our continued disregard for climate change, but hey, if we do survive, it'd be fun to see what the outcomes is :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
greaterdickwad_6440.jpg


I've learned that no matter how intelligent those involved, nor how prestigious the website, this holds true. I've seen intelligent. interesting discussions involving rational open minded people devolve into: "Fuck you; please die" and "You're worse than Hitler; go kill yourself"

These were on websites like The New Yorker and MIT Technology Review where you'd expect posters to be a bit above the common trolling of youtube.

I don't think it's "normal person becomes dickwad" but rather instead "covert dickwad becomes dickwad revealed"

I for one feel a bit liberated because face to face conversation is often inauthentic, inefficient, and overly polite for me. You can't rip into the heart of an issue as easily when you're trying to be nice because you're tied by social etiquette.

It's not that people care more in person. It's more like certain things just don't get said in person, or opinions get diluted for the present company. A lot of it just goes on behind your back, or in the person's mind, when it's face to face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvp12gh5
Its called anonymity. A detachment from self that allows for... interesting results. I dont know if its good or bad, to me its just different input, a new way, a different angle of looking at things.