7 ms·

The dehumanisation of online dialogue is interesting. Is it because of 'anonymity' or is there more at play?

lossolo 1y ago
A long time ago, you would only interact with humans from your own tribe. Most of your actions had direct consequences for you, and you interacted with these people every day. Your life and wellbeing depended on that group and your social status. Then came local communities, followed by the global village, with access to eight billion people you will never meet or know. You can say whatever you want to them and face no real consequences, you can simply block them if you wish.
whartung 1y ago
I think it's the bandwidth, or lack there of. A lot of it happens in out of band posts like these. It seems to happen less in interactive (i.e. chat, etc.). Make no mistake, it absolutely happens there. But not as much as in async posts (I don't think). I don't think it happens much at all with video. Most of it is surrounded by context (or lack of). How difficult it is to communicate (typing like this is not easy, and certainly not for the impatient). I have to keep telling folks when they get that Look in their face because of what someone said or didn't say over email or an instant message to not judge on that. If it's that important to you, CALL them. TALK to them, you simply can not rely on typed conversations for anything that impacts you emotionally. "What do you think they meant by that?" Oh no. It's just an awful medium.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  That sort of is what I find. I know that my idea is completely rectally-sourced, but I feel that the less time that we have to think about an element of an interaction, the less likely we are to go into the nasty "flame mode" we see. But there's exceptions to every case (especially when human nature is involved). I actually know people that are so emotionally broken, that every interaction that they have; regardless of the context and medium, is a fight. They tend to be lonely and angry. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  - cindyllm 1y ago
    [dead]
ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
I think that part of it, is that when we are engaging with people in realtime (especially face to face), our emotional driver is behind the wheel, and when there's a pause between responses, our analytical driver has time to grab the wheel, and that's where the "dehumanization" comes from. That's not always a bad thing. In emotionally-charged situations, that "few seconds of consideration" can help stabilize the interaction. People claim that it's the lack of consequences, and illusion of safety, but I feel as if it's really the emotional disconnection that does it.
lordnacho 1y ago
Anonymity is one aspect, for sure. But also, people often have not taken in the lesson of interpreting generously. They take the worst interpretation of the words, and often add a few imagined things that were never written (oh you like healthcare, you communist?). This is worse in written form because the feedback loop is longer, but it being written makes it feel like the author has had plenty of time to think about it. Forums are also the kind of place that everyone thinks are populated by political bots. Believing every other comment is written in bad faith is going to change how you behave. When you think of arguments as a kind of battle, you end up forgetting the person on the other side.
9rx 1y ago
Dehumanization is a poor framing, really. It was never humanized in the first place. Sure, those of us who have a technical understanding understand that it is likely that there are humans involved as an implementation detail, but from the user perspective there is no other human to be seen. If the technical backend were replaced by a sufficiently capable LLM (or whatever technology) absolutely nothing about the user experience would change. From the user perspective, it is a solitary activity. Human interaction hasn't gone away. Online discussion is a different tool for a different job.
- socalgal2 1y ago
  You could say the same about NPCs in a holodeck, effectively declaring that talking to people face to face is really a solitary activity
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > talking to people face to face is really a solitary activity There is no doubt a lot of truth in that statement at some kind of fundamental level, but as far as language goes, that's literally the opposite of what we consider a solitary activity. Staring at a computer screen on the other hand...
- sentinelsignal 1y ago
  by " Online discussion is a different tool for a different job." could you elaborate on that.
- jv22222 1y ago
  I never thought about it this way. That technically every internet interaction is solo. Mind bending.
  - rapnie 1y ago
    But much of internet interaction isn't solo, in all those places where online and offline have connections. There will be a ton of dehumanization once in the morning we type a quick and lazy "/greet Mary" on the console and the AI agent takes over fully, sends a personalised email to Mary in my voice, and adds a "Welcome back from vacation!" note, after consulting my agent-managed calendar. Fully decoupling us from each other.
subscribed 1y ago
No, I don't think it's anonymity. You can see absolutely rabid, hateful, unhinged things people post under their real names on Facebook, LinkedIn, nextdoor.
- rapnie 1y ago
  There is a kind of 'bubble effect' where people are wrapped in their own world. A similar effect can be seen once people drive a car and there's a behavior change towards other people on the road, and 'road rage' becoming a thing.
  - mordechai9000 1y ago
    I think people (myself included) have a mental model of the other driver that seems to default to the worst possible interpretation of their motives. If I was in a grocery store and someone "cut me off" and forced me to slow down because they misjudged the timing, I would think nothing of it. I certainly wouldn't make an obscene gesture and shout at them.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
      Also, when we are driving, we're in a pretty high state of anxiety; just as a baseline. I find it amazing, that, when I'm driving, and some knucklehead does something that almost makes me crash (and thus, maybe kill me), I get incandescent with rage, but, five minutes later, I've all but forgotten the incident. I could easily see myself fanning that rage into something that could result in self-destructive road rage.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  I agree. I think that it's the removal of an emotional connection, and that happens naturally, after a certain pause (an interesting study, would be to find out how long, and I'll bet there are people who can explicitly prevent the analytical part of their mind from taking the wheel).
  - 1y ago
pjc50 1y ago
I think it's an exaggeration of the "city effect": the denser an environment is, the more likely it is that people who see you out to talk to you are going to have a negative agenda, because everyone else is trying to keep their head down. If you meet a stranger at the North Pole, where you're the only two humans around, you're going to talk to them. If you meet a stranger in a remote village, you're probably going to talk to them. If you meet a stranger on the street in New York, you're probably going to put your hand over your wallet. Adverse selection wins. It sometimes feels like social media has gone from a place to make friends to a place to make enemies - or at least to bond with a group through the medium of hate. Bonding through hate of the outsider is hardly new, but it's especially negative on the Internet where it can be amplified over and over.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- pastage 1y ago
  The idea of the city effect is suburbia romatization. My view is that people (me included) tend to be biased in what they like. I love cities and dense areas and hence most interactions I have are positive. I like what you said about the kinship through hate, I feel no connection to a city though rather I see the segregation of suburbia as the breeding ground for hate.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Most interactions in a city are neutral: you can walk past a thousand people in a subway without conceiving of it as an interaction, you just ignore them and they ignore you. In a way you couldn't do it you met in a wilderness.
    - pastage 1y ago
      That is a bold statement I do not understand why you think it is true. I am trying to understand how your concept about a common hate connects to cities. You are comparing leisure time "the wilderness" to work time "the big city". A city lets you choose your interactions, and it forces you to see things that are not only the hate in your bubble. The possibility to have an interaction that changes your world view is greater in an integrated city. Hate can grow even if we all sit in a corner of the woods on the internet, or if we listen to the same radio host. There are too many cultural aspects in your view of the city, I do not know where you come from here. FWIW I have lived in mega cities, and also for years outside of cities in some of the least populated spaces in the "developed world". My experience do not reflect yours at all.

A long time ago, you would only interact with humans from your own tribe. Most of your actions had direct consequences for you, and you interacted with these people every day. Your life and wellbeing depended on that group and your social status. Then came local communities, followed by the global village, with access to eight billion people you will never meet or know. You can say whatever you want to them and face no real consequences, you can simply block them if you wish.

whartung 1y ago

I think it's the bandwidth, or lack there of. A lot of it happens in out of band posts like these. It seems to happen less in interactive (i.e. chat, etc.). Make no mistake, it absolutely happens there. But not as much as in async posts (I don't think). I don't think it happens much at all with video. Most of it is surrounded by context (or lack of). How difficult it is to communicate (typing like this is not easy, and certainly not for the impatient). I have to keep telling folks when they get that Look in their face because of what someone said or didn't say over email or an instant message to not judge on that. If it's that important to you, CALL them. TALK to them, you simply can not rely on typed conversations for anything that impacts you emotionally. "What do you think they meant by that?" Oh no. It's just an awful medium.

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
That sort of is what I find. I know that my idea is completely rectally-sourced, but I feel that the less time that we have to think about an element of an interaction, the less likely we are to go into the nasty "flame mode" we see. But there's exceptions to every case (especially when human nature is involved). I actually know people that are so emotionally broken, that every interaction that they have; regardless of the context and medium, is a fight. They tend to be lonely and angry. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago

I think that part of it, is that when we are engaging with people in realtime (especially face to face), our emotional driver is behind the wheel, and when there's a pause between responses, our analytical driver has time to grab the wheel, and that's where the "dehumanization" comes from. That's not always a bad thing. In emotionally-charged situations, that "few seconds of consideration" can help stabilize the interaction. People claim that it's the lack of consequences, and illusion of safety, but I feel as if it's really the emotional disconnection that does it.

lordnacho 1y ago

Anonymity is one aspect, for sure. But also, people often have not taken in the lesson of interpreting generously. They take the worst interpretation of the words, and often add a few imagined things that were never written (oh you like healthcare, you communist?). This is worse in written form because the feedback loop is longer, but it being written makes it feel like the author has had plenty of time to think about it. Forums are also the kind of place that everyone thinks are populated by political bots. Believing every other comment is written in bad faith is going to change how you behave. When you think of arguments as a kind of battle, you end up forgetting the person on the other side.

9rx 1y ago

Dehumanization is a poor framing, really. It was never humanized in the first place. Sure, those of us who have a technical understanding understand that it is likely that there are humans involved as an implementation detail, but from the user perspective there is no other human to be seen. If the technical backend were replaced by a sufficiently capable LLM (or whatever technology) absolutely nothing about the user experience would change. From the user perspective, it is a solitary activity. Human interaction hasn't gone away. Online discussion is a different tool for a different job.

socalgal2 1y ago
You could say the same about NPCs in a holodeck, effectively declaring that talking to people face to face is really a solitary activity
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- 9rx 1y ago
  > talking to people face to face is really a solitary activity There is no doubt a lot of truth in that statement at some kind of fundamental level, but as far as language goes, that's literally the opposite of what we consider a solitary activity. Staring at a computer screen on the other hand...
sentinelsignal 1y ago
by " Online discussion is a different tool for a different job." could you elaborate on that.
jv22222 1y ago
I never thought about it this way. That technically every internet interaction is solo. Mind bending.
- rapnie 1y ago
  But much of internet interaction isn't solo, in all those places where online and offline have connections. There will be a ton of dehumanization once in the morning we type a quick and lazy "/greet Mary" on the console and the AI agent takes over fully, sends a personalised email to Mary in my voice, and adds a "Welcome back from vacation!" note, after consulting my agent-managed calendar. Fully decoupling us from each other.

subscribed 1y ago

No, I don't think it's anonymity. You can see absolutely rabid, hateful, unhinged things people post under their real names on Facebook, LinkedIn, nextdoor.

rapnie 1y ago
There is a kind of 'bubble effect' where people are wrapped in their own world. A similar effect can be seen once people drive a car and there's a behavior change towards other people on the road, and 'road rage' becoming a thing.
- mordechai9000 1y ago
  I think people (myself included) have a mental model of the other driver that seems to default to the worst possible interpretation of their motives. If I was in a grocery store and someone "cut me off" and forced me to slow down because they misjudged the timing, I would think nothing of it. I certainly wouldn't make an obscene gesture and shout at them.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    Also, when we are driving, we're in a pretty high state of anxiety; just as a baseline. I find it amazing, that, when I'm driving, and some knucklehead does something that almost makes me crash (and thus, maybe kill me), I get incandescent with rage, but, five minutes later, I've all but forgotten the incident. I could easily see myself fanning that rage into something that could result in self-destructive road rage.
ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
I agree. I think that it's the removal of an emotional connection, and that happens naturally, after a certain pause (an interesting study, would be to find out how long, and I'll bet there are people who can explicitly prevent the analytical part of their mind from taking the wheel).
- 1y ago

pjc50 1y ago

I think it's an exaggeration of the "city effect": the denser an environment is, the more likely it is that people who see you out to talk to you are going to have a negative agenda, because everyone else is trying to keep their head down. If you meet a stranger at the North Pole, where you're the only two humans around, you're going to talk to them. If you meet a stranger in a remote village, you're probably going to talk to them. If you meet a stranger on the street in New York, you're probably going to put your hand over your wallet. Adverse selection wins. It sometimes feels like social media has gone from a place to make friends to a place to make enemies - or at least to bond with a group through the medium of hate. Bonding through hate of the outsider is hardly new, but it's especially negative on the Internet where it can be amplified over and over.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
pastage 1y ago
The idea of the city effect is suburbia romatization. My view is that people (me included) tend to be biased in what they like. I love cities and dense areas and hence most interactions I have are positive. I like what you said about the kinship through hate, I feel no connection to a city though rather I see the segregation of suburbia as the breeding ground for hate.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Most interactions in a city are neutral: you can walk past a thousand people in a subway without conceiving of it as an interaction, you just ignore them and they ignore you. In a way you couldn't do it you met in a wilderness.
  - pastage 1y ago
    That is a bold statement I do not understand why you think it is true. I am trying to understand how your concept about a common hate connects to cities. You are comparing leisure time "the wilderness" to work time "the big city". A city lets you choose your interactions, and it forces you to see things that are not only the hate in your bubble. The possibility to have an interaction that changes your world view is greater in an integrated city. Hate can grow even if we all sit in a corner of the woods on the internet, or if we listen to the same radio host. There are too many cultural aspects in your view of the city, I do not know where you come from here. FWIW I have lived in mega cities, and also for years outside of cities in some of the least populated spaces in the "developed world". My experience do not reflect yours at all.