I'm unsure if this is the right place for this.
Anyway, I was wondering if you have a strong sense of socially acceptable behaviour? If you answer "yes" does it correlate with general conscientiousness? Do you experience either as a consequence of defined morals and ethics, such as observing the strictures of a religion or philosophy or something more general like crediting it to habits instilled by your parents or upbringing?
I'm also interested to find out how this translates into practice, or even if it does at all, its perfectly feasible to believe a thing or know that it is good and right but without seeking to action those beliefs, for a whole range of legitimate and sensible reasons. Its often a judgement reached to quickly to suggest that to know what is right and to shrink from it is automatically and always want of courage.
Finally, since its an online forum and we are all participating in does a sense of propriety or socially acceptable behaviour transfer online? In some sense threads to date, in particular I'm thinking of the one about victim behaviour, would suggest that norms definitely do make the cross over but I'm interested to know peoples opinions.
There are things which I have observed online which are massive breaks from behaviour I would expect in person, for instance recognising and even commending behaviour labelled "trolling" which I was only familiar with in the past as a prejorative label.
I've observed some seriously wrong behaviour online, which its pretty obviously an attempt to provoke reactions from others, stuff that there could be no reason for other than the poster being some how mentally defective or possessing little in the way of empathy. I'm talking people "joking" about things which are real issues for the target of their posts, such as rape, incest, trauma, alcoholism and the like.
However, I've also observed entire memberships of forums accepting it or generally exhibiting a high threshold for that sort of behaviour, generally provided they are not the target themselves. There's also a tendency to stand up for the poster if anyone calls them on their behaviour.
Some of this I've read plausible explanations for attachment theorists who suggest the worst thing you can be in any social scene, group or community is a "stranger" and that prescence alone, even if you're being a constant asshole, is sufficient for people to unconsciously "like" or become attached to you. Its one explanation, it could be fishing for an explanation, any explanation, and attributing too much in the way of rationality or normality to the other whose behaving in a questionable way but its something.
I'll say a little more about what I think and how I act in a minute, although its likely known already.
Anyway, I was wondering if you have a strong sense of socially acceptable behaviour? If you answer "yes" does it correlate with general conscientiousness? Do you experience either as a consequence of defined morals and ethics, such as observing the strictures of a religion or philosophy or something more general like crediting it to habits instilled by your parents or upbringing?
I'm also interested to find out how this translates into practice, or even if it does at all, its perfectly feasible to believe a thing or know that it is good and right but without seeking to action those beliefs, for a whole range of legitimate and sensible reasons. Its often a judgement reached to quickly to suggest that to know what is right and to shrink from it is automatically and always want of courage.
Finally, since its an online forum and we are all participating in does a sense of propriety or socially acceptable behaviour transfer online? In some sense threads to date, in particular I'm thinking of the one about victim behaviour, would suggest that norms definitely do make the cross over but I'm interested to know peoples opinions.
There are things which I have observed online which are massive breaks from behaviour I would expect in person, for instance recognising and even commending behaviour labelled "trolling" which I was only familiar with in the past as a prejorative label.
I've observed some seriously wrong behaviour online, which its pretty obviously an attempt to provoke reactions from others, stuff that there could be no reason for other than the poster being some how mentally defective or possessing little in the way of empathy. I'm talking people "joking" about things which are real issues for the target of their posts, such as rape, incest, trauma, alcoholism and the like.
However, I've also observed entire memberships of forums accepting it or generally exhibiting a high threshold for that sort of behaviour, generally provided they are not the target themselves. There's also a tendency to stand up for the poster if anyone calls them on their behaviour.
Some of this I've read plausible explanations for attachment theorists who suggest the worst thing you can be in any social scene, group or community is a "stranger" and that prescence alone, even if you're being a constant asshole, is sufficient for people to unconsciously "like" or become attached to you. Its one explanation, it could be fishing for an explanation, any explanation, and attributing too much in the way of rationality or normality to the other whose behaving in a questionable way but its something.
I'll say a little more about what I think and how I act in a minute, although its likely known already.