• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Differences in private vs public discourse? <split>

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Because it is quite simple to transition one-on-one communications to forum posting.

For example this post right here, I quoted you, and I'm responding to you. Very much like one-on-one, only everyone can read it.

LOL, I'd like to see the day we'd have to ban you!

But then I jump in, and suddenly it's not like one-on-one, because I become a second unit to deal with, as I say comparing this communication to one-on-one communication is flawed. I should know first hand, because I really feel more comfortable with talking to one person at a time, alone. I don't become actively incourteous in a crowed, but I think I become passively incourteous, because I get overwhelmed and then effectiveyl disconnect from reality (at which point, don't expect me to respond to "excuse me").

And further more, my international relations analogy is a lot more accurate than anyone is acknowledging. :ranting:
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
I don't buy this argument either.

Either? It wasn't an argument, it was a statement. I have no "argument" to put forth as it applies to the banning. Jennifer states it - the measurement that matters is public civility. The Mods stance should only be that - it is a flawed argument to support it by saying there are no behavioral differences for individuals in different social contexts. It weakens the fundamental point.

We're not just talking about being socially FLUID in both domains, we're talking about being civil and courteous.

Introducing your own definitions to segment similar concepts does not change what is being described, no more than it excuses social behavior. Anyway, fluid is not a separate measurement from civility, they are continiums in this case.

Civility and courtesy are skills that you don't suddenly FORGET when you're in a crowd, you just willingly neglect them.

Self control under stress, such as in the introverted example, are not under "willful control".
 

MacGuffin

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
10,710
MBTI Type
xkcd
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
But then I jump in, and suddenly it's not like one-on-one, because I become a second unit to deal with, as I say comparing this communication to one-on-one communication is flawed. I should know first hand, because I really feel more comfortable with talking to one person at a time, alone. I don't become actively incourteous in a crowed, but I think I become passively incourteous, because I get overwhelmed and then effectiveyl disconnect from reality (at which point, don't expect me to respond to "excuse me").

And further more, my international relations analogy is a lot more accurate than anyone is acknowledging. :ranting:
Yes, but then I j-j-just simply adjus-s-s-s-s-s

{censored} you, you {censored} little {censored}!!!1!!!!

I can't handle it!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Introducing your own definitions to segment similar concepts does not change what is being described, no more than it excuses social behavior.

Aheh. Wha? I wasn't CHANGING what was being described, I was clarifying.

Anyway, fluid is not a separate measurement from civility, they are continiums in this case.

No they're not. They're related, but that doesn't mean they can't be independently measured or independently preserved by a person. I can be courteous and shy together, or discourteous and extraverted. The fact that they exist on a continuum is questionable and irrelevant.

Self control under stress, such as in the introverted example, are not under "willful control".

Maybe, but why do you automatically assume that public discourse is stressful? Maybe it just creates conditions for anonymity and irresponsibility.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yes, but then I j-j-just simply adjus-s-s-s-s-s
{censored} you, you {censored} little {censored}!!!1!!!!
I can't handle it!!!!!!!!!!!!

:(

Now look.
You made a clown cry.
:sorry:
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Maybe, but why do you automatically assume that public discourse is stressful? Maybe it just creates conditions for anonymity and irresponsibility.

You can name the prompts to different behavior however you wish. It's simply not accurate to say that 1:1 and 1:many are equal conditions, or that people respond equally. It is also irrelevant, as the behavior is the issue and what the judgment should be based on. Doesn't matter if people are rude 1:1, or 1:many, either is sufficient to be a nuisance.

(But I have to ask, how do "public" discourses create conditions for anonymity over private conversations...? You mean play to an audience, I presume. Or be afraid of social rejection. Or any number of factors unique to public conditions? Because that's what I'm talking about.)
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
This is going to be my last post. You can respond afterwards if you'd like.

You can name the prompts to different behavior however you wish. It's simply not accurate to say that 1:1 and 1:many are equal conditions, or that people respond equally.

True, but this is also a :strawman: argument. No one argued that they're equal in every way which is what "respond equally" means, only that there are certain traits, like civility, that survive the transition from private to public discourse. That's all that's needed to make sense of the original statement questioning the assertion that someone can "suck" at foruming but other be a swell, likable guy.

It is also irrelevant, as the behavior is the issue and what the judgment should be based on. Doesn't matter if people are rude 1:1, or 1:many, either is sufficient to be a nuisance.

?

(But I have to ask, how do "public" discourses create conditions for anonymity over private conversations...? You mean play to an audience, I presume. Or be afraid of social rejection. Or any number of factors unique to public conditions? Because that's what I'm talking about.)

Here's the first link I found. The Impact of Anonymity on Disinhibitive Behavior Through Computer-Mediated Communication This thesis looks at anonymity when people post in a newsgroup.

"Over the years, technological advancements in communication have allowed us to reach out and touch someone even as computers have managed to physically isolates us. Computer-mediated communication, for example, allows us to contact thousands of people within seconds without actually standing in their presence. This anonymity affects how we perceive each other and ourselves, how we interact with these perceptions of others, and the degree to which our social environment restricts us.

Many users feel uninhibited and unrestrained because of a lack of social context cues and therefore exhibit more "disinhibition" in the form of insults, swearing, and hostile language (Walther, 1993) than if they were communicating in a face-to-face situation with the same people (Siegel, Kiesler and McGuire, 1984). The lack of social context cues can cause excited and uninhibited communication..."

In my own words, when you talk to people privately, they're the only ones that read it. When you talk to people publicly, multiple people read it. It doesn't feel like you're talking to one person, but to the forum. So, other people become anonymous. You also don't feel like anyone's watching you as intently, because you're just one name with one post in a sea of posts, as opposed to conditions in private discourse. Anonymity, disinhibition, and violence is pretty well established, both in research and experience. "Mob mentality" is a classic example...

ChangingMinds.org said:
We normally carry our sense of identity around with us and are thus well aware of how we are relating to other people. There are ways, however of losing ourselves, including:
  • Becoming a part of a large group, such as a mob or army.
  • Becoming engrossed in an interesting task, such as a hobby.
  • Meditation and other contemplative activities.
Deindividuation into a group results in a loss of individual identity and a gaining of the social identity of the group. When two groups argue (and crowd problems are often between groups), it is like two people arguing. The three most important factors for deindividuation in a group of people are:
  1. Anonymity, so I can not be found out.
  2. Diffused responsibility, so I am not responsible for my actions.
  3. Group size, as a larger group increases the above two factors.
When you are in a group, you may feel a shared responsibility and so less individual responsibility for your actions. In this way a morally questionable act may seem less personally wrong. You may also feel a strong need to conform to social norms.

I'm going to split this conversation into a new thread. It's interesting and also tangential.
 

NewEra

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
3,104
MBTI Type
I
For some, there is quite a difference between private (1-on-1) discourse vs. public discourse. Some people are just more reserved, and prefer 1-on-1 conversations. The rudeness difference may result from distrust in a public (group) situation. At the same time, a person should have more control over his/her courtesy in public vs. private situations.
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
I had a couple of PMs with Nihilen & after he explained his point came across as a thoughtful fellow. As Night said, his only problem (and it's a big one) is his inability to make his point in a way people may take less offence to.

That said, he was fine person-2-person; he just sucked at posting. And came across as a dick - even though I don't think he is one or intended to be.

I'm not defending him. I have no idea what he did to get banned in the first place. Seems from reading this thread that he might have some behavior quirks. Would he be the same person if he did not have those quirks? Does he provide value to society as he is? I can't answer that question because I don't know him. What strikes me is people's obsession with him. I don't know if that says much of anything. People also get obsessed with people who have a negative impact on society.

after he explained his point came across as a thoughtful fellow

If he does have these behavioral issues, and assuming based on this quote that he's not a sociopath, how would he go about correcting them? Does anyone know that he has a clear idea of what it is that offends people?

:thinking:

UPDATE:
The rudeness difference

This explains it. People think he's rude. I can see now how my "sense of humor" can come off as rudeness. I find something assuming, other people find it rude. I did say I am socially retarded.
 

NewEra

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
3,104
MBTI Type
I
This explains it. People think he's rude. I can see now how my "sense of humor" can come off as rudeness. I find it assuming, other people find it rude. I did say I am socially retarded.

I'm not calling him rude. I don't even know him. My point was not regarding him, I just meant it in general.
 

Anja

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,967
MBTI Type
INFP
Here's my take:

There are differences in public v. private discourse and some of them have been mentioned. And there are some reasons for why persons may choose a different conversational style depending on whether they have a large audience or an audience of one.

What we are talking about here, I think, is attitude and self-awareness.

It is very easy to get caught up in the spirit of the moment when one is in a group. I think I've seen that happen here several times. One person enters the scene and makes a few smart remarks and others, who perhaps wouldn't normally do so on their own, join in the spirit.

Those of us who like being in the spotlight probably tend to put on a bit of persona for flash when we have the opportunity. Those of us who dislike being in the spotlight may put on their "shy" or "cute" armor when they feel observed.

If a person has not developed a habit of self-awareness they may switch, nearly unconsciously, into a habit they've developed. Such as being cocky. Or being "shy."

Can happen to me when I'm being thoughtless. When it does, I need to catch myself and do a check on myself.

Some people just never think about it. We tell them, "You're different around me when we're alone than you are when your friends are here." And they claim to not have a clue what we're talking about.

Takes a while, and paying attention, to learn to be consistent across the board, to become integrated. Once aware that we have more than one communication style we then have a choice which to use for which occasion. (It doesn't hurt to know why we choose the style we do, as well.)

I find it difficult to buy the idea that someone doesn't know when he's being offensive to others if, in private conversation, he is not.

There can be a number of reasons for that. To give the person the benefit of the doubt I suppose we could say, "He is not self-aware." If we want to cast judgement we can say, "He is doing it because he likes to do it."

Either way, it is to the other's benefit that his attention be called to what may be a thoughtless, but self-defeating, habit. What he choses to do with that information is his business.

Those who fail to make the leap of self-recognition? We call them "disengenuous."
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
As INTP, you should of course know that your behavior is the standard, and it is everyone else who has quirks. Those idiots.

Not really. What's the definition of normal?

–adjective
1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2. serving to establish a standard.
3. Psychology: approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
...
Here's the first link I found. The Impact of Anonymity on Disinhibitive Behavior Through Computer-Mediated Communication This thesis looks at anonymity when people post in a newsgroup.

"...

Many users feel uninhibited and unrestrained because of a lack of social context cues and therefore exhibit more "disinhibition" in the form of insults, swearing, and hostile language (Walther, 1993) than if they were communicating in a face-to-face situation with the same people (Siegel, Kiesler and McGuire, 1984). The lack of social context cues can cause excited and uninhibited communication..."

...
I guess that's why forums need moderators.
 

Lady_X

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
18,235
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
784
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
that's interesting edahn.
 

Giggly

No moss growing on me
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
9,661
MBTI Type
iSFj
Enneagram
2
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Not necessarily, I've known several people who've carried themselves quite foolishly in more social settings, however when speaking one on one they were much easier to speak to, they weren't nearly as rude. I don't know if the same thing applies online.

Me too, and it's annoying. I figured they do the public thing because they want to impress their friends.
 
Top