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
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:
- Anonymity, so I can not be found out.
- Diffused responsibility, so I am not responsible for my actions.
- 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.
