The wonderful world of modern media

[mithriltabby]

A couple of theories I’ve seen put the modern media world in an interesting light.

David Brin’s theory that self-righteous indignation is an addictive drug makes sense of the pundits on left and right who persist in denouncing their opposition without suggesting balanced solutions. The demagogues who advocate emotional, “they must be stopped” responses rather than thoughtful, “let’s solve this problem” ones are, in essence, feeding addictions for their audiences. (In turn, they might be hooked on the adulation from their rabid supporters.)

In The Edge’s World Question for 2006, Daniel Goleman brings up the notion of “cyber-disinhibition”: that communication on the Internet, lacking all the real-time feedback of talking to a living human being that you can see and hear, leads to implusive speech that people would never use in person. (e.g.: flames). This also contributes to the polarization of the blogosphere; a good rant that vents your frustrations can be very satisfying, and there are no automatic obstacles in place to make people think twice before hitting the POST button.

What to do about it? Participating in the feedback loop to try and break it is probably counterproductive: it would be perceived as an attack in a medium where people are already expecting attacks. Reality filtering— simply ignoring what a person says, even if it makes sense, because the speaker is in a demonized category— will probably prevent addicts from listening to anyone who tries to intrude on their worldview. Choosing not to participate in the feedback loop is a start; the trick is making it clear that there’s a population that is actively avoiding the mess. Perhaps we need some catchy terms on which to hang these concepts— perhaps “hate dealers” and “bile emporiums” to describe the pundits and weblogs that are part of the problem? “Blog rage” to describe someone whose cyber-disinhibition has led them off the deep end?

Comments

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

Whether or not self-righteous indignation is addictive, I WOULD say that it feels tremendously satisfying. There's nothing like the feeling of being RIGHT- no doubts, no self-criticism, just pure absolute righteousness.

If someone were to come up with a drug or neurotransmitter that enacted that feeling, it would create an epidemic that would make crack cocaine look like sugar water. Instead we'll just have to settle for the memetic pushers.

And as for the internet, short of intrusive monitors, or a system that allows you to stab people in the face through their monitors, I think it's doomed to rudeness. Then again, there's a type of feedback loop like you say in some established usenet groups- basically calling a person on their flaming or trollish behavior. It's results are mixed, but it's a start.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's the speed or depersonalization of Internet communication which is primarily the cause of flaming. It's the slowness of Internet communication.

Have you ever had the experience of thinking of the perfect comeback five minutes after the conversation is over? E-mail and blog post conversations take longer than that, so they give you time to think of the retort and craft it well before the conversation is over.

Then they give the other person the same opportunity. Result, a conversation consisting of snappy comebacks and killer retorts, a.k.a. a flamewar.

[deirdremoon.livejournal.com]

It's not an answer for the most aggregious cases, but I just love the phrase "Drama llama". To tell someone "You're being a drama llama" is satisfying and defusing in its silliness. Plus, you're not saying that the point they're making is inherently wrong or dumb-- they're presenting it the wrong way. Which is, I think, what I'd like to say to the people who say, "And we're not going to take this anymore!!!" Dude-- Phil Collins Maneuver. I don't believe you if you say it ten times in a row; obviously, you're still "taking it".

[mithriltabby]

“Not taking it” is only meaningful if you can either end the practice or end its ability to affect you. “I could warn you, of course, but you would not listen. I could kill you, but someone would take your place. So, I do the only thing I can. I go.” If it weren’t for the fact that the disastrous decisions of other people affect the rest of this little planet, I’d love to abandon the misguided to their own folly. Since we can’t just back up our ecosystems and relocate to a convenient orbital, or vanish into the tech locks of Karl Schroeder’s Lady of Mazes, we just have to keep nudging at the juggernaut of the status quo and hope we put in enough push to deflect it a bit...