sdo@u1100a.UUCP (Scott Orshan) (10/02/84)
[Warning - if you are reading this in net.flame - there is no flame here.]
There is an interesting article in today's science section of the
New York Times entitled, "Emotional Outbursts Punctuate Conversations
by Computer," by Erik Eckholm.
I'm not going to type in the entire article, but here is the first
paragraph:
"Computer buffs call it 'flaming.' Now scientists are
documenting and trying to explain the surprising prevalence
of rudeness, profanity, exultation and other emotional
outbursts by people when they carry on discussions via
computer."
The study was done by behavioral scientists at
Carnegie-Mellon University. Most libraries should
have the N.Y. Times on file. (Unfortunately,
based on some of the questions and discussions on
the net, most readers don't know what a library is.
Hey, that sounded like a flame. I guess I lied.)
--
Scott Orshan
Bell Communications Research
201-981-3064
{ihnp4,allegra,pyuxww}!u1100a!sdoagz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (10/04/84)
<A kind word and a gun will get you much further than a kind word> > "Computer buffs call it 'flaming.' Now scientists are > documenting and trying to explain the surprising prevalence > of rudeness, profanity, exultation and other emotional > outbursts by people when they carry on discussions via > computer." I really don't think they need to do a study on this unless all they want to do is waste their money. I can think of two VERY obvious reasons why flaming is so prevalent on a computer. First of all, take a look at the average age of the people on the net. It seems to me that the younger you are, the more likely you are to want to argue your point and try to prove to others you're right. If you want an even better crtieria, look at the psychological and emotional age of the people on the net. A few noted examples could very possibly pull this down to around two. (Note: I think most people are able to act their age.) I also think that people will bring up controversial issues just for the hell of it, to keep things fun ... Secondly, it's just my opinion, but I tend to think that the computer field is rather competetive. And what other way to have fun than compete on something that has nothing to do with computers, eh? I mean why waste vlauable knowledge on computers when you can waste it on other people, right? I find it fun to try to mathc wits with other people, and I think they feel the same way. Face it, CMU, flaming is fun! Now do you really need a study to tell you why you flame? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!inhp4}!pucc-k!agz Alcohol Design and Application Corp. --- Serving people over 21 years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Far away, across the filed, the tolling of the iron bell Calls the faithful to their knees to hear the softly spoken magic spell"
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (10/04/84)
>"Computer buffs call it 'flaming.' Now scientists are >documenting and trying to explain the surprising prevalence >of rudeness, profanity, exultation and other emotional >outbursts by people when they carry on discussions via >computer." Oh, great. Now I have to deal with a lot of headshrinkers hanging around my cubicle, asking me if I hated my parents and if this inkspot reminds me of Dolores Del Rio after a hard night of partying. Hey, guys, I've got WORK to do... gimme a break. I am NOT an ANIMAL! I... AM... A... SOFTWARE... ENGINEER!!! Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
dglasser@yale.ARPA (Danny Glasser) (10/06/84)
>Warning - if you are reading this in net.flame - there is no flame here.] > >There is an interesting article in today's science section of the >New York Times entitled, "Emotional Outbursts Punctuate Conversations >by Computer," by Erik Eckholm. > >I'm not going to type in the entire article, but here is the first >paragraph: I have the entire text of the article on line. If anyone wants it, send me mail and I'll send you a copy. (If there's enough demand I'll post it to net.misc.) Danny Glasser {decvax,allegra,ima}!yale!dglasser Glasser-Daniel@YALE.ARPA DGLASSER@YALECS (BITNET)
mcrk@rruxo.UUCP (C Koster) (10/07/84)
The *POINT* here is what you are all missing! (well at least one of you...) Psychologosts don't NEED a reason to study anything, they do it for the same reason hackers flame! I should know I'm a psychologist! Chris (my friends call me ZOOT) Koster
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (10/08/84)
> > I am NOT an ANIMAL! I... AM... A... SOFTWARE... ENGINEER!!! > Oh, get off it! You're just a programmer, like everyone else in the world. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
honey@down.FUN (code 101) (10/09/84)
i encourage serious flame fans to read "the file" by serge lang, a two year correspondence consisting largely of flames, but using postal mail. one major point of the book is that sociological techniques are highly suspect. this sheds an ironic light on the cmu study. peter
hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (10/10/84)
>The study was done by behavioral scientists at >Carnegie-Mellon University. Anybody got their net adresses. Let's get those pond scum with the impudence to think that the likes of *them* can possibly make worthwhile comment on *US*. rick
dglasser@yale.ARPA (Danny Glasser) (10/11/84)
Due to high demand for the New York Times article on flaming,
I have decided to post it here:
/* TOP */
[From The New York Times, Tuesday, October 2, 1984, p. C1]
EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS PUNCTUATE CONVERSATIONS BY COMPUTER
by Erik Eckholm
Computer buffs call it "flaming." Now scientists are documenting and
trying to explain the surprising prevalence of rudeness, profanity,
exultation and other emotional outbursts by people when they carry on
discussions via computer.
The frequent resort to emotional language is just one of several
special traits of computer communications discovered by behavioral
scientists studying how this new medium affects the message.
Observing both experimental groups and actual working environments,
scientists at Carnegie-Mellon University are comparing decision-making
through face-to-face discussions with that conducted electronically.
In the experiments, in addition to calling each other more names and
generally showing more emotion, people "talking" by computer took longer
to agree, and their final decisions tended to be more extreme, involving
either greater or lesser risk than the more middle-of-the-road decisions
reached by groups meeting in person. Curiously, those who made such
decisions through electronic give-and-take believed more strongly in the
rightness of their choices.
As small computers proliferate in offices and homes, more business
discussions that were once pursued face-to-face, by telephone or on
paper are now taking place by way of keyboards and video display
terminals. With electronic mail, messages are left in a central
computer for reading by correspondents on their own computers at their
own convenience. Computer conferences can be carried on simultaneously
or not.
In some offices, observers say, the traditional typed memorandum is
all but extinct, and computer mail is replacing even telephone calls.
Employees in one corporation studied received or sent an average of 24
computer messages a day.
The unusual characteristics showing up in computer communications
should not be seen as entirely negative, say the researchers. When it
is not insulting, language that is uninhibited and informal helps to
bridge social barriers and may help to draw out some people's ideas.
And more extreme decisions can be innovative and creative instead of
foolish.
Moreover, members of groups talking electronically tend to
contribute much more equally to the discussion.
"This is unusual group democracy," said Dr. Sara Kiesler, a
psychologist at Carnegie-Mellon. "There is less of a tendency for one
person to dominate the conversation, or for others to defer to the one
with the highest status."
LOOSER STANDARDS FOR DISCUSSIONS
Studies of electronic mail is several Fortune 500 corporations have
confirmed the tendency for people to use more informal and expressive
language on the computer than when communicating in person, by telephone
or by memo.
"Whatever the company's pre-existing standards for the expression of
opinion, electronic mail seems to loosen them," Dr. Lee Sproull, a
sociologist at Carnegie-Mellon, said in an interview, But in contrast
with the experimental findings, in the corporate world positive
emotional expressions greatly outnumbered negative ones.
The company studies also indicate that computers are permitting much
wider participation in discussions than in the past, with employees far
from headquarters now able to follow debates and make their views known.
Unusually expressive language has been one of the most striking
characteristics of computer discussions studied in many different
contexts. "It's mazing," said Dr. Kiesler. "We've seen messages sent
out by managers -- messages that will be seen by thousands of people --
that use language normally heard in locker rooms."
COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS
The frequent use of exuberant and offensive terms has long been
noted by observers of computer bulletin boards. In 1982 the Defense
Communications Agency, which manages the world's oldest and largest
computer network for use by Pentagon employees and contractors, issued
the following message to potential bulletin board contributors: "Due to
past problems with messages deemed in bad taste by 'the authorities,'
messages sent to this address are manually screened (generally, every
couple of days) before being remailed to the Boards."
Struggling to explain the free-wheeling language that people use on
computers, the Carnegie-Mellon scientists note that electronic
communications convey none of the non-verbal cues of personal
conversation -- the eye contact, facial expressions and voice
inflections that provide social feedback and my inhibit extreme
behavior. Even a memo, with its letterhead and chosen form, carries
more nonverbal information than does a message on a screen. Also, no
strong rules of etiquette for computer conversation have yet evolved.
Computer writers often become deeply engrossed in their message, the
researchers have found, but their focus tends to be on the text itself
rather than their audience, perhaps another consequence of the lack of
non-verbal feedback.
In a forthcoming paper, Dr. Kiesler and three colleagues posit that
"using computers to communicate draws attention to the technology and to
the content of communication and away from people and relationships with
people."
/* BOTTOM */
Danny Glasser
{decvax,allegra,ima}!yale!dglasser
Glasser-Daniel@YALE.ARPA
[NOT dglasser@YALE.ARPA]
DGLASSER@YALECS (BITNET)mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/13/84)
================ > > I am NOT an ANIMAL! I... AM... A... SOFTWARE... ENGINEER!!! > Oh, get off it! You're just a programmer, like everyone else in the world. ================ Everyone else in the world may be, but he claimed to be constructed by one of those everybodys. Just one of those Usenet AI projects ... -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt