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
avolio@grendel.UUCP (10/09/84)
>> >> 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. No. No... I think he really is a s/w engineer. You know. Striped cap. Coveralls. Big watch. Rides a train. CHugga-chugga, choo-choo. Opps. I can see it now... "Maryland man clubbed to death by disgruntled engineers." I'm onnnnlllly kidding. :-) -- Fred Avolio, DEC -- U{LTR,N}IX Support 301/731-4100 x4227 UUCP: {seismo,decvax}!grendel!avolio ARPA: grendel!avolio@seismo
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 posted it to net.misc. Send me mail if you want to see
the article but your site doesn't receive that newsgroup.
Danny Glasser
{decvax,allegra,ima}!yale!dglasser
Glasser-Daniel@YALE.ARPA
[NOT dglasser@YALE.ARPA]
DGLASSER@YALECS (BITNET)jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen) (10/11/84)
[I'm a poor lonesome superuser, far away from /]
The same article appeared in a Dutch newspaper (de Volkskrant of
sat 6 oct, in 'het vervolg'). Last monday we had a discussion
about it, and we reached the conclusion that it could be caused
by the way you post news or mail.
When you talk to someone, you can see or hear him, so you know
how he reacts to what you say.
When you write a letter, you sit down for it, think carefully
what you want to say, and then write it down.
On the other hand, when you post an article, you say
RRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!,
jump onto your desk, start pounding at your keyboard, type
control-d, and then sink back into your chair.
This can also be noted from the fact that news contains an
awful lot of typos and incorrect syntactical constructions (this
sounds like one, I think), which is in fact quite funny, since
someone who speaks COBOL, LISP, APL and CSH can be expected to
be reasonable in English.
Does this sound as a reasonable explanation? No? Well, send
me flames, and I'll promise to send you some back.
Jack Jansen, {seismo|philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack
or ...!vu44!htsa!jackmmt@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
gilbert@hwcs.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton) (10/20/84)
> This can also be noted from the fact that news contains an > awful lot of typos and incorrect syntactical constructions (this > sounds like one, I think), which is in fact quite funny, since > someone who speaks COBOL, LISP, APL and CSH can be expected to > be reasonable in English. Who are you trying to kid ? Programming languages have a minute vocabulary of reserved words coupled with a potentially infinite set of identifier symbols which nominally refer to the same class of object - a machine address. Their syntax, however imperfect in some cases, is better defined than that of natural languages which evolve within cultures. In some cases we do agree that a syntactic construction is 'correct'. Generally a construction is only 'preferred' by some authority or group. A classic example is the war which was waged against the split infinitive by self proclaimed authorities who adopted Latin as a syntactic paradigm for English. There are few shared and articulated formal rules on the syntax and semantics of 'correct' English. Natural language is characterised by its flexibility and lack of formality. Only the semantics of programming languages shares this feature of natural language and with luck this 'feature' is on the way out. English is a language that cannot be learned from a manual. Software documentation suggests that too many computing personnel have an atrocious command of English, a trait common in people with a scientific background. I say 'atrocious' as their writing can not be regarded as clear, well structured communication which involves and motivates the reader. It is not 'atrocious' on canonical grounds of syntax or absolute meaning. It is just poorly written . Don't ask for definitions of good written style, study examples ot it. Most people know it when they see it.