pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (04/25/88)
After having been on the net for a few months, I described "flames" and other less-than-polite responses to questions to some clinical psychologist friends. Each expressed the thought that it would be interesting to observe a few of the more vociferous flamers in an attempt to understand them. I have been a little surprised that no one here has done this -- or at least, if you have, you haven't posted any results of your observations. I'm fascinated by these folks, my previous experience with networks included zero flaming behaviors: people who made errors were corrected as gently as if they had been in the same room, say, at a users group meeting. What is it that causes otherwise "nice" people to rant and rave on this medium?
todd@uhccux.UUCP (Todd Ogasawara) (04/27/88)
In article <598@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) writes: >After having been on the net for a few months, I described "flames" and >other less-than-polite responses to questions to some clinical [...] >attempt to understand them. I have been a little surprised that no one >here has done this -- or at least, if you have, you haven't posted any >results of your observations. I'm fascinated by these folks, my Anyone interested in the effect of computer mediated communication on behavior should probably read the following paper for starters. Kiesler, Sara, Siegel, Jane, & McGuire, Timothy, W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134. Sorry I don't have anything more recent. I haven't followed this stuff as closely as I should. ...todd -- Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii Faculty Development Program UUCP: {ihnp4,uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!todd ARPA: uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL BITNET: todd@uhccux INTERNET: todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (04/27/88)
In article <598@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) writes:
+After having been on the net for a few months, I described "flames" and
+other less-than-polite responses to questions to some clinical
+psychologist friends. Each expressed the thought that it would be
+interesting to observe a few of the more vociferous flamers in an
+attempt to understand them. I have been a little surprised that no one
+here has done this -- or at least, if you have, you haven't posted any
+results of your observations. ...
There have been several studies of flaming behavior, but they're mostly in
the CS literature (Communications of the ACM, among others) rather than
the psych literature. (I don't have a reference to hand, but I think
there's a fairly recent one on my shelf at home).
+... What is it that causes otherwise "nice" people to rant and rave on this
+medium?
Robert E. Howard (author of the original "Conan" stories) proposed a
rationale for flaming long before the nets were invented. I don't know
how valid his theory is, but I find it intuitively elegant. From
approximate memory:
Barbarians are always more polite than civilized people because
civilized people don't have to be as concerned about having their
head split over a verbal insult.
Extending this logic to the world of the computer nets, how much less
polite can people afford to be if they're not even in the same city as the
person they're insulting? I think it's the perceived invulnerability that
causes the less mature among us (and even the more mature in heated
moments) to lash out. Without fear of serious reprisal, there's nothing
to inhibit the behavior.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombepjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (04/29/88)
In article <2398@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
...There have been several studies of flaming behavior, but they're mostly in
...the CS literature (Communications of the ACM, among others) rather than
...the psych literature. (I don't have a reference to hand, but I think
...there's a fairly recent one on my shelf at home).
OK -- when can I come over and look at your shelf. :-)
...Robert E. Howard (author of the original "Conan" stories) proposed a
...rationale for flaming long before the nets were invented. I don't know
...how valid his theory is, but I find it intuitively elegant. From
...approximate memory:
...
... Barbarians are always more polite than civilized people because
... civilized people don't have to be as concerned about having their
... head split over a verbal insult.
Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Barbarians are not noted for their
politeness, or are we talking about different barbarians?
The answer to the question "what constrains them?" is simply their own
internalized behavior -- and perhaps their sanity!gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/30/88)
In article <603@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >In article <2398@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: >... [quoting Robert Howard] >... Barbarians are always more polite than civilized people because >... civilized people don't have to be as concerned about having their >... head split over a verbal insult. > >Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Barbarians are not noted for their >politeness, or are we talking about different barbarians? There are, of course, no "barbarians" as such. The word is a value judgment on the behavior of individuals; so, by definition, barbarians have bad manners. When the Romans burned cities and exterminated populations, they called it "civilization." When the German tribes began to give the Romans a dose of their own medicine, the Romans borrowed the Greek term for non-Greeks, and its deprecatory connotation, and called the Germans names.
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (05/02/88)
In article <857@actnyc.UUCP> gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
...
...There are, of course, no "barbarians" as such. The word is a value
...judgment on the behavior of individuals; so, by definition, barbarians
...have bad manners.
...
...When the Romans burned cities and exterminated populations, they
...called it "civilization." When the German tribes began to give
...the Romans a dose of their own medicine, the Romans borrowed the
...Greek term for non-Greeks, and its deprecatory connotation, and
...called the Germans names.
Do I detect a pro-German/anti-Roman bias there, Fitch? :-) Seriously,
don't the WWII Nazis qualify as barbarians under any definition?gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (05/03/88)
In article <614@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: }In article <857@actnyc.UUCP> gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: }... }...There are, of course, no "barbarians" as such. The word is a value }...judgment on the behavior of individuals; so, by definition, barbarians }...have bad manners. }... }...When the Romans burned cities and exterminated populations, they }...called it "civilization." When the German tribes began to give }...the Romans a dose of their own medicine, the Romans borrowed the }...Greek term for non-Greeks, and its deprecatory connotation, and }...called the Germans names. } } }Do I detect a pro-German/anti-Roman bias there, Fitch? :-) Seriously, }don't the WWII Nazis qualify as barbarians under any definition? The Nazis qualify as barbarians under the definition of "people who behave badly" (to say the least.) They certainly weren't tribal people, which is the other sense of "barbarian." At the time the Nazis took Germany over, it was one of the most civilized and developed states in the world.