In the light of recent heated, and sometimes insulting posts that some
members of this scientific newsgroup have written about other members,
coincided with an article written in the Last Word section of the
Newscientist.

The question was this:
"When a thread or topic is started on a user-generated forum on the
internet, it isn't long before one of the contributors makes a seemingly
unprovoked attack on a total stranger. What is it about non-face-to-face
contact of this kind that makes this more common than it would otherwise
be?"

And two quite interesting answers were these:

Answer 1:
"In 1987, psychologists Mary Culnan and Lynne Markus refined the "reduced
cues theory" to explain potentially abusive behaviour online.

They suggested that computer-mediated communication is inferior to
face-to-face contact because social cues such as body language, tone, volume
and intensity of speech are lacking. An online conversation therefore,
except when a webcam or microphone is used, takes place in a what is termed
a "social vacuum". The reduced cues that are available to each correspondent
can lead to a lack of individual identity (deindividuation), which in turn
undermines any social and normative influences.

Overall the lack of these strong influences can lead to forms of uninhibited
and atypical behaviour. Behind a computer screen you are usually fairly safe
from physical retaliation. This creates a sense of safety and a disguise for
participants which is further reinforced by the control individuals can
exert over their online identity.

On user-generated forums, for example, you can choose what profile
information about yourself is displayed, fabricate that information and in
most cases choose not to disclose it to fellow participants at all.
Similarly, in virtual worlds you can take on a name and an avatar which is
entirely unlike the real you.

As to the motive behind an unprovoked attack, human beings are undeniably
complex creatures: the reasons could range from simply having a bad day at
work to wanting the excitement of causing trouble."

Answer 2:
Social interaction depends on innate and acquired attitudes, including the
urge to be imposing, formidable or dominant. Contrary factors, such as fear,
upbringing, affection or social pressures, tend to dampen down extremes of
behaviour and prevent loss of control.

A healthy balance of all these produces negative feedback that structures
one's behaviour in a socially desirable manner. Remove this feedback, and
misfits, habitual victims of bullying or products of unhappy backgrounds
revel in the freedom to indulge in bullying or sadism that has driven
sensitive victims to suicide.

More sensible recipients of this kind of correspondence simply wipe off such
nuisances in their "kill" lists or otherwise "kill them with silence", as
the Japanese wisely put it.

However, people who indulge in abuse and bullying are widespread on internet
forums, where they cannot be touched.

Other expressions of perceived immunity include football hooliganism in
large crowds, and car drivers who feel safe insulting or threatening others.
George Orwell characterised such impulses as "the irresponsible violence of
the powerless".

Similar behaviour is common among animals, most familiarly lapdogs in
vehicles, or safe behind high fences. They pose and threaten like monsters,
but then panic abjectly if their protection fails and someone calls their
bluff.
________________
Nick.
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk

Nick Gardner wrote:
snip

Very interesting. TBH I'm always much more suspicious of people who do not
use their own name on the InterNet and/or provide an e-mail that bounces.
I'm always left wondering what have they got to hide? Until you get to know
them a bit better of course!

Will
--

On Mar 31, 8:36*pm, "Will Hand" wrote:
Nick Gardner wrote:

snip

Very interesting. TBH I'm always much more suspicious of people who do not
use their own name on the InterNet and/or provide an e-mail that bounces.
I'm always left wondering what have they got to hide? Until you get to know
them a bit better of course!

Will
--

Or, it could be that they are completely right in what they say. I've
lost track of the number of people that described you as "smug". After
my final dealings with you last autumn, it was very, very easy to see
why they did.

smallbabe wrote:
On Mar 31, 8:36 pm, "Will Hand" wrote:
Nick Gardner wrote:

snip

Very interesting. TBH I'm always much more suspicious of people who
do not use their own name on the InterNet and/or provide an e-mail
that bounces. I'm always left wondering what have they got to hide?
Until you get to know them a bit better of course!

Will
--

Or, it could be that they are completely right in what they say. I've
lost track of the number of people that described you as "smug". After
my final dealings with you last autumn, it was very, very easy to see
why they did.

Really?
What was that then, come on you're an objective person - Paul Garvey who
works for Torbay Council, you are quick to make all these allegations but
offer no proof whatsoever, just talk and more talk, just like a troll.

Will
--

On 31 Mar, 21:14, "Will Hand" wrote:
smallbabe wrote:
On Mar 31, 8:36 pm, "Will Hand" wrote:
Nick Gardner wrote:

snip

Very interesting. TBH I'm always much more suspicious of people who
do not use their own name on the InterNet and/or provide an e-mail
that bounces. I'm always left wondering what have they got to hide?
Until you get to know them a bit better of course!

Will
--

Or, it could be that they are completely right in what they say. I've
lost track of the number of people that described you as "smug". After
my final dealings with you last autumn, it was very, very easy to see
why they did.

Really?
What was that then, come on you're an objective person - Paul Garvey who
works for Torbay Council, you are quick to make all these allegations but
offer no proof whatsoever, just talk and more talk, just like a troll.

Will
--

This newsgroup is always the first one I look at just about every day.
The second one is, (because I am very much into it), is the uk
politics newsgroup. You will find just about every topic degenerates
into insults within about, I would say, 8-12 threads. So, if you think
this is bad try uk politics!

On Mar 31, 9:02*pm, smallbabe wrote:
On Mar 31, 8:36*pm, "Will Hand" wrote:

Nick Gardner wrote:

snip

Very interesting. TBH I'm always much more suspicious of people who do not
use their own name on the InterNet and/or provide an e-mail that bounces.
I'm always left wondering what have they got to hide? Until you get to know
them a bit better of course!

Will
--

Or, it could be that they are completely right in what they say. I've
lost track of the number of people that described you as "smug". After
my final dealings with you last autumn, it was very, very easy to see
why they did.

It's true that Will can be a little smug occasionally but this is
a tiny fault compared with your bullying rudeness. After all, his
original posting which set all this off was a model of modesty and
self-effacement and stated quite clearly it was no more than a hunch.
It was almost as if he knew you were round the corner with your bottle
of vitriol. No wonder we all hate you.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

It was almost as if he knew you were round the corner with your bottle
of vitriol. No wonder we all hate you.

You are all doing it again!

Stop using this newsgroup as a platform for nastiness and insults.
________________
Nick.
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk

wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 9:02 pm, smallbabe wrote:
On Mar 31, 8:36 pm, "Will Hand" wrote:

Nick Gardner wrote:

snip

Very interesting. TBH I'm always much more suspicious of people who do
not
use their own name on the InterNet and/or provide an e-mail that
bounces.
I'm always left wondering what have they got to hide? Until you get to
know
them a bit better of course!

Will
--

Or, it could be that they are completely right in what they say. I've
lost track of the number of people that described you as "smug". After
my final dealings with you last autumn, it was very, very easy to see
why they did.

It's true that Will can be a little smug occasionally but this is
a tiny fault compared with your bullying rudeness. After all, his
original posting which set all this off was a model of modesty and
self-effacement and stated quite clearly it was no more than a hunch.
It was almost as if he knew you were round the corner with your bottle
of vitriol. No wonder we all hate you.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.


I don't think that Will is smug, the fault lies with some of the
ingratiating fawners that have acted like his groupies over the years.

Will I'm taking your picture down of my wall .. It hides a messy stain
that's lying there.

On Apr 1, 10:17*am, "Nick Gardner"
wrote:
It was almost as if he knew you were round the corner with your bottle

of vitriol. *No wonder we all hate you.

You are all doing it again!

Stop using this newsgroup as a platform for nastiness and insults.
________________
Nick.
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amslhttp://www.ottervalley.co.uk

Interesting article. I think political blogs and newsgroups are worse.
The mixture of triumphalism and bitter vitriol that pervades them is
pretty bad.

In article ,
says...

[... everything snipped for brevity ...]

I would offer a third alternative, that the volume of information
available on the internet is such that the time required to digest and
appreciate what one is writing or reading is often not provided.

I have to admit that in those areas in which I may have something to
offer and in those areas in which that I don't, I have none-the-less
been drawn into many arguments where people have not expended the
necessary effort to truly read what it is I have said or indeed, am
trying to say. I have often found myself arguing with someone whose
viewpoint is eventually reveled as being not that dissimilar to my own.

Often, I have also found myself arguing with those who simply haven't
bothered to ensure that they are expressing themselves in a manner which
the casual reader could be expected to quickly understand at a first
glance.

It therefore stands to reason that arguments, and the bilious vitriol
that they all too frequently descend into, are always someone else's
fault.

ymmv.

--
Alan LeHun