It occurs to me lately that the one thing that most drives me to distraction in internet discussions isn’t being disagreed with, it’s been accused of saying things I didn’t say and believing things I don’t believe. I think this, more than anything, is what causes me to lose my temper in internet discussions.
*Update*: Although now that I think about it, this probably applies just as much to “real life” as well.
{ 24 comments }
I’ll admit that working with you on the book and the occasional, um, disagreements we’ve had have taught me to preface many statements with “It seems to me you are saying…” or words to that effect. Basically an invitation to let me know if I’ve got it wrong. That’s also proved to be a very, very valuable habit in my work as well.
I should probably get in the same habit myself, come to think of it. I think I may do it to other people unconsciously when I’m irritated with them. It’s kinda cheap isn’t it? Especially if it drives me crazy.
The more I think about it, the more I think that THIS, more than anything else, is the quickest way to irritate the crap out of me. One of my “buttons” as it were. Others have theirs, that one’s probably mine. I also sometimes call it “mind-reading,” which is a variation on the same thing: “You’re only saying that so you can/because you [fill in the blank]“. Seriously, it makes me want to punch someone (and no, I don’t literally hit people, I’m not violent).
Many of the problems with internet debates stem from the lack of context cues that we get in in-person or even telephone conversations from tone of voice, body language, etc. As a result:
1. It’s easier to misunderstand what people are trying to say, and to project your hopes or fears into your interpretations of them.
2. It’s harder to realize you’re irritating someone before they lose their temper.
3. Compassion and empathy have a harder time preventing ego from escalating conflict, since compassion and empathy have fewer cues to trigger off of.
There’s also various issues relating to the size of the discussion. There are generally more people present in online forums than in common in-person discussions. Larger discussions in any medium are less personal and empathetic and more prone to conflict. It’s also a numbers game — the more people you’re talking to, the more likely one of them is to be unreasonable or to fundamentally misunderstand you.
I didn’t get a chance to say this to Dean, but here’s as good a place as any:
I’m glad, in a way, that the free-fire mode of this blog has been curbed because, well, I’m not an asshole. I know I sometimes, maybe even oftentimes, come across as one, but I really am not. I’m passionate about what I believe, and I will defend it vigorously and maybe even loudly, but I’m not an asshole.
But to know this for yourself you’d have to get to know me outside this blog and that is impossible for most people.
Dean and I, in the past, have gone at one another’s [sic?] throat on this blog, but our conversations over the phone are funny and light. But to guess from much of our interactions here, you couldn’t be blamed for thinking we might very well hate one another. And that couldn’t be further from the truth!
So, in closing, I am not an asshole.
Some of the biggest assholes I’ve ever known never admitted to being one. Swore up and down that they weren’t. Screamed from ever rooftop that they were being wrongly accused even. OTOH, some of the meanest bitches I’ve ever known proudly proclaim themselves to be – the biggest bitches you’ll ever meet.
I wonder why that is?
This is not directed at Kevin, at all, since I don’t know Kevin other than his writing here. For the record, I never thought Kevin came across like an asshole in his musings or his battles.
And somehow I’m still sad…
Kevin,
Thank you for your confession, I now offer you absolution.
Ego Te Absolvo. Go in Peace.
That’s all for now.
In an impeccable sense of timing for this post, anyway, Alan Jacobs writes at Big Questions Online that:
“I have thought a lot about why people get so hostile online, and I have come to believe it is primarily because we live in a society with a hypertrophied sense of justice and an atrophied sense of humility and charity, to put the matter in terms of the classic virtues.”
(Hat tip to Conor Friedersdorf at The Daily Dish.)
Dean,
Your admission that you are driven to distraction by what you think are people misquoting you makes me very happy I am not you. I hate to think what life would be like trying to explain myself to a myriad of people who wouldn’t like no matter what position I took on any given issue. A long time ago, I made the basic decision just to be myself, adopt no poses for temporary purposes, and to avoid worrying about what anyone else thinks about anything.
Agree with me? That’s fine. Disagree with me? I can live with that and go whistling dixie as I stroll down the road.
Some commenters on DW have described me as a force of nature, whatever that means. I think that what it means is someone who can be depended on not to change opinions, loyalties, general weltanshauung, like some damned elected politicians always sticking his or her finger in the wind to test what it takes to get re-elected.
Above all, I’m totally comfortable with myself. The nicest thing I can wish for you is that you may be able to honestly say the same things about yourself when pass 75 years of age.
Meantime, sit back, chill ot, have a cool one or maybe two. Have a good time with your kids, when your turn comes. Hopefully, you will find some solace in the Roman Catholicism that you have formally adopted. I’m told by some of my relatives that it undenyably has a lot of old fashioned magic going for it.
But above all, don;t take yourself all that seriously, and don’t take DW too seriously either. After all. If this becomes a torturous grind that you are afraid to face every day, that would certainly kill the magic you created for all of us way back whenever it was.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
For some reason I can’t quite fathom, I seem to be able to pick up Dean’s moods and intentions just by reading his posts. We’ve never met, and only spoken on the phone once or twice. No IM’s and very few private email chats. It all just comes through his writing here.
Back in his boozing days, I could always tell when he was drinking seriously. I could see that his relationship with his ex was deteriorate before my very eyes here and at her blog. I could tell when Dean sobered up, and when he fell off the wagon.
And in fact, I could see Dean’s frustration building to the extreme a few weeks ago.
http://deanesmay.com/2010/08/20/friday-music-thread/
I don’t know why, or of what value it is. But damn, I wish I could figure it out and apply it to other aspects of my life!
As local talk jock Russ Martin said, “don’t try to tell me what I said — I was there when I said it.”
McKiernan,
I wasn’t asking for forgiveness. And even if I were, I wouldn’t be asking it of you.
I have direct access to my Father. I don’t need an intermediary.
And your resume is less than compelling.
Building on what Eric said: I think Dean should install one of those “current mood” applications for the blog, the thread and the particular comment. That way we’d know if we’re pissing off the big guy enough to turn him red.
Kevin,
Non Ego Te Absolvo.
Go in Peace.
Somehow, I remember distantly only one person had direct access.
Then again, you could be the exception.
Eric: Many of the problems with internet debates stem from the lack of context cues that we get in in-person or even telephone conversations from tone of voice, body language, etc.
And yet you also just described all its strengths–and what you’re describing is less the internet, than written communication in general.
Written communication cuts through ALL the crap of tone of voice, body language, etc. and lets you get right to it, and so sometimes you can say something BETTER in writing, because of all that.
It’s a two-sided coin, you know?
I write more or less the way I talk. And I don’t especially wiggle my body or somesuch when I talk. Meaning that I work hard to talk from my brain and not my ass.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
There is a huge difference between writing a letter and writing a blog comment. In general I spend some time writing a letter to ensure clarity. Blog comments are usually off the cuff and often times contain more emotional content, making them easier to misinterpret and more likely to irritate…
> In general I spend some time writing a letter to ensure clarity.
In general I spend some time writing blog comments to ensure clarity. I write better that way.
Yours,
Wince
McKiernan,
No, it’s in the second half of the Bible. I won’t tell you where because I don’t want to ruin the surprise. ;-)
When I write a letter I usually spend most of a day at it, off and on. Same with blog posts. Comments, though, usually go brain to fingers to keyboard and submit.
Access and authority are two different concepts; both are discussed extensively in the second half. ;-)
Elaborate please because, in my mind, I have not touched on authority and it seems to me you believe I have.
McKiernan was making a joke, but it’s about authority and what orthodox Christians believe. It’s mentioned in Matthew, John, and, I think, Luke and Acts. But we should take it offline, chat or phone. I can’t handle writing stuff about it here, it gets too weird when it’s here. I’m gunshy about comments anymore because I can’t deal with the weirdness these days. It’s too much for me.
Comments on this entry are closed.