For their part, people should seek out actual human beings to converse with, Markman said — and we should make a point of including a few people in our social circles who think differently from us. "You'll develop a healthy respect for people whose opinions differ from your own," he said.
Working out solutions to the kinds of hard problems that tend to garner the most comments online requires lengthy discussion and compromise. "The back-and-forth negotiation that goes on in having a conversation with someone you don't agree with is a skill," Markman said. And this skill is languishing, both among members of the public and our leaders.
Follow Natalie Wolchover on Twitter @nattyover or Life's Little Mysteries @llmysteries. We're also on Facebook & Google+.
- 15 Weird Things Humans Do Every Day, and Why
- Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors
- People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say
Copyright 2012 Lifes Little Mysteries, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
See what we're tweeting about
49 Comments
Add CommentWe are angry because we should be
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"one can't help getting sucked into the flame wars that are Internet comment threads"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course you can. Just don't read them, or, if you inadvertently start to read them, shake your head sadly and then close the page.
Great article. I know some are working on entirely different commenting systems that could possibly rid us of most troll/flame war activity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe anger stems from a sense of feeling powerless. We don't feel our government reflects our values. That is the problem described over 200 years ago by the Founding Fathers in a variety of letters when crafting the Constitution. The more power consolidates in the central government, that government has to implement laws in a uniform fashion. So if liberal California likes the law, and conservative North Dakota dislikes that law, the problem simply get's worse. "You cannot make all the people happy all the time, but you can make some of the people happy some of the time." We are losing the right to be who we are as the national government tries to homogenize the nation. Each individual state should have the freedom to develop their own culture and we all feel like that "this is not my government" because we lost that flexibility. With the Internet, the culture clash is at your doorstep and tyranny knocks at every window because someone out there in some other state wants you to act like them because "they are right and you are wrong." Without the freedom for states to establish their own distinct culture, most people feel like there isn't a place for them to be who they choose to be, the "regime" is out to homogenize the nation. California is too liberal, Texas too conservative, Ohio, ... too quiet... New York... too noisy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI offer this summary:
"If 33% want the carpet red, and 33% want the carpet blue, and 33% want the carpet beige... no matter what color you pick, 66% of the people won't like it." - Idgarad
That is the root of the problem.
When states had rights and the Constitution was obeyed California could have blue carpet, Texas could have red, Ohio could still be a shifty-eyed state that I don't trust (along with Maine... too quiet for their own good... they are up to something.....).
Many comment pages from more reputable hosts contain thoughtful discussions. Over the past few years we have come to look to these bloggers to fact check the media, which has done an abysmal job of fact-checking their own publications.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther comment pages are often shrill, but I guess they serve a purpose to allow comment for those who are excluded from the national dialogue by closed-minded editorial boards.
If readers want to read comments, it's their choice. If readers are angry it is also their choice. Reading and writing comments is a socially-accepted outlet for opinion and anger.
My main comment on comments go to the issue of civility. If a person is angry at Obama and comments, a person who is not angry at Obama owes it to the commenter to respond in a civil manner. Attacking those who are opposed to a point of view is much different than attacking the substance of the point of view.
In the past four years we have become a polarized nation in an increasing state of crisis. We owe it to ourselves to conduct our national debate in a civil manner.
Among other things, "everyone" on the internet is not angry. How considerate of Life's Little Mysteries to demean everybody at once. It may be that New World Order supporters are finding their "arguments" starting to explode and it's leading a lot of them to become vicious, so, to hide that fact, "Life's Little Mysteries quislingly is saying "everyone" is angry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo, consider saying that mean, cruel even vicious back and forth "damages society and mental health". What, then, of depraved forms of "entertainment" in movies and video games? Why not recommend censoring or ending production of that material? Because malignant moves, foul video games are corporate owned and the rule in the U.S. is, "the country exists solely to make the already obscenely ccorproate rich even richer". There will be no move to protet theb "rank and file" from the lucrative depredations of the corporations. They'll talk of censoring individuals' comments because, except for New World Order thought control moles, they don't have huge corporate fortunes or influence. They are defined as private individuals placing comments on a corporation's "private property", their website, under the corporation's "good graces". But, because it's private property, no one has the right to place anything there without the corporation's approval. Defenders of this judicious application of rights will opine that, if someone has the truth that will help all mankind, but a corporate thug doesn't want it printed, the right to private property trumps the welfare of all mankind! That's why the push to privatizin all govenrmen activity, so, eventually, the entire country will be corporate owned private property and no one will have any rights!
People are already angry about their lives. The internet is just where they let it out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCommenting on this would be so meta, I won't do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, wait... ;-)
This was put very succinctly in the Webcomic Penny Arcade about 8 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(slightly NSFW due to coarse language)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Which is known slightly better as the Online Disinhibition Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
The causes mentioned here sound reasonable, but an article in this month's SA mind claims that a recent study indicated that the number one cause is the lack of eye contact. So I wonder how much of these other "causes" have actually been scientifically verified or are guesses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the point of view expressed by the psychologists is somewhat short sited and perhaps not even fully considered. First problem is that there is no 'people on the internet' as opposed to anyone else. When people use the internet, yes they have a barrier removed from communication that historically has never existed before - thus we actually get *honest* expression, no matter how passive or inflammatory. Secondly, this is not a problem, but rather an opportunity for solutions. Consider, the internet is not making people angry, and without expression, it's not as if people would magically stop having 'angry thoughts'. So - let's refine the environment of the exchange between users, and have that evaluation ranked accordingly. Remove comments? backwards thinking, let's enhance them and use them as a spring board for thoughtful discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the point of view expressed by the psychologists is somewhat short sited and perhaps not even fully considered. First problem is that there is no 'people on the internet' as opposed to anyone else. When people use the internet, yes they have a barrier removed from communication that historically has never existed before - thus we actually get *honest* expression, no matter how passive or inflammatory. Secondly, this is not a problem, but rather an opportunity for solutions. Consider, the internet is not making people angry, and without expression, it's not as if people would magically stop having 'angry thoughts'. So - let's refine the environment of the exchange between users, and have that evaluation ranked accordingly. Remove comments? backwards thinking, let's enhance them and use them as a spring board for thoughtful discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe flame wars exhibit the 'conflict of idea' which is fundamental to society. So in a way, it's true, it's almost impossible to not get caught up because we respond to the conflict of idea, not in a disimilar fashion to our urge to mate and procreate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost comments are from a vocal minority. The rest are more in the center. Nazi party: small minority, very vocal, able to seize control. Quebec: almost changed to French. Again, small, very vocal minority. Ron Paul: disparity in support online for some of the American presidential candidates vs support of the larger electorate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've noticed that when some people don't get their way or that their idea is not agreed with, whatever the reason, they get nasty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe this anger thing is a personal trait. and that the internet makes it easy to express yourself.
I know for a fact that I eye contact has nothing to do with angry remarks, it may make it worst by creating a challenge.
Our Comcast bill makes me see red every time they add a charge for a movie channel, we never ordered (or watched) with our remote. Is that eye contact?
I am not anonymous but I am still pissed. If you aren't pissed off then you aren't paying enough attention. Enjoy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisidgarad, I'm impressed with your comment. You are right on target. I could not agree with you more. Good job. Deerslayer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make a decent argument for state's rights, the only problem is, when we allow the differences between states to get out of hand, we get a civil war, which last time meant 600,000 dead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe truth is, the constitution goes a long way to insure that states can protect themselves. For instance, North Dakota gets as many Senators as California, despite the huge population difference. Our presidential elections are electoral college, which again strengthens the input of smaller states as compared to larger states.
Lets say for instance we really did decide to have a very weak federal government and the states were basically autonomous. What would stop California from invading South Dakota to take their natural resources demand tribute? Do you think 800,000 North Dakota citizens would be a match for 37 million Californians?
Why should Alaska get all that oil money when New York could easily raise an army, go up there, and make it a vassal state.
See, you probably think what I'm writing is ridiculous, but what I'm describing is autonomy, just not the way you imagined. Ask someone from Georgia in the 1880s if what I'm describing seems outlandish.
The point is that yes, if you're in a state of 1 million or 2 million people, and occasionally through some miracle, despite the checks and balances against large state hegemony built into our government via the senate and the electoral college, you are forced to acquiesce to a law that you don't agree with. Consider it the compromise you make to be part of a union that defends your state sovereignty.
It's reported James Holmes had no online social life. What if he had vented his anger or other issues online?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStates haven't had "rights" since the Civil War. The final nail in that coffin was driven in by VP Dick Cheny when he sued the state of California at the Supreme Court to prevent them from having air quality laws tougher than the recently weakened ones he rammed through congress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are one nation now, so get over it already. As long as one side of politics refuses to comprise in any way shape, form or fashion even when it is clearly to the benefit of a great majority of citizens, people will be very angry indeed.
Commenting is different things to different people. For those who want to broadcast their controversial views in an angry manner - there are lots of venues for that. For those who want to engage in meanigful conversation and aim to learn something then there are also lots of venues for that. One of the key successful metrics for good blog posts is the community behind it. The community acts to self-regulate the site and the author of a particular post takes an active interest in responding to many of the comments and questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnger is probably the strongest emotion. It pops into our being way faster than the other emotions. Anger makes us say and do things that we probably wouldn’t do if we just slowed down for a while and considered other emotions. As it relates to why is everyone on the internet so angry, I think it's because we have become a society that has forgotten how to listen to each other. When someone posts something about a particular issue, thing, or event, we all want OUR side to be heard MORE than listening to what the issue is, acknowledging that we heard and understood what was said, done, etc., and then seeking to help, encourage, or just that we sympathize with what was said. We have become bad listeners. When we actually LISTEN to others, we empathize. Everyone wants sympathy more than giving it. And because we don’t listen, we look for argument instead of discussion. I believe this creates anger. We have all given sympathy at one point in our lives, and it feels great. It just takes a little effort. Effort in listening instead of waiting to be heard. Anger doesn’t wait. Love does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause they watch only Fox News, where anger is currency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNull
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCalifornia won that law suit. State rights, much Like Justice Roberts re-iterated in the latest healthcare ruling saying states do not have to comply with it. so sometimes states win and sometimes they don't and most of the time states are just lax in maintaining their states rights or they actually like losing them to the Feds so the people can blame the fed's instead of the local state which is exactly what is happening now with the proposed internet sales tax the feds have proposed.
Kitwyk
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you've never watched MSNBC, Madow(sp?) and Ed Shultz far out strip anybody on FOX when it comes to red faced anger against those they dissagree with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe logical evolution of democracy in an educated, communicative world would be a Direct Democracy – something like the better Town Hall meetings afford, and the Swiss have had for millennia – particularly for the legislative branch (you might not want direct democracy in the executive, where you want professionals, or the judicial, where hate trials such as Socrates’ might occur), allowing for plenty local autonomy and difference (and color).
That said, anonymity does enable extra rudeness, true, but the root cause is a culture of love-of-strife where it’s admirable to be a predator, and non-aggressive people are almost ridiculed if they don’t stand out by being extra-cultured or some other subtle form of dominance.
Because they watch only Fox News, where anger is currency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood article. Right on target. Two things people can do to mitigate the problem are to use their real names and wait a few minutes, re-read the comment before pressing send.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo put it more clearly: contemporary western culture has become, say in the last generation or two, way too antagonistic to work as a practical, viable mainstream culture for a social animal. For humanoid rattlesnakes, it could work well.
Somehow, the plutocratic conspiratorial and corrupting takeover of the Social Contact has spilled over onto general culture and now society at large is copycatting the elite’s worst defects, becoming insatiably greedy in a get-rich-quick way (hence the environmental crisis) and violence and cruelty are being glorified in international policy and culture. Obviously it is not going to work. Where are the simple humanist religious values, love or compassion? Institutionalized religion having fallen is a good thing as it frequently advocates competition or even violence against other religions, but the values are still important and must be updated somehow.
Interesting article. In the Author's opinion if we are rude and our comments are left on display, then that gives others the idea that it is okay to be rude. Well, in my opinion it IS sometimes okay to be rude, but I think a well worded irrefutable reply is a lot more satisfying. Lack of eye contact could be a factor, although I think most people in the street are rude nowadays. No one cares any more and rudeness is the norm on and off Twitter. Don't interfer with networking sites How boring if we were all suddenly polite. Anger can be healthy and what is wrong with feeling strongly about a wrong that needs to be righted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the spirit of this article Fox news shut down the majority their sites comment sections in the run up to the election. I find their timing incredibly convenient considering the general tone of their comment sections.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStrongly worded does not necessarily translate into actual anger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's very easy to be mildly annoyed or even just incredulous about and write something that comes off as very angry to certain individuals; while others might read it with amusement.
A lack of artistry in a commenter's life finds expression in rage at such lack; that is, inarticulate rage is the expression of one's lack of artistry as the commenter expresses himself to himself as lacking in artistry as a spur to self-improvement. Maybe it even works, sometimes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read some pretty nasty comments on social networks, especially Facebook. What might reduce some of the vitriol is for the Web site manager to block all foul and abusive words, all misspelled words, all grammatically incorrect phrasings, and all incorrect punctuation and capitalization. I'd be willing to bet that the verbiage of the angriest contributors would be most likely unread. The persistent would-be contributers could get a second chance to improve their communication skills and perhaps get a second chance to rethink their perspectives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe acid, and often cruel, comments which are made suggest to me that many of us have an evil and hate-filled streak. I have run a "faith and science" blog for several years at secondsightblogdotnet. It took a long time to persuade contributors that I was not going to stand for insults -- though they were free to say anything evidenced by argument. Nowadays we may not be 100% free but by and large we have thoughtful discussions, from which I at least have learnt much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe distance from the potential threat , how many of these abusive commentor's would meet whom they've abused , inner anger's that they have never been able to say to another , yes it is spouting but from a safe point , in real situation's the effect of what you do can have instant result's , where the time delay allow's more space for thought , better chosen next step's , but when it come's down to it any force that the screen in front of you show's is no force to stop emotion's that have brewed up with no release valve , and this internet is a release for the mind that is rear in real situations
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe distance from the potential threat , how many of these abusive commentor's would meet whom they've abused , inner anger's that they have never been able to say to another , yes it is spouting but from a safe point , in real situation's the effect of what you do can have instant result's , where the time delay allow's more space for thought , better chosen next step's , but when it come's down to it any force that the screen in front of you show's is no force to stop emotion's that have brewed up with no release valve , and this internet is a release for the mind that is rear in real situations
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may be the only person here who got the point. ;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen people lie or pass on incorrect information that comes from their religious, political, or cultural viewpoint, I'll post statistics and studies that disagree with their views. I often get flamed for it. I'm not trying to change the True Believer's mind, I do it for the people who haven't yet made up their minds who are watching. When I keep my head and the True Believer loses theirs, it helps the undecided decide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with some other commenters that with politics people are angry for much more obvious reasons: politicians colluding with big business to impoverish society would be a major reason for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the article gets close to why internet communication can be aggressive. My take is that most of us are poor at written communication, since we are not evolved to read and write in the same way that we are evolved to talk. And that poor writing does not evoke empathy. We don't feel like we are communicating with another person, so we don't treat them like another person. We treat the words on the screen as though they were part of our internal dialogue. Angry self-talk is a feature of the Western psyche.
But I also think that the aggression is over estimated. I would say that the vast majority of my internet interactions with strangers feel neutral, with perhaps 1% involving aggression on either side. Experience associated with anger/fear makes for stronger memories, since this has survival value.
PEOPLE ARE ANGRY and here is my own personal real life example, the world famous website where we all post our lives and pics, etc.. and then add more friends than we should, etc.. a childhoods cousin had me share his page and added me as a friend but I was unable to view any info about his profile, nothing. But he was always looking at my info and had to know how much I gross annually, where I work, who I was sleeping with, and when I ate and defected ,... what a dirt bag, I always saw the little signs of his sociopathic persona etc.. but this was the final straw. It was a slap to the face. I kindly reminded him that there were 100,s , perhaps more, 18 year olds pleasuring themselves to his wifes images by way of hacking into his F book profile.. so it really did not matter. Angry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.. when I defecated ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Net provides green pastures for acting out hidden anger and surpressed frustrations, like if you are lowest in the peckingorder at the office, well hey, why not try being top dog in a forum thread?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's an election year: so it's odd that wasn't mentioned because many emailers are weighing in on behalf of their preferred candidate. Mostly, this takes the form of insults directed at the other candidate - but that candidate is defended by those who prefer (both are "hims" this year) the other man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven more troubling to me: both political parties have used propaganda (aka, "brain washing") to attract supporters and rally them against the other party. So disrespectful "humor" and other kinds of derogatory posts are filling the Internet communications media. Back in the early sixties, high schools taught students about propaganda because the Soviets had been using it all over the world. But now, both political parties are using the same techniques against the American people (who mostly are buying it lock, stock and barrel).
One possible way to regaining control and establishing order would be to register every computer and license computer users - at least that could serve to identify the abusive users and that eliminates anonymity.
It works pretty well with automobiles (another conduit for irresponsible anger).
"Communication, the scholars say, is really about taking someone else's perspective, understanding it, and responding." - Yeah, unless that person is a COMPLETE FRICKING IDIOT!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recently wrote a satirical post on overused business terms that was picked up by a few people and ended up with hundreds of comments. About 30 of them were absolutely brutal!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was called a pretentious douche. I was told that my picture made someone throw up in their mouth. That I was incompetent. And use deplorable sentence fragments (OK, this one is probably true). I am offensive. That I am a whiner. Not original. Useless. That I am a self-important blowhard. Thoughtless. Cynically pedantic (I had to look that one up too). And that I sound like a bratty 16 year old.
All over a completely innocent post that was actually pretty funny. It caused me to write this post in response called "Why Are You So F#%king Mean?!?"
http://www.marcensign.com/why-are-you-so-mean/
Here’s the thing. When something has made you angry you are far more likely to comment and share your opinion than if something has made you happy, sad, or even irritated. It’s the same for a personal conversation, if something makes you mad you’re more likely to interject. The issue isn’t why people are angry; it’s why people feel no need to give half a thought to the connotations and side effects of the hateful words that they spew on the internet. This article, I feel, is a good explanation for that. There is no difference in the frequency of angry vocalization online or in person; the difference is the fact that people seem to forget—or choose to ignore—the fact that they are even speaking to real people. It’s worrisome to me (please excuse the extreme and cliché comparison that I am about to make) because it reflects the same rage and dehumanization that the Nazi party was fueled by in WW2, for example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake this thread: perhaps it is just the nature of the website, but I have seen many posts that disagree with the article and none of them have been as venomous and hateful as you might find on many other forums. Is it because the readers are more intellectually inclined? Personally, I find that smarter readers just know how to use bigger degrading words. I would bet that it’s because we’ve all been reminded upon reading this of how bad we can sometimes get. I say “we” in reference to anyone who has left an angry comment. It’s the same as when people relentlessly degrade and attack celebrities; most don’t view those people as people, they view them as objects—things that represent something else. In the case of celebrities it’s a lifestyle most people resent or are jealous of; in the case of the Nazi’s it was a state of society and lack of control. When you’re on the internet barbarically bashing someone, it’s not because THAT PERSON is your problem. You get angry at the person because of whatever it is that they are representing, and in turn forget that they are more than a representation of an idea.
I also feel the need to point out that arguing the semantics of whether all internet commentators (note the key word there) are like this or just an inarguable majority is a straw man. And that concludes my monologue.
The internet is a static world. People post violent vitrolic comments and images and then welcome comments from any source and expect them to be polite. There is virtually complete online anonymity, you can say anything you want, and eventually the people online will get sick of each other and start posting more and more violent and over the top comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this