20 Comments
Dec 18, 2021·edited Dec 18, 2021Liked by Arnold Kling

Two different comments. First, behavior on the internet is much like behavior in automobile traffic. A certain level of anonymity (behind the screen, behind the wheel) gives people a sense of permission to act out. (I too swear aloud, but unheard by any others, at drivers who drive unsafely, i.e. do stupid stuff.)

Second, I find that modeling good behavior, using logic and pointing out logical fallacies helps to mitigate - but does not cure - people acting out toward me on the web (but not on the road). Highlighting logical fallacies seems to be particularly effective. Trolls tend to slink away after getting caught up in their own illogical assertions.

Expand full comment

Especially curmudgeonly today. I liked it!

Expand full comment

This seems largely accurate.

I see two aspects to "bad online behavior."

1. Over-representation of inherently bad actors (there are likely more trolls and insecure elites in any given online interaction than any given real world one)

2. Worsening of behavior at the level of the given individual (i.e. for any individual, online activity brings out more of their inner "nasty, brutish and short." One's average "trolliness" probably goes up in online interaction)

The two are likely interlinked as well. The more you interact with trolls and grumpy insecure elites, the more your own behavior will worsen.

Can this be significantly changed? Probably not. But I'm not sure I'd go so far as to take the "null hypothesis" view that nothing can improve this behavior. That said, your assessment that top-down "digital civility" teachings will fail is likely correct. And the attempted solutions that I suspect will be implemented will probably not be good ones (more censorship, etc).

What if any, are examples of good online communities and what has allowed them to thrive? My sense is that the big trend is towards more selection in who is participating (twitter DM's, WhatsApp chats with people you largely know and respect, etc).

Expand full comment

I think your notion of "better online behavior" is broken. Judging by your own work (I've been reading you for well over a decade), you seem to value polite, agreeable engagement over the difficult, truth-directed exploration of socially important topics. The test of good commentary isn't that it makes you want to invite the writer into your salon for an afternoon of pleasant discussion.

Expand full comment

I don't know about "getting ahead" but to actually persuade someone else I do think one should narrow the rhetorical distance as much as possible. Like in the school example, you might have said something like, "yes but to do achieve digital literacy we need to focus on reading and writing literacy." I agree of course that if the rhetorical difference is narrowed too much the other person may not understand that there IS a difference.

Expand full comment

> They have a major presence in university administration, public health, journalism, Twitter, and corporate HR. They are not wise, comfortable, and benevolent. Instead, they are small-minded, insecure, and intolerant.

Hmm... "they"... Well that would be a word to think about.

I've been bouncing through some of the econ blogs, many of them libertarian-ish GMU faculty. There's a vibrancy to them at first, the authors are appealingly engaged idea hunters, with observations and stories on less-familiar topics.

But eventually we get to "they" stories. And the shorthand about "them" gets to be short enough that you might as well be reading your favorite political blog.

Inquiry descends into certainty, and at some point we know the world insufferably too well.

Expand full comment

There are several disparate comments here that get at part of the issue without tying it all together into what I think is the common theme.

1. The comparison between behavior in traffic and online behavior implicitly points out effect of consequences on behavior. That is, in the privacy of our cars, we curse pretty much everyone, but in fact we obey traffic norms (whatever they are) because an accident would impose a severe cost upon us.

2. Different communities have different standards. Driving in Southern Italy has norms and an order of its own, even though it's very different from driving in, say, Kansas. Scott Alexander enforces high standards at the threat of banning. The fact that ACT/SSC are a place to be makes this a real consequence that people take seriously.

3. In the "elite" status game, the more the participants, the harder it is to suss out who the elite thinkers are. Merely being "visible" is difficult, and this likely encourages bad behavior (because it makes you visible).

Put all this together and in any kind of status game (which is all online commenting is), what is needed to enforce better behavior is:

1. Consequences for negative behavior

2. More specifically, a credible threat that respected people or platforms will shun you

Expand full comment

Rather than talking about elite overproduction, I prefer to talk about elite massification. A large number of people have learned how to become real or fake members of the existing elite. The diversification of quality has facilitated elite massification. And now the elite’s old members have to find new ways to differentiate themselves from the lower ranks. Thus, some old members have chosen to be space pioneers (how many could afford to become one?).

As usual we should pay attention to the dynamics of individual and social behavior and go beyond what the situation is right now.

Expand full comment

"Kids on social media" was a mistake. Whatever you think the minimum age requirement should be for alcohol, tobacco, guns, voting, pornography, stock trading, or whatever, it should be at least that high for getting online without a chaperone.

Expand full comment