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.
When it comes to automobile traffic, my perspective is 179 degrees opposite yours. I am constantly amazed at how good people are when they drive. 99 plus percent of the time, I feel perfectly safe, like we are all "in this together". I can rely on them doing the right thing. Most of the time, other drivers are the equivalent of polite. Traffic is decentralization that works. Of course, there is that 1% ...
Roger - I think when commuting during rush hour, drivers tend to be more like what you describe. Traffic is heavy and there's nothing one can do about it except "go with the flow." However, whenever I drive on expressways, especially during off-peak times, speeders, tailgaters, and Mario-Andretti-wannabees are unavoidable, putting the rest of us in danger. I've seen the aftermath of too many bad accidents to feel perfectly or even 99% safe driving on expressways.
The perspective on this depends on your state. In the small and frozen New England state where I live, it's a joy to drive everywhere. If you go down to Boston or, heaven forfend, NYC, it's miserable because of the number of malignant drivers combined with the low-tier-for-the-third-world road systems.
I've driven in nearly every state and in several other countries. Best was Japan. Worst in the US was Florida. In much of the middle east, one is taking one's life into one's hands more often than not.
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).
Is it possible to note how Trolling is merely Alinsky's "joy of protest" combined with dialectical or Socratic methods? Or simply the radical and chaotic bent is bad in general? If stifling such creative methods, would dialogue halt into a more hyper-centrist manner?
Also, in regards to Turchin's analysis, it could be said that the Elite-Labor distinction and the divide between KOLs (accredited thought leaders) and Trolls (john doe mavericks) are interlinked?
Scott Alexander's community is good, and was before he went to substack. Scott has a very reasonable persona and most commenters try to live up to the standard that has been developed over time (kind of like going to the New England Patriots and buying into "the Patriot way"; I suppose that makes Scott the Bill Belichick of blogging). Scott has been known to ban people who mess things up.
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.
No, politeness is not a necessary condition. It's simply desirable.
An example: Greg Cochran is an as*****. He sometimes writes things that make me almost physically angry. He's also a more valuable writer than 90% of the FITs roster.
It's true that polite, agreeable engagement isn't *necessarily* at odds with difficult, truth-directed discussion. But it's possible to have a preference for the former that interferes with the latter, which I believe describes Kling.
Who is Greg Cochran? I had to look him up to remind myself. And after looking him up and reading through his blog, I don't see anything particularly valuable there. He's a guy with a good idea a long time ago who's devolved into mostly weird and esoteric stuff that's only of interest to an extreme fringe of people.
The most apropos thing I can say is that maybe a lot of times being an A-Hole is a coping strategy too. See, if you act like a big D-Bag, then you can tell myself your ideas don't get traction because the rest of the world is just too wimpy to hear the harsh ring of truth you bring them. You can totally ignore the small, persistent voice you try to drown out that's telling your ideas aren't all that great or special or important.
Cochran is great at dissecting woke-adjacent social science. His criticism of Jared Diamond's wildly overpraised Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good example.
Nothing esoteric about it, and if you think it's "not particularly valuable" to expose bad science that drives bad policy, then I doubt we'll ever agree on the criteria to judge useful writers.
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.
> 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.
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
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.
"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.
I'm a parental authority absolutist. What maximizes choice and authority for parents are age-based legal prohibitions by default but which can be waived by exercise of parental discretion or 'waiver'. So, a prohibition on underage purchase and consumption of alcohol, but parental discretion to waive the consumption rule and provide say an older kid with a beer or some wine according to the parent's preference and judgment. Without the default prohibition, the kids could go out and buy and drink against the parent's wishes, which undermines authority.
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.
When it comes to automobile traffic, my perspective is 179 degrees opposite yours. I am constantly amazed at how good people are when they drive. 99 plus percent of the time, I feel perfectly safe, like we are all "in this together". I can rely on them doing the right thing. Most of the time, other drivers are the equivalent of polite. Traffic is decentralization that works. Of course, there is that 1% ...
Roger - I think when commuting during rush hour, drivers tend to be more like what you describe. Traffic is heavy and there's nothing one can do about it except "go with the flow." However, whenever I drive on expressways, especially during off-peak times, speeders, tailgaters, and Mario-Andretti-wannabees are unavoidable, putting the rest of us in danger. I've seen the aftermath of too many bad accidents to feel perfectly or even 99% safe driving on expressways.
The perspective on this depends on your state. In the small and frozen New England state where I live, it's a joy to drive everywhere. If you go down to Boston or, heaven forfend, NYC, it's miserable because of the number of malignant drivers combined with the low-tier-for-the-third-world road systems.
I've driven in nearly every state and in several other countries. Best was Japan. Worst in the US was Florida. In much of the middle east, one is taking one's life into one's hands more often than not.
Especially curmudgeonly today. I liked it!
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).
Is it possible to note how Trolling is merely Alinsky's "joy of protest" combined with dialectical or Socratic methods? Or simply the radical and chaotic bent is bad in general? If stifling such creative methods, would dialogue halt into a more hyper-centrist manner?
Also, in regards to Turchin's analysis, it could be said that the Elite-Labor distinction and the divide between KOLs (accredited thought leaders) and Trolls (john doe mavericks) are interlinked?
Scott Alexander's community is good, and was before he went to substack. Scott has a very reasonable persona and most commenters try to live up to the standard that has been developed over time (kind of like going to the New England Patriots and buying into "the Patriot way"; I suppose that makes Scott the Bill Belichick of blogging). Scott has been known to ban people who mess things up.
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.
You're mistaken because being polite and "engaged" aren't at odds with having difficult, truth-directed explorations of socially important topics.
To put it another way, if you're such an A-Hole that nobody ever wants to talk to you, your truth will never be heard and amount to nothing.
Both politeness and truth are necessary conditions. Neither alone is sufficient.
No, politeness is not a necessary condition. It's simply desirable.
An example: Greg Cochran is an as*****. He sometimes writes things that make me almost physically angry. He's also a more valuable writer than 90% of the FITs roster.
It's true that polite, agreeable engagement isn't *necessarily* at odds with difficult, truth-directed discussion. But it's possible to have a preference for the former that interferes with the latter, which I believe describes Kling.
Who is Greg Cochran? I had to look him up to remind myself. And after looking him up and reading through his blog, I don't see anything particularly valuable there. He's a guy with a good idea a long time ago who's devolved into mostly weird and esoteric stuff that's only of interest to an extreme fringe of people.
The most apropos thing I can say is that maybe a lot of times being an A-Hole is a coping strategy too. See, if you act like a big D-Bag, then you can tell myself your ideas don't get traction because the rest of the world is just too wimpy to hear the harsh ring of truth you bring them. You can totally ignore the small, persistent voice you try to drown out that's telling your ideas aren't all that great or special or important.
Cochran is great at dissecting woke-adjacent social science. His criticism of Jared Diamond's wildly overpraised Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good example.
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/guns-germs-and-steel-revisited/
Nothing esoteric about it, and if you think it's "not particularly valuable" to expose bad science that drives bad policy, then I doubt we'll ever agree on the criteria to judge useful writers.
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.
> 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.
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
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.
"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.
I'm a parental authority absolutist. What maximizes choice and authority for parents are age-based legal prohibitions by default but which can be waived by exercise of parental discretion or 'waiver'. So, a prohibition on underage purchase and consumption of alcohol, but parental discretion to waive the consumption rule and provide say an older kid with a beer or some wine according to the parent's preference and judgment. Without the default prohibition, the kids could go out and buy and drink against the parent's wishes, which undermines authority.
It should be the same for kids going online.