Why online forums have bad behaviour

[Ben Finney]

Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> writes:

> TL;DR: because we're all human, and human behaviour needs either
> immediate face-to-face feedback or social enforcement to correct
> selfishness and abrasiveness.

Some people rightly regret this universal human tendency. I have been
contacted privately and asked (my paraphrase):

    My temper often gets the better of me, and I then engage in
    behaviour that escalates the hostility of the exchange. I don't want
    that to happen; how can I improve?

One one level, I can't help with managing anger. Advice that appeals to
rational motives and level-headed appraisal don't help; the very problem
expressed is that the undesirable behaviour in this case *isn't*
rational or level-headed.

So merely saying how one *should* act is not enough.


On another level, I can point out an omission in my summary above.
Having been corrected by face-to-face feedback and/or social
enforcement, we can *change* our tendencies as individuals: over time,
with much effort, we form new habits that are more important to us than
our old behaviour.

These habits, well chosen and consistently followed, can help our
irrational, habit-driven self act more in line with what our
cool-headed, reflective self would prefer us to do.

So as a partial answer the above question:

* Recognise that *most* human activity, most of the time, is not decided
  rationally in that moment, but is instead driven by emotion and habit.

  If you dislike someone's behaviour, consider that they may not have a
  well-thought-out or coherent rason for it; and, if pressed to come up
  with a reason, we will employ all our faculties to *make up* a reason
  (typically without being aware that's what we're doing!) that somehow
  depicts us in a better light than others.

  This is true for clever people even *more* so than less-clever people.
  Being clever doesn't necessarily make one's decisions better; but it
  does make one better at *making up* justifications for why one's
  behaviour is good and doesn't need changing.

  So, don't be so attached to asking a person *why* they did something
  you don't like. Simply because of how human decisions work, the
  reasoning they give is likely to be a post-hoc rationalisation even if
  they wanted to answer truthfully. And, similarly, don't put much trust
  in the reasons you later express for your own actions.

  Instead, you can try to focus on what each of you *wants* to happen;
  if you disagree about what you want, that's a good place to focus. You
  may simply have to leave someone be if your values are incompatible
  with their expressed goals.

  If they express goals you can agree with, you can try to focus on
  whether the likely consequences of actions support those goals. If it
  seems likely to hinder those goals, that may be a more dispassionate
  discussion that can actually progress what you each want.

* Recognise that the impulse to respond quickly is *by definition* an
  impulse that defeats wise reflective judgement.

  Acting quickly is necessary most of the time: our waking life is a
  continual stream of micro-decisions to be made, so of course we make
  most of those decisions on emotion in the moment, informed by habits
  established over time.

  You will only ever engage the broader-picture, dispassionate,
  reflective aspect of yourself – the one which is capable of abstract
  thought, the one which can expressly consider the consequences of what
  you're about to do – by *slowing down*.

  If you feel strongly about a topic, respond less often. Craft each
  message, not to make it longer, but to make it *more effective*;
  simplify sentences, remove needlessly accusatory or abrasive phrasing,
  etc. Often taking more time on a message makes it significantly
  shorter!

  In the extreme: realise that though something may be worth expressing,
  it may not need to be expressed *right now*, and may not need to be
  expressed *by you*. Often the best decision your reflective,
  considerate mind will come to is: don't send the message at all.

  But you'll only get any of that if you choose to spend the time, and
  reject the impulse to respond immediately to messages.

* Recognise that you are one person composing the message and sending it
  once, but it gets *read* many more times, perhaps by many more people.

  You already know what it feels like to write the message. Put effort
  in, every message you write, to stop and consider how it likely feels
  to *read* this message.

  If read by someone who already disagrees with your position, is this
  message likely to communicate well? To express your position better?
  To make the reader feel respected? To give them space to disagree
  without personal insult? To be concise enough, well-phrased enough, to
  be read by that person at all?

  You care enough about your message to write it. Other people don't
  necessarily have that advantage. You need to make your message worth
  their effort to read and comprehend.


All of which boils down to: Recognise how *badly designed* our brains
are for communicating in this medium, and give yourself – and your
readers – the best chance of spending our attention wisely and well.

-- 
 \        “Putting the word “faith” in front of something is no excuse |
  `\           for barbarism and cruelty and ignorance and stupidity.” |
_o__)                                            —Christopher Hitchens |
Ben Finney