←back to thread

1103 points MaxLeiter | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lordnacho ◴[] No.45125819[source]
It's the internet. When you talk to people online, it often descends into pettiness. When you talk to people in the real world, that rarely happens. But it's much easier to talk online, so people get the wrong impression.

You should talk to strangers. It's never gone wrong for me. Most people have a warmth and agreeableness that comes out when you are there with them, talking about stuff. There's also the interesting effect that people will give you their innermost secrets, knowing you won't tell anyone (I actually met a serial killer who did this, heh). For instance I was on a long haul flight earlier this year, and my neighbour told me everything about her divorce. Like a kind of therapy.

I also find when I have a real disagreement with someone, it's a lot easier when you're face-to-face. For instance, I have friends who are religious, in a real way, ie they actually think there's a god who created the earth and wants us to live a certain way. Being there in person keeps me from ridiculing them like I might on an internet forum, but it also keeps them from condemning me to hell.

So folks, practice talking to people. Much of what's wrong in the current world is actually loneliness, having no outlet for your expressions.

replies(25): >>45125920 #>>45125956 #>>45126262 #>>45126445 #>>45126579 #>>45126589 #>>45126731 #>>45126751 #>>45127695 #>>45127880 #>>45128103 #>>45128233 #>>45128270 #>>45128327 #>>45128466 #>>45128715 #>>45129915 #>>45130748 #>>45131076 #>>45131239 #>>45131314 #>>45135104 #>>45135605 #>>45147621 #>>45152872 #
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[] No.45126751[source]
There's definitely an aspect of "dehumanization," when it comes to remote communication (not just the Internet, but I think store-and-forward leaches the most humanity, compared to realtime).

It's the having time to consider responses, that I think actually makes it more difficult to accept the person on the other end as "human," more than the physical separation. You can see this in formal debates, where the emotional feedback is strictly regulated.

I've actually met a number of killers (long story for another venue), and will probably continue to do so, for the remainder of my life. I even call some of them friends. I enjoy the story, and accept it as true, because I have heard much more unbelievable true stories.

replies(2): >>45126830 #>>45126868 #
sentinelsignal ◴[] No.45126868[source]
The dehumanisation of online dialogue is interesting. Is it because of 'anonymity' or is there more at play?
replies(7): >>45126918 #>>45126974 #>>45127003 #>>45127100 #>>45127164 #>>45129008 #>>45129925 #
9rx ◴[] No.45127003[source]
Dehumanization is a poor framing, really. It was never humanized in the first place.

Sure, those of us who have a technical understanding understand that it is likely that there are humans involved as an implementation detail, but from the user perspective there is no other human to be seen. If the technical backend were replaced by a sufficiently capable LLM (or whatever technology) absolutely nothing about the user experience would change. From the user perspective, it is a solitary activity.

Human interaction hasn't gone away. Online discussion is a different tool for a different job.

replies(3): >>45128557 #>>45132694 #>>45181323 #
1. socalgal2 ◴[] No.45132694[source]
You could say the same about NPCs in a holodeck, effectively declaring that talking to people face to face is really a solitary activity
replies(2): >>45134130 #>>45134152 #
2. ◴[] No.45134130[source]
3. 9rx ◴[] No.45134152[source]
> talking to people face to face is really a solitary activity

There is no doubt a lot of truth in that statement at some kind of fundamental level, but as far as language goes, that's literally the opposite of what we consider a solitary activity. Staring at a computer screen on the other hand...