←back to thread

1103 points MaxLeiter | 1 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 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.45127164[source]
I think it's an exaggeration of the "city effect": the denser an environment is, the more likely it is that people who see you out to talk to you are going to have a negative agenda, because everyone else is trying to keep their head down.

If you meet a stranger at the North Pole, where you're the only two humans around, you're going to talk to them. If you meet a stranger in a remote village, you're probably going to talk to them. If you meet a stranger on the street in New York, you're probably going to put your hand over your wallet. Adverse selection wins.

It sometimes feels like social media has gone from a place to make friends to a place to make enemies - or at least to bond with a group through the medium of hate. Bonding through hate of the outsider is hardly new, but it's especially negative on the Internet where it can be amplified over and over.

replies(5): >>45127268 #>>45127486 #>>45130084 #>>45131554 #>>45181282 #
pastage ◴[] No.45131554[source]
The idea of the city effect is suburbia romatization. My view is that people (me included) tend to be biased in what they like. I love cities and dense areas and hence most interactions I have are positive.

I like what you said about the kinship through hate, I feel no connection to a city though rather I see the segregation of suburbia as the breeding ground for hate.

replies(1): >>45132682 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.45132682{3}[source]
Most interactions in a city are neutral: you can walk past a thousand people in a subway without conceiving of it as an interaction, you just ignore them and they ignore you. In a way you couldn't do it you met in a wilderness.
replies(1): >>45135549 #
pastage ◴[] No.45135549{3}[source]
That is a bold statement I do not understand why you think it is true.

I am trying to understand how your concept about a common hate connects to cities. You are comparing leisure time "the wilderness" to work time "the big city". A city lets you choose your interactions, and it forces you to see things that are not only the hate in your bubble. The possibility to have an interaction that changes your world view is greater in an integrated city.

Hate can grow even if we all sit in a corner of the woods on the internet, or if we listen to the same radio host.

There are too many cultural aspects in your view of the city, I do not know where you come from here. FWIW I have lived in mega cities, and also for years outside of cities in some of the least populated spaces in the "developed world". My experience do not reflect yours at all.

replies(1): >>45135647 #
1. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.45135647{4}[source]
>I do not understand why you think it is true.

You're simply not going to have time to speak to everyone in a subway to fish out that positive interaction, even if you wanted to.

I don't think most interactions will be hateful, but if the odds are .1%, you have some 50/50 shot of a bad interaction with 1000 people. It's just statistics.