Conducting some research on the sometimes childish attacks here--any thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeffree
  • Start date Start date
I agree, your thesis itself is a bit of a "Childish Attack" against childish attacks. Though I did answer earlier now I think that yu are a big poopy head and have coodies and you buy your shoes at the grocery store because your family is poor an an an no one loves you because your UGLY.
But really I do think that these BICKER threads are a waste of time and do discourage some potentially valuable sources from participating. Ther were one of these threads today and two experienced engineers got sick and left.
 
toorglick said:
This seems more like a veiled editorial rather than a genuine attempt to "study" the forum. Primarily because you've tainted the sample by announcing your intent. What's the thesis?
Click to expand...
Yeah ......... I kinda thought that too. The whole behaviour is modified by the knowledge that someone's "watching" what they do.
.
 
Quick Myrna! Get my cape and my dictionary. Some lop-eared rat-eatin', skunk-breath'd, collig man is trying to start trouble in here! And I'll have you know frog that my mama taught me my manners very well indeed and I'm a very sucesful professional.
 
I'm interested but unless I can type a useless one-line response I am so out.
 
Toor, you're right in two ways. Yes, I'll have my students conduct a light study of past threads--and yes, my reason for putting any energy into such an effort arises from my own (self-disclosed) frustration with the rather personal attacks that I see here from time to time. Please excuse my choice of the word "childish," but you could easily subsitute other words if you wish: stinging, blistering, highly emotional, immature, angry, heated, off-topic, ranting, cold, insensitive, and so forth. Or, in my opinion--childish.

I'm referring, of course, to posts that suddenly depart from the flow of ideas to accuse other posters of inappropriate bias, inexperience, or stupidity--and accomplished with simplified "child-like" language (e.g., swearing repeatedly)that relies on emotion and sweeping generalizations at the expense of
a more mature approach to qualified disagreement (as used by the majority or writers in this forum). In fact, I'd guess that my students will find that a very few people (repeatedly) disrupt threads with such posts, but that many others are then drawn into the fray as they take sides. We'll see what they find, which is the point of doing a bit of research here, after all.

My motivation is this: If anyone reads through a few of these threads, one can hardly doubt that the discussion often takes a sharp detour when one of these (insert adjective here) posts arises, often with other folks then responding to the intital detour--and sometimes with some (insert adjective here) posts of their own. Someone--sometimes a peacemaker--ususally, but not always, eventually brings the thread back in line with its original purpose, but not always.

Call this process what you'd like, Toor, but it seems obvious to me--as my working hypothesis--that the communication I'm referring to here moves in ways that are not typical of face-to-face contact or even of some smaller-group online contact that I've seen. Maybe this point seems obvious, but I'm just planning to explore it all a bit to see what we can find. There's a lot of material here.

And if our exploration affects future communication (i.e., makes someone hold off on sending an insensitive attack that might not be necessary), then I believe that the editorial side of this very thread has served a good purpose.

I'll say no more until we have something interesting/not interesting to share in a month or so.

Meanwhile, I think you've been smart to read between the lines here, but I intend nothing more than I've already stated. That's the simple truth. It's a learning exercise for my students, nothing more, but if even a discussion of the idea improves this very useful site in any small way, I'd be extremely happy with the result. Even a great site can be better in some ways.

Peace,

J.
 
Last edited:
You will conclude nothing new, I'm afraid. Humans have used writing to convey messages they wouldn't face-to-face most likely since the dawn of the written word. What you will find, but which has already been established (within [and beyond] academia) I'm sure, is that the form and efficiency has evolved into what it is today. The study would be futile and pointless due to the errors you have already made and will make as you continue.

Such errors include announcing the study before it occurs*, not establishing a control group, and basing this "study" on a subjective premise. You would be wasting your student's time, and by extension their money, with this folly.

*However, I suspect that no study will ever be undertaken (by you and your students) for the above stated reasons, because you admit it is personal in nature, but primarily because I believe your intention was not to announce a "study", but rather to practice some form of backwards psychology.

If the group believes they are being "watched" or "monitored" they adjust their behavior.
 
chessrock said:
If they come to that conclusion, will you stop considering the behavior childish and/or rude ?
Click to expand...
It depends what he means by 'childish'. If he's talking psychology/psychotherapy theory, he is talking about a functional ego state which (in Eric Berne's model) we all adopt at different times. The three ego states are Parent, Adult and Child. As adults we hope to integrate our parental and childish behaviours, thought patterns, etc and gain an ability to self-understand and test reality.

Conflicts often occur when someone perceives they are being addressed critically parentally ("you shouldn't do that", or, "you're wrong, stupid") and react from the position of a rebellious child ("who says?", "piss off", "you can't tell me what to do"). In that sense, much of what takes place here is indeed childish, but recognising the position you adopt in a state of conflict is the largest step to responding as an adult no matter how you are addressed. Argument is a decision - it is not forced upon you (very often).

http://www.businessballs.com/transact.htm
 
omtayslick said:
It's all a plot to get DJL!!
Click to expand...


It's interesting you mention DJL, because he's certainly a good case study of a phenomenon I find rather interesting on these boards. Not just this one.


What you'll often see is someone like DJL says something that rubs Joe Blow the wrong way.

Joe Blow retaliates and insults DJL.

Then ten other guys pile on DJL with even greater venom.

And before long, you have to wonder who's worse (?) The guy who said something stupid, initially, or all the guys piling on top of the guy who said something stupid. :D

Here's sort of a way-out-there kind of example: Suppose I'm in a store, and I say something rude to someone passing by. Suddenly, 20 people gang-tackle me and start physically assaulting me.

Does the punishment fit the crime? Did I not learn my lesson after the first person piled on?

I'm speaking as a guy with first-hand experience with this. There ain't a whole lot of guys on this board who can lay claim to the honor of being gang-tackled . . . but let me tell you, it can be an interesting experience. :D

I recall, one time after having what to me was a minor disagreement with someone that eventually escalated as more and more people started piling in to the foray.

Before long, what started out as a microphone discussion broke down in to people telling me I should be killed. :D Yes, someone said, and I do quote: "Die, Chessrock, die!." :D And various other little niceties that I care not to dive back in to.

And I realize that's an extreme situation, but you can't ignore the presence of the mob element. There is a potential, at any time, for normal social mores to be completely dropped in favor of sort of a "Lord of the Flies" scene where Ralph is pushing the boulder and all the kids are yelling: "Kill the Pig, Slit his throat, bash him in!"

And having experience being on the other side of the bolder . . . I'm telling you guys: It's kinda' freaky. You feel like a Salem Witch, in many ways. You're chased in to a corner . . . which only makes you want to start clawing your way out . . . hissing and scratching and cursing.

And from that point on out, I think you carry a little bitterness against the board, in general. Maybe not bitterness, but it's not like you feel like being nice very often. In fact, it kinda' makes you want to piss people off even more. So in other words, if you don't like someone's comments, you're not going to make them stop by ganging up and ridiculing them like an angry mob. In fact, you're only going to piss them off even more, and make the situation far worse . . . because now, they're only saying that kind of thing in defiance, and to spite you.

And I think the Lord of the Flies thing is really fitting to this particular board, since it is unmoderated. Basically, you've got a situation where there's no authority governing what we say to one another. No one to deletete our threads or penalise someon for getting out of line. So the conditions are certainly ripe for a degree of social disorder to occur, and for mob rules to take over under the right/wrong circumstances.
 
Yeah, let's clean this place up to be just like...
PSW!

Or at least raise the bar to "sometimes juvenile-ish attacks".

Just kidding, the moderators there are cool, sometimes the members get a bit out out of hand.

I think posting here is some good basic training for becoming a rock act's
manager. :)

Chris
 
Keep writing, gang--I'm taking notes and appreciate your thoughts, as will my students. But before I shut up about this (like us all, I do have other work waiting!), I can't resist adding something for Toor:

You're obviously a sharp guy, and you clearly understand research... but you're missing my point entirely. OK, OK, I'll take credit for the confusion since I started this thread, but I can't stop without clarifying something.

1. Yes, there will be a *light* study. No, it will not take 100 hours, nor will it seek to break hard ground. It will be a quick review to facilitate class discussion of the dynamics of online communication as compared to other forms we study. That's it, man. I believe you're reading much too much into it.

2. We'll look at *past* communication, so nothing I've written now will make one grain of difference. We have years of threads waiting here, eh? We can use what we have here to start--and then head back in time. Easy, really.
(I've been marking relevant threads for starters, and there are quite a few.)

3. Given the above, my students will have no need for a special "control group" beyond their own professional experience and the biz studies we use in class. Again, it's not that kind of research we'll be doing here, my friend.
It's simply a class exercise to see what we can uncover from some brief exchanges here, and I fully expect that a few hours of time will yield enough
information for lively discussion and even possibly a relevant (informal) conclusion or two. We certainly aren't planning to publish what we find.

No more from me--I guess I'm being detoured now myself by someone, eh?
Oh, I can feel it happening... but I won't let it happen. I'm still eager to dive in a bit to see what we find, just for discussion's sake, so I'll resist further urges to write about this stuff until I have something more substantial to share. Over and out, but I'll keep reading, of course, if anyone has other related thoughts.

Best,

J.

P.S. I'm definitely *not* trying to single anyone out, nor will we even highlight specific writers by name. We'll look for broader strokes.
 
jeffree said:
P.S. I'm definitely *not* trying to single anyone out, nor will we even highlight specific writers by name. We'll look for broader strokes.
Click to expand...

Are you sure?
Don't forget the paranoia factor.
 
Points of Note on Language and Decorum in the Mic Forum:

1) I don't frequent the mic forum.
2) Most people are clueless.
3) Most people here are not "successful professionals".
4) You have your "control group", but this is definitely an "out of control group".
5) It's easier to smart-off, than to actually be smart.
6) When logic fails you, just tell the other person "You Suck".
7) NANNY-NANNY BOO-BOO!!!!!
 
This is my first post in the mic forum. I heard that people might want to study me.
 
chrisharris said:
This is my first post in the mic forum. I heard that people might want to study me.
Click to expand...

I nominate ChrisHarris for dissection!

Can I get a second?

:D
 
Jeffree, it's as simple as this:

Every time you get a bunch of guys together, a pecking order has to be established.

Girls too.

I'm dealing with this a bunch right now with one of my kids.

And this BBS is just a playground for a bunch of overgrown kids.

Everybody has an opinion, but obviously some opinions are much more reliable than others.

What's interesting is that there is an "ignore" function on this site, but it is rarely used.

So what does that tell you???
 
c7sus said:
What's interesting is that there is an "ignore" function on this site, but it is rarely used.
Click to expand...

Life is more interesting when you have to clean the flecks of blood off your shirt from time to time. :cool:
 
I found the visible consequences of using the "Ignore" feature to be more bloody annoying than the "ignoree" I was trying to ignore.

Ignore this post if you wish.

:D :D :D
 
jeffree said:
... but if even a discussion of the idea improves this very useful site in any small way, I'd be extremely happy with the result. Even a great site can be better in some ways.
Click to expand...

Do it.


lou
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top