I've been reading online posts since sometime in 1989. I've long ago learned what to expect from people here. But sometimes I wonder what to make of the atmosphere. I notice some people are pretty active. But another very consistent fact is the ratio of lurkers to active posters. The lurkers are usually the substantial majority. It is something to ponder. It could be some people have nothing to say. But I know for a fact that people who disagree with the prevailing point of view just don't want to become a target for the vicious onslaught that comes when you challenge it.
I think sometimes and wonder if the people who flame on very little encouragement respond that way to people they meet offline who hold different views from them. Do they call them morons, uninformed, or any of the whole manual of abusive terms. At church, at work, in the street, is this a "normal way of interacting"? Or is it just when forced to realize their ideas are not universally considered truth by other people in cyberspace that their socialization takes a break? Are they even socialized? Is this a predictable result of having absent parents?
Well, I'm not enough of a social scientist to risk definite answers. But I do think after this 21 years that people who choose to be active are very nonrepresentative of the larger population. My experience is that the whole society has not become cruder to that extent. Oh, there's a lot of crudity around, but still the newspaper letters to the editor don't show it. On the street interviews don't show it. People I see every day aren't nearly that crude or insulting.
If you inferred where society is going from reading messages on popular discussion sites, you'd project a grim future indeed. But so far, the uebergeeks don't own society. People who got a more balanced education still outnumber them.
I think sometimes and wonder if the people who flame on very little encouragement respond that way to people they meet offline who hold different views from them. Do they call them morons, uninformed, or any of the whole manual of abusive terms. At church, at work, in the street, is this a "normal way of interacting"? Or is it just when forced to realize their ideas are not universally considered truth by other people in cyberspace that their socialization takes a break? Are they even socialized? Is this a predictable result of having absent parents?
Well, I'm not enough of a social scientist to risk definite answers. But I do think after this 21 years that people who choose to be active are very nonrepresentative of the larger population. My experience is that the whole society has not become cruder to that extent. Oh, there's a lot of crudity around, but still the newspaper letters to the editor don't show it. On the street interviews don't show it. People I see every day aren't nearly that crude or insulting.
If you inferred where society is going from reading messages on popular discussion sites, you'd project a grim future indeed. But so far, the uebergeeks don't own society. People who got a more balanced education still outnumber them.
Comment