Web mentality: LW v. RW, pecking orders, and eating our own

[Sapphocrat]

I know I go all over the map here, but I ask that you try to follow my multi-track trains of thought, and help me understand a few things about human nature that have eluded me.

For starters:

Are people always drawn more to the negative than the positive?

It should come as no great surprise to anyone that people are drawn to the sensational as opposed to the substantial. "Sensational" means O.J. and BenLo (or J-Fleck, or whatever they're called) and porn and ogrish.com and games in which one blows up things and people. "Substantial" means rational thought about concepts higher than oneself and one's basest nature.

The Web demonstrates this more clearly than a thousand different white papers ever could. The Web, no longer a microcosm that reflects society (rather, it has become society), shows us in no uncertain terms that the vast majority of minds out there want the cheap thrill over all else. (Too sweeping a generalization? I don't think so. Watch Google Zeitgeist for a year or two, and you'll reach the same conclusion.)

For the sake of simplicity, let's divide all political Web sites and message boards into LW and RW. Without going into a long analysis here, my conclusion is that RW sites are simply more successful (the criteria for "success" being primarily activity + visibility).

That's no surprise; there are probably more freepers in the world than lefties, and they appear to be much angrier, and thus more likely to spew online in greater volume, and with greater frequency.

The surprise for me comes when you take RW sites out of the equation altogether, and concentrate on LW sites. Think of all the sites you know that could conceivably be pigeonholed as LW. Without naming the hundreds that come to my mind, my conclusion is this: The more a LW resembles a RW site in terms of aggression and hostility -- that is, internally -- in the attitude of the Webmaster toward his/her visitors, and in the interaction between participants of a message board -- the more "successful" the site (the more activity + visibility).

The more "civilized" an atmosphere a site attempts to create, and the stricter its rules about participants conducting themselves with mutual respect, the less "successful" the site. To wit: FR is bigger than DU, has more money, and garners more attention in the press and in search engines than DU.

Why?

As I watch the proliferation of LW sites that appear much closer in spirit to RW sites (while still maintaining that they are LW), I wonder: Is human nature drawn so much toward the negative end of the spectrum that the line between LW and RW sites will blur to the point that we cannot tell a LW site from a RW site at first glance?

No, no, no -- this isn't some thinly-veiled way of saying DU is getting more hostile or anything like that. While DU goes through cycles of inundation by freepers (e.g., watch the influx of disruptors every time a major event on either side occurs), DU itself is perfectly consistent in its demand that everyone play nicely with one another.

Of course it gets more difficult to enforce the rules of conduct as the membership grows (and especially during those cicada-like freeper invasions), but that's not what I'm talking about. If DU were to relax the rules in order to suit the growing number of members aching for a more RW-flavored free-for-all atmosphere, then DU would indeed fit the model of de-evolution I'm talking about here. But it doesn't.

So don't think about DU when you consider my question of whether LW sites are becoming more like RW sites. Think of all the other LW sites and message boards you visit and in which you actively engage (and admit it: you do) -- the ones that do fit the model of de-evolution.

Obviously, this idea didn't just pop into my head one day. My interaction with LW sites is limited almost solely to DU and to a couple of sites/boards I myself own and operate. However, I lurk from time to time on a great many other self-proclaimed LW sites -- which do not look, function, or feel LW... or liberal, or progressive, or even civilized -- at all. Depending on where I land for the first time on a given LW site, I sometimes wonder if I accidentally stumbled through a backdoor of a FreeRepublic offshoot, so thick is the hostility and mutual disrespect.

Which brings me right back to my original question: Are people always drawn more to the negative than the positive?

Is peacefulness and respect just plain boring next to the oportunity to attack other people -- people who are, preumably, on one's own side? Is it an adrenalin thing?

Why do we eat our own?

Would we be as likely to turn on one another if we were not lulled into the false sense of security afforded by the assumption that we are really "anonymous" on the Web?

Or would it happen anyway, in real life -- like cabin fever?

Is it impossible for groups of human beings to interact without trampling one another in the rush to establish a pecking order?

And is this the way we can expect everything -- not just the Web -- to devolve? To the point that a stated (but not practiced) ideology becomes the only difference between Left and Right... on the Net, or anywhere else?

One last thing: Bear in mind that I'm not talking about hostility directed outward at a group's perceived enemies. I'm talking about interaction among a presumably closed group of participants.

I'd be most interested in everyone's thoughts.

[Sapphocrat]

1. Hmmm...

Sinking fast. I'll give it a self-kick and hope somebody sees it.

[Speck Tater]

2. Clearly this post

was too substantial, and not sensational enough ;)

[ibegurpard]

3. I was just going to say

that the lack of interest would seem to confirm at least some of the points that the author was making.

[Speck Tater]

4. Sometimes a post says what it says well and clearly.

I, for one, tend not to post simply to say "hear hear" or "I agree" so lack of response doesn't always mean nobody read the post.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

8. yeah, that dynamic is really operating at DU.

Ther will be a thread header,
then a string of posts running directly below it...not much dialogue..more what you say...the "hear hear" type of post.

There are occasional dialogues, but not too many. Or they devolve into this tit-for-tat exchange.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Yes. Because. Yes. Yes. No. Because. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

6. Anger is an Energy...

so sang Johnny Rotten during his PIL days.

And, yeah, everyone slows down to gawk at the car wreck, and I think you see a similar psychology happening online w. flamewars.

DU as a left site. This is pretty much the only 100% left site I post at (becuase it zaps conservatives), but its interesting to see flame wars here too, and what I would call over-the-top stuff and conspiracy theories and just outright snottyness.

Which is what the ignore function is for. I deal with the crackpots and baiters and bad-attitudes here by using "ignore".

I just think its the nature of the internet, that its not face-to-face, that causes this rude behavior and flameyness.

[msmcghee]

7. Lot's of interesting thoughts, observations in your post.

You'll notice that you didn't get many responses yet.

Here's my theory on why that is and also the answer to your general question. (Here come the gross generalizations so discount them as necessary.)

We are emotionally driven creatures. We have a logical mind but it takes effort to engage it. We are naturally lazy - so we only engage our logical mind when we have to.

We are automatically aroused by events, images, thoughts whatever - that plug directly into our emotions. We go through life being led by our emotions, engaging our logiocal minds occasionally but not consistently. Even less often when the topic is itself more emotional.

Salespersons know that the best way to kill a sale is to try to justify it logically. Instead, they learn to "sell the sizzle". The same is true for ideas, especially in politics. Ideas that have anything to do with sex and/or violence will gain our immediate attention. We get our emotions massaged by those. It feels exciting. It is addictive.

Now, LW and RW. While there are many windows to look through, one shows that the RW is less cerebral and more emotional. That's where you find the true believers, the moral absolutists, the revenge takers, death penalty supporters, the religious fundamentalists.

The LW is more thoughtful and actually tries to divorce emotion from politics, perhaps knowing instinctively that it leads to strife and eventually violence.

The problem is that some problems are not easy to solve - like balancing rights in a democracy. Just take abortion. How do you balance the right of a woman to have control of her own reproductive process with the rights of those who believe a fetus is a person? So logic doesn't always provide the perfect answer.

As a liberal I continue to believe it will provide the best possible answer - as long as all parties respect each other and the process. By emotionalizing the process and making it bitterly partisan, the RW creates a dysfunctional system where logic doesn't even have a chance - where the side with the biggest megaphone and the most desire to engage in nasty attacks wins.

I have no doubt that Karl Rove understands all this very well.

</soapbox>

[AliceWonderland]

9. Interesting thoughts

I've been thinking a great deal about this lately. I've noticed this increasing drastically in general: a culture of aggression, hostility, and negativity as the hippest thing going. I've noticed it in all areas: not just politics but, say, on internet forums for sports or entertainment or other topics you'd think would be less divisive. I'm not entirely sure if the internet is reflecting culture or forming it. I do agree that the anonymity of the web has much to do with it, and that makes me lean towards the 'net forming its own culture. I think that in real life, the face-to-face dynamic leads most people to speak more civilly. Anonymity leads people to let it all hang out, and that might be a good thing... except what seems to emerge is a weird pack mentality, an attack mentality. Uh, I should add that I'm not referring to DU here; that style is pretty minimal here, and seems short-lived.

I mean, I enjoy sharp wit as much as anyone. But a lot of what I see isn't witty. It's just... shrill. That's the best word I can come up. I used to go to many forums on many different topics, but I don't anymore. I guess I'm out of step, or out of fashion, or something.

I just don't know. Maybe you're right re: peacefulness and respect being just plain boring next to the oportunity to attack other people. I've definitely noticed some people online who seem to get a thrill out of being as cruel and divisive as possible, and they seem to run in gangs. And yeah, this does seem to happen on the most popular boards... or its presence makes certain boards popular. Go figure.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

[Sir Craig]

10. It all boils down to one simple thing:

Personal insecurity. Allow me to explain...

You provide many examples of how the negative seems to draw more attention than the positive. Looky-loos who slow down to view car wrecks are a perfect example: Why do people wish to see such mayhem? Is it because people are inherently ghouls?

No, people view things like this as a small form of confirmation in their mind that because they escaped the brutality of the situation they are somehow luckier than the poor victims, and in turn that translates into a minor form of superiority complex.

A small part of most people find that the misery of others somehow validates their existence, as though the misery visited upon others (but not themselves) somehow confirms a "blessing" of sorts.

Now, couple this with a need to feel accepted (such as at political sites like DU or FR): if you discover the one fraud (lurker) in the crowd, or even someone whose take on a situation doesn't particularly match those of the site at large, you notice that the "flaming" takes place. Part of the flaming is because of the threat that any opposing viewpoint brings with it: the possibility that our cherished beliefs are possibly wrong. But another part of the flaming is the feeding frenzy that takes place on the more virulent sites: the sites that can produce the harshest, most vulgar responses are the most popular (as you have noticed) because they are also the most validating to these people -- at least the ones not being flamed.

Intelligence is a wonderful thing, but it is not emphasized or promoted enough in society, and that can be blamed on many factors, both from the left and right: religious intolerance coupled with political correctness run amok have combined to stifle any kind of intelligent debate, because once again with intelligent, rational, and calm debate you introduce the possibility of proving accepted and/or cherished dogma as wrong, and as such it fails to fulfill our desire to be validated, and that is why it suffers either from withering backlash or gross indifference.

It is a mirror of society as a whole, what you discuss, and if I might paraphrase a great line from a rather silly movie: "A person can be smart, but people are stupid."

[2Design]

11. LW are more independent and don't need group think to feel

Ok about what they think. RW have to all think the same and be part of a group, hence, their faith based schools, churches, homeschool. They are afraid to go out in the world and explore. They are afraid of being in a public school and hearing things that might throw doubt on their beliefs.

They are of a crowd mentality.

LW get together, have fun, but are willing to go live their lives in the world. They have CURIOUSITY, unlike our president, or many of RW. They are unwilling to feel their emotions, because they do not trust themselves and therefore do not trust anyone else.

LW are willing to feel their emotions because they know they do NOT have to act on them. They are not afraid of sexual feelings either, because this was a gift from God and most know how to act appropriately.

RW are afraid of their sexual feelings because they are so hungry they do not trust themselves to act appropriately....

So these are wide broad brush strokes of opinion...Flame away....

[DemBones DemBones]

12. The phenomenon is interesting, to be sure,

and, since it's psychology-related, it made me think of a recent article "Jung Meets Bush" at

http://www.counterpunch.org/cummings05292004.html

(I'm listing the URL for anyone who wants to read it, not because it's essential to grasping my thoughts here.)

Projection is discussed in the article and I think we all know that's part of online and real-world hostility. But I don't think projection is all there is to it.

Another possibility to consider is personality types, of the Myers-Briggs and Kinsey sorts. There was a Lounge thread about this perhaps a week ago. If there's any validity to that theory, people of different personality types have considerable difficulty understanding each other.

Putting all this together, I wonder how an experiment would work out that restricted people to associating with others of the same personality type over some period of time. Would people really understand each other better in that scenario? Or is "I'm an INFJ" no more meaningful than "I'm an Aquarius"? (Ducking head to avoid overly ripe tomatoes hurled by astrology buffs)