For the scienzy folks in the house: Have there been . . .

Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › For the scienzy folks in the house: Have there been . . .

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • June 27, 2016 at 2:13 pm #47227
    Billy_T
    Participant

    any studies on this online phenomenon?

    I’ve noticed that on several sites, people often react to certain words in a sentence, while completely ignoring modifiers, qualifiers, etc. etc. Basically, they ignore the context. Even a full sentence context.

    For example: In discussion of brexit, some were saying this is a victory for far-right racists and xenophobes in Europe — and I agree. They clearly talked about far right leaders, when they said this. No one said it was about “the people” in general, or Americans. The modifiers and qualifiers spoke of certain people, certain leaders and movements, top down. Not bottom up.

    Many commenters reacted with anger, accusing the discussants of calling everyone who voted for brexit “racist and xenophobic,” etc. etc.

    I see this constantly online. People accuse X of saying everyone is this or that, when they quite clearly never did.

    Is there a term for this kind of skipping of essential data?

    June 27, 2016 at 2:55 pm #47234
    zn
    Moderator
    Billy_T wrote:

    any studies on this online phenomenon?

    I’ve noticed that on several sites, people often react to certain words in a sentence, while completely ignoring modifiers, qualifiers, etc. etc. Basically, they ignore the context. Even a full sentence context.

    For example: In discussion of brexit, some were saying this is a victory for far-right racists and xenophobes in Europe — and I agree. They clearly talked about far right leaders, when they said this. No one said it was about “the people” in general, or Americans. The modifiers and qualifiers spoke of certain people, certain leaders and movements, top down. Not bottom up.

    Many commenters reacted with anger, accusing the discussants of calling everyone who voted for brexit “racist and xenophobic,” etc. etc.

    I see this constantly online. People accuse X of saying everyone is this or that, when they quite clearly never did.

    Is there a term for this kind of skipping of essential data?

    Well I don;t know about online, but there is a whole terrain of social psychology and sociology dedicated to emotional reasoning.

    And in fact that’s part of negotiating emotionally laden issues on the net.

    Here’s bit from a recent exchange about the Rams. I am one of the participants (on another board):

    ===

    POSTER 1: The problem is that Los Angeles fans had 20+ years to complain. It’s barely six months after the move and you’re telling Rams fans in St. Louis to shut up?

    POSTER 2: IMO people should let you complain about ownership, and accept it with patience and generosity. After all we are loyal to a team, not an owner. Personally, I have no loyalty to Kroenke. People can praise him or condemn him, it makes no difference to me either way.

    POSTER 3: Complain about the ownership all you want [poster 2], you can’t change it.

    POSTER 2: I didn’t complain about ownership in this exchange. What I said was I don;t care about ownership either way…I follow a team not an owner. My exact words: “People can praise him or condemn him, it makes no difference to me either way.”

    ===

    I think that kind of emotions-first reading is part of all online exchanges.

    June 27, 2016 at 6:49 pm #47254
    Billy_T
    Participant

    That is a weird exchange. Reminds me of some of the discussions I had or witnessed on a Lakers forum. I’ve been a Lakers fan just about as long as a Rams’ fan, and I’m pushing 50 years for that. But I was also critical of Kobe at times, cuz I think he took far too many dumb shots, and rarely tried to work the ball in for better ones. My own preference is for team-ball to the degree possible. Pass it. Set up others for the highest percentage shot, etc. And tried to explain that. Nothing was directed at any posters. Nothing was said about anyone other than Kobe, and I qualified that with a great deal of respect for his talents. “He’s one of the best, ever, but I wish . . . ” etc. etc. That caused an instant kind of rage, which turned personal and ugly.

    I just don’t get that kind of response. And, IMO, it’s a lot worse online, cuz, well, people feel empowered cuz of the anonymity of it all, and they aren’t seeing the other person while speaking.

    Oh, well.

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Billy_T.
  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.