|
Post by Andromeda on Jan 27, 2013 16:26:05 GMT -5
I joined this forum to do some research on on-line discussion forums. I have seen that what goes on here also goes on in forums that are much larger. I think this small community exemplifies Charlie Brooker's feelings about the futility of internet debates.
There’s no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. The internet’s perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain’t one of them. It provides scant room for debate and infinite opportunities for fruitless point-scoring: the heady combination of perceived anonymity, gestated responses, random heckling and a notional “live audience” quickly conspire to create a “perfect storm” of perpetual bickering. Stumble in, take umbrage with someone, trade a few blows, and within about two or three exchanges, the subject itself goes out the window. Suddenly you’re simply arguing about arguing. Eventually, one side gets bored, comes to its senses, or dies, and the row fizzles out: just another needless belch in the swirling online guffstorm. But not for long, because online quarrelling is also addictive, in precisely the same way Tetris is addictive. It appeals to the “lab rat” part of your brain; the annoying, irrepressible part that adores repetitive pointlessness and would gleefully make you pop bubblewrap till Doomsday if it ever got its way. An unfortunate few, hooked on the futile thrill of online debate, devote their lives to its cause. They roam the internet, actively seeking out viewpoints they disagree with, or squat on messageboards, whining, needling, sneering, over-analysing each new proclamation – joylessly fiddling, like unhappy gorillas doomed to pick lice from one another’s fur for all eternity.
Thanks for being Guinea Pigs albiet unknowingly.
Carol H.
|
|
|
Post by blowtorch on Jan 27, 2013 17:37:06 GMT -5
I joined this forum to do some research on on-line discussion forums. I have seen that what goes on here also goes on in forums that are much larger. I think this small community exemplifies Charlie Brooker's feelings about the futility of internet debates. There’s no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. The internet’s perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain’t one of them. It provides scant room for debate and infinite opportunities for fruitless point-scoring: the heady combination of perceived anonymity, gestated responses, random heckling and a notional “live audience” quickly conspire to create a “perfect storm” of perpetual bickering. Stumble in, take umbrage with someone, trade a few blows, and within about two or three exchanges, the subject itself goes out the window. Suddenly you’re simply arguing about arguing. Eventually, one side gets bored, comes to its senses, or dies, and the row fizzles out: just another needless belch in the swirling online guffstorm. But not for long, because online quarrelling is also addictive, in precisely the same way Tetris is addictive. It appeals to the “lab rat” part of your brain; the annoying, irrepressible part that adores repetitive pointlessness and would gleefully make you pop bubblewrap till Doomsday if it ever got its way. An unfortunate few, hooked on the futile thrill of online debate, devote their lives to its cause. They roam the internet, actively seeking out viewpoints they disagree with, or squat on messageboards, whining, needling, sneering, over-analysing each new proclamation – joylessly fiddling, like unhappy gorillas doomed to pick lice from one another’s fur for all eternity.Thanks for being Guinea Pigs albiet unknowingly. Carol H. You spelled albeit incorrectly. What college, pray tell?
|
|
|
Post by geezerfiddle on Jan 27, 2013 18:24:29 GMT -5
I joined this forum to do some research on on-line discussion forums. I have seen that what goes on here also goes on in forums that are much larger. I think this small community exemplifies Charlie Brooker's feelings about the futility of internet debates. There’s no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. The internet’s perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain’t one of them. It provides scant room for debate and infinite opportunities for fruitless point-scoring: the heady combination of perceived anonymity, gestated responses, random heckling and a notional “live audience” quickly conspire to create a “perfect storm” of perpetual bickering. Stumble in, take umbrage with someone, trade a few blows, and within about two or three exchanges, the subject itself goes out the window. Suddenly you’re simply arguing about arguing. Eventually, one side gets bored, comes to its senses, or dies, and the row fizzles out: just another needless belch in the swirling online guffstorm. But not for long, because online quarrelling is also addictive, in precisely the same way Tetris is addictive. It appeals to the “lab rat” part of your brain; the annoying, irrepressible part that adores repetitive pointlessness and would gleefully make you pop bubblewrap till Doomsday if it ever got its way. An unfortunate few, hooked on the futile thrill of online debate, devote their lives to its cause. They roam the internet, actively seeking out viewpoints they disagree with, or squat on messageboards, whining, needling, sneering, over-analysing each new proclamation – joylessly fiddling, like unhappy gorillas doomed to pick lice from one another’s fur for all eternity.Thanks for being Guinea Pigs albiet unknowingly. Carol H. You spelled albeit incorrectly. What college, pray tell? Funniest blowtorch post ever!
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Jan 27, 2013 18:26:27 GMT -5
I'll give you a pass on the spelling, but suggest some economics courses before you finish this research. Quarreling and reasonable debate were addictive before people could do it with on line forums. They take quarreling and debate to new levels of efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by sordello on Jan 27, 2013 18:30:45 GMT -5
I joined this forum to do some research on on-line discussion forums. I have seen that what goes on here also goes on in forums that are much larger. I think this small community exemplifies Charlie Brooker's feelings about the futility of internet debates. There’s no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. The internet’s perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain’t one of them. It provides scant room for debate and infinite opportunities for fruitless point-scoring: the heady combination of perceived anonymity, gestated responses, random heckling and a notional “live audience” quickly conspire to create a “perfect storm” of perpetual bickering. Stumble in, take umbrage with someone, trade a few blows, and within about two or three exchanges, the subject itself goes out the window. Suddenly you’re simply arguing about arguing. Eventually, one side gets bored, comes to its senses, or dies, and the row fizzles out: just another needless belch in the swirling online guffstorm. But not for long, because online quarrelling is also addictive, in precisely the same way Tetris is addictive. It appeals to the “lab rat” part of your brain; the annoying, irrepressible part that adores repetitive pointlessness and would gleefully make you pop bubblewrap till Doomsday if it ever got its way. An unfortunate few, hooked on the futile thrill of online debate, devote their lives to its cause. They roam the internet, actively seeking out viewpoints they disagree with, or squat on messageboards, whining, needling, sneering, over-analysing each new proclamation – joylessly fiddling, like unhappy gorillas doomed to pick lice from one another’s fur for all eternity.Thanks for being Guinea Pigs albiet unknowingly. Carol H. "...The internet’s perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain’t one of them..." This all rests on what is defined as 'productive'. Whoever Charlie Brooker may be, I wonder what he would think of the 'success' rate for psychiatric therapy? How many patients have sessions with their psychiatrists but are not included in 'success' statistics yet they may feel their sessions are productive. An outsider looks at the profession, in aggregate, and looks at success rates and then declares the whole process 'unproductive'. Brooker sounds like a chap who, when having trouble making his first barre chord on a guitar declares to the world that the guitar is too difficult and cannot be played. The evidence of millions of guitarists who play the instrument well is ignored. Charlie has all the evidence HE needs to declare that the guitar is an unplayable instrument. Sad really. Colleges (and Forums) should be places for opening minds, not closing them. Modified: decided to add "(and Forums)"
|
|
|
Post by hodagg on Jan 27, 2013 19:47:31 GMT -5
Well said, Sordello.
Charlie must have had his feelings hurt on a forum sometime in the past.....poor baby.
Welcome, Carol!
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Jan 28, 2013 6:56:17 GMT -5
Welcome to the Forum!
I'd be very interested in your impressions of the discussions/quarreling that you've observed and wonder how far back into the Wharf's past your research has taken you.
Incidentally, I use my real name here.
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Jan 28, 2013 7:00:57 GMT -5
I joined this forum to do some research on on-line discussion forums. I have seen that what goes on here also goes on in forums that are much larger. I think this small community exemplifies Charlie Brooker's feelings about the futility of internet debates. There’s no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. The internet’s perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain’t one of them. It provides scant room for debate and infinite opportunities for fruitless point-scoring: the heady combination of perceived anonymity, gestated responses, random heckling and a notional “live audience” quickly conspire to create a “perfect storm” of perpetual bickering. Stumble in, take umbrage with someone, trade a few blows, and within about two or three exchanges, the subject itself goes out the window. Suddenly you’re simply arguing about arguing. Eventually, one side gets bored, comes to its senses, or dies, and the row fizzles out: just another needless belch in the swirling online guffstorm. But not for long, because online quarrelling is also addictive, in precisely the same way Tetris is addictive. It appeals to the “lab rat” part of your brain; the annoying, irrepressible part that adores repetitive pointlessness and would gleefully make you pop bubblewrap till Doomsday if it ever got its way. An unfortunate few, hooked on the futile thrill of online debate, devote their lives to its cause. They roam the internet, actively seeking out viewpoints they disagree with, or squat on messageboards, whining, needling, sneering, over-analysing each new proclamation – joylessly fiddling, like unhappy gorillas doomed to pick lice from one another’s fur for all eternity.Thanks for being Guinea Pigs albiet unknowingly. Carol H. You spelled albeit incorrectly. What college, pray tell? Starting out by pointing out what is likely not a spelling error but a typographical mistake, and there is a difference, is no way to welcome a newcomer.
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Jan 28, 2013 14:01:24 GMT -5
I joined this forum to do some research on on-line discussion forums. I have seen that what goes on here also goes on in forums that are much larger. I think this small community exemplifies Charlie Brooker's feelings about the futility of internet debates. There’s no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. ...I disagree that there is no point to forum discussions. While it is true that most discussions quickly devolve into a game of one-upmanship and it is equally true that the resulting disgust frequently encourages me to consider quitting the forum, I do derive the benefit of greater knowledge (often from the research to confirm my own assumptions as valid or invalid before posting) and a better understanding of the way people think as well as their cognitive biases (mine too). Another benefit comes to mind: my own thoughts, some which were once rather inchoate, are now more fully reasoned and formed. Finally, I'm continually reminded of behavior to avoid. It is these benefits that prod me to bear the regular disgust, frustration and occasional insult that forum discussion affords and continue participating. I am substantially better informed for having participated here and at the defunct Loading Dock sub-forum of the Acoustic Guitar Forum. That makes me a better person than I was before.
|
|
|
Post by sordello on Jan 28, 2013 20:18:39 GMT -5
You spelled albeit incorrectly. What college, pray tell? Starting out by pointing out what is likely not a spelling error but a typographical mistake, and there is a difference, is no way to welcome a newcomer. I would tend to side with geezerfiddle on this one in congratulating blowtorch on a clever post. In the realm of repartee, it was timely and really well placed. Some may have missed the subtlety of it though: when someone comments on a reduced intelligence level, or education of another, then pointing out an error in that comment has a certain relish to it. I agree it is no way to 'welcome' a new member but I suspect that was not the intention of the post, so blowtorch can't be faulted for missing a mark he wasn't aiming at. Though I do welcome Carol as a new member, possibly a sincere member, who wishes to join the dialogues I think some valid suspicion is raised when a new member's first post, rather than being an introductory note or a query on what the Forum is about, is instead a condescending derision of the efforts of other members. An attempt at deflection is made by not directly ascribing herself to the opinion but claiming them in another's name, yet strongly implying an agreement, does not ameliorate what seems to be an intention to ridicule. Carol may well be on a wonderful road with the Study of Psychology (possibly). If so, all the best luck to her. Though she runs the danger that many in that field run, or she may come through with a better understanding of her fellow Earth-mates. From her position of irony, she can view us and all else as guinea pigs for study, in the security of the ironic distance that examiners have - outside the world so to speak. (Danger is - she could be standing outside of Life as well...) Though at one stage she will have to venture into the world of the guinea pigs and release "a paper". At that point, she joins the pigs and provides her her personal 'grunt' to the millions of other grunts out there. No longer watching the world, she becomes part of it again and participates. If she is lucky, her 'grunt' will actually interest more people than the mere 10 peer-reviewers she needs to get her grunt official status on her CV. She may someday realize that 99% of all the peer-reviewed grunts that the discipline of Psychology has produced have ended up on the dung-heap as time-wastes. (At least when guitarists noodle around they tend to entertain people, rather than create more paper for the waste-pile). She will come to realize that it is the line on the CV her grunt produces that has value; her words, her thoughts, her efforts of the grunt itself are of no interest to anyone but her. Then she will understand what it means to be an academic, what it means to be part of the Group and part of the Game. And finally she may see that what Charlie Brooker said about Forums applies to a wider collection of gatherings of people who communicate amongst themselves; it applies to colleges and universities and politics and societies where studies and papers and learned treatises are really just glorified "posts" on a Forum. The World of Psychology is filled with guinea pigs too, but sadly no one is really watching. So, best of luck with your research Carol. Academia can be worse than an Army: the propensity for conformity is very strong. The chances of you having an original thought that isn't quashed at the outset are very slim. You will be told what to think to the smallest detail (especially in Psychology, ironically!). A Forum like this though gives you a chance to temper your thoughts with anvil and hammer; a chance to get away from Room 101 and the Thought Adjustment Chair. Come over to the dark side here - where you are permitted to stray from orthodoxy.
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Jan 29, 2013 10:45:49 GMT -5
I joined this forum to do some research on on-line discussion forums. I have seen that what goes on here also goes on in forums that are much larger. I think this small community exemplifies Charlie Brooker's feelings about the futility of internet debates. There’s no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. The internet’s perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain’t one of them. It provides scant room for debate and infinite opportunities for fruitless point-scoring: the heady combination of perceived anonymity, gestated responses, random heckling and a notional “live audience” quickly conspire to create a “perfect storm” of perpetual bickering. Stumble in, take umbrage with someone, trade a few blows, and within about two or three exchanges, the subject itself goes out the window. Suddenly you’re simply arguing about arguing. Eventually, one side gets bored, comes to its senses, or dies, and the row fizzles out: just another needless belch in the swirling online guffstorm. But not for long, because online quarrelling is also addictive, in precisely the same way Tetris is addictive. It appeals to the “lab rat” part of your brain; the annoying, irrepressible part that adores repetitive pointlessness and would gleefully make you pop bubblewrap till Doomsday if it ever got its way. An unfortunate few, hooked on the futile thrill of online debate, devote their lives to its cause. They roam the internet, actively seeking out viewpoints they disagree with, or squat on messageboards, whining, needling, sneering, over-analysing each new proclamation – joylessly fiddling, like unhappy gorillas doomed to pick lice from one another’s fur for all eternity.Thanks for being Guinea Pigs albiet unknowingly. Carol H. "...The internet’s perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain’t one of them..." This all rests on what is defined as 'productive'. Whoever Charlie Brooker may be, I wonder what he would think of the 'success' rate for psychiatric therapy? How many patients have sessions with their psychiatrists but are not included in 'success' statistics yet they may feel their sessions are productive. An outsider looks at the profession, in aggregate, and looks at success rates and then declares the whole process 'unproductive'. Brooker sounds like a chap who, when having trouble making his first barre chord on a guitar declares to the world that the guitar is too difficult and cannot be played. The evidence of millions of guitarists who play the instrument well is ignored. Charlie has all the evidence HE needs to declare that the guitar is an unplayable instrument. Sad really. Colleges (and Forums) should be places for opening minds, not closing them. Modified: decided to add "(and Forums)"Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by GOD on Jan 29, 2013 13:25:00 GMT -5
I suspect our "new" member is Kal/Gojira/Whateverhecallshimselfthisweek.
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Jan 29, 2013 13:58:31 GMT -5
I joined this forum to do some research on on-line discussion forums. I have seen that what goes on here also goes on in forums that are much larger. I think this small community exemplifies Charlie Brooker's feelings about the futility of internet debates. There’s no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. The internet’s perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain’t one of them. It provides scant room for debate and infinite opportunities for fruitless point-scoring: the heady combination of perceived anonymity, gestated responses, random heckling and a notional “live audience” quickly conspire to create a “perfect storm” of perpetual bickering. Stumble in, take umbrage with someone, trade a few blows, and within about two or three exchanges, the subject itself goes out the window. Suddenly you’re simply arguing about arguing. Eventually, one side gets bored, comes to its senses, or dies, and the row fizzles out: just another needless belch in the swirling online guffstorm. But not for long, because online quarrelling is also addictive, in precisely the same way Tetris is addictive. It appeals to the “lab rat” part of your brain; the annoying, irrepressible part that adores repetitive pointlessness and would gleefully make you pop bubblewrap till Doomsday if it ever got its way. An unfortunate few, hooked on the futile thrill of online debate, devote their lives to its cause. They roam the internet, actively seeking out viewpoints they disagree with, or squat on messageboards, whining, needling, sneering, over-analysing each new proclamation – joylessly fiddling, like unhappy gorillas doomed to pick lice from one another’s fur for all eternity.Thanks for being Guinea Pigs albiet unknowingly. Carol H. You spelled albeit incorrectly. What college, pray tell? When I first read the opening post, I skipped down to the posts below it before reading beyond the first couple of sentences of the quoted text. Had I read the entire post, I don't think I'd written that you were being less than cordial in your response to the opening post.
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Jan 29, 2013 14:00:45 GMT -5
Starting out by pointing out what is likely not a spelling error but a typographical mistake, and there is a difference, is no way to welcome a newcomer. I would tend to side with geezerfiddle on this one in congratulating blowtorch on a clever post. In the realm of repartee, it was timely and really well placed. Some may have missed the subtlety of it though: when someone comments on a reduced intelligence level, or education of another, then pointing out an error in that comment has a certain relish to it. ...I rather doubt the subtlety was too much for anyone here to grasp. Anyway, it seems that the quote in the opening post came from a column in The Guardian: Supposing ... There's only one thing worth debating online
Charlie Brooker The Guardian, Thursday 1 June 2006
Last week I wrote a load of nonsense about flags and idiocy; as well as appearing in print, it also turned up on the Guardian's "Comment is Free" blog-o-site, where passersby are encouraged to scrawl their own responses beneath the original article. Some people disagreed with the piece, some agreed; some found it funny, some didn't. For half a nanosecond I was tempted to join in the discussion. And then I remembered that all internet debates, without exception, are entirely futile. So I didn't.
There's no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. The internet's perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain't one of them. It provides scant room for debate and infinite opportunities for fruitless point-scoring: the heady combination of perceived anonymity, gestated responses, random heckling and a notional "live audience" quickly conspire to create a "perfect storm" of perpetual bickering.
Stumble in, take umbrage with someone, trade a few blows, and within about two or three exchanges, the subject itself goes out the window. Suddenly you're simply arguing about arguing. Eventually, one side gets bored, comes to its senses, or dies, and the row fizzles out: just another needless belch in the swirling online guffstorm.
But not for long, because online quarrelling is also addictive, in precisely the same way Tetris is addictive. It appeals to the "lab rat" part of your brain; the annoying, irrepressible part that adores repetitive pointlessness and would gleefully make you pop bubblewrap till Doomsday if it ever got its way. An unfortunate few, hooked on the futile thrill of online debate, devote their lives to its cause. They roam the internet, actively seeking out viewpoints they disagree with, or squat on messageboards, whining, needling, sneering, over-analysing each new proclamation - joylessly fiddling, like unhappy gorillas doomed to pick lice from one another's fur for all eternity.
Still, it's not all moan moan moan in NetLand. There's also the occasional puerile splutter to liven things up.
In the debate sparked by my gibberish outpouring, it wasn't long before rival posters began speculating about the size of their opponent's dicks. It led me to wonder - has the world of science ever investigated a casual link between penis size and male political leaning?
I'd theorise that, on the whole, rightwing penises are short and stubby, hence their owners' constant fury. Lefties, on the other hand, are spoiled for length, yet boast no girth whatsoever - which explains their pained confusion. I flit from one camp to the other, of course, which is why mine's so massive it's got a full-size human knee in the middle. And a back. A big man's back.
Anyway, if we must debate things online, we might as well debate that. It's not like we'll ever resolve any of that other bullshit, is it?
Click. Mine's bigger than yours. Click. No it isn't. Click. Yes it is. Click. Refresh, repost, repeat to fade. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/02/comment.charliebrookerEdited to add link
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Jan 29, 2013 14:08:42 GMT -5
I suspect our "new" member is Kal/Gojira/Whateverhecallshimselfthisweek. I don't think so. It is strange that Carol's last log-in date is listed as Jan 22, 2013, 1:19am but her only post so far was submitted on Jan 27, 2013, 5:26pm. If she hasn't logged in at all after starting this thread, as appears to be the case, I can be forgiven for wondering if her intent was no more than to provoke emotional responses.
|
|