|
|
Post by Andromeda on Jan 29, 2013 16:30:40 GMT -5
I am studying communications. The internet and internet forums can be a place where communication gets misconstrued. Although I don't completely agree with all of Mr. Booker's remarks from my opening post, I think he does make some valid observations. One of the interesting points I have learned about internet debates is that people do often act in ways that they would not act if they were meeting people face to face.
I have read through pages and pages of debates on this forum and one aspect of Mr. Bookers remarks are true. Debates often, rather quickly, devolve into insults and point scoring. I have been on many other forums and I have found that this type of debate is pretty common.
One thing that is unique to this forum is that there are several topics, such as evolution, intelligent design and abortion rights that have been discussed over and over for several years. That seems to point to Booker's thoughts that internet debates are a “perfect storm” of perpetual bickering and are repetitively pointlessness.
I will not be back, I found all the data I need. Now I have a paper to write! Ciao!
Carol H.
|
|
|
|
Post by sordello on Jan 29, 2013 18:08:09 GMT -5
I am studying communications. The internet and internet forums can be a place where communication gets misconstrued. I struggle to think of an example of a communications medium where this truism is NOT the case. I hope your paper doesn't suggest this is something unique to internet communications. It appears to be a characteristic of all communication media. Although I don't completely agree with all of Mr. Booker's remarks from my opening post, I think he does make some valid observations. One of the interesting points I have learned about internet debates is that people do often act in ways that they would not act if they were meeting people face to face. Again, I could argue this is true outside internet communications. Do you present your self on your CV, or in a job interview, the way you do with your friends at a party? There is also a distinction between the content of internet chat and the behaviour associated with it. For instance, if someone calls me a liar on a Forum, I will react a certain way. People who know me may say that I don't behave like that off the internet, but that would be a case where I have not been called a liar off the internet. However, if - face to face - someone called me a liar, I would behave the same way I did on the internet. To an observer, the inference that I behave in a different way on the internet than in real face to face life would be incorrect. The difference actually is that the content of the chat on the internet is different and therefore the responses are different. I have read through pages and pages of debates on this forum and one aspect of Mr. Bookers remarks are true. Debates often, rather quickly, devolve into insults and point scoring. I have been on many other forums and I have found that this type of debate is pretty common. Yet again, I could argue the same case for nearly all forms of communication. It really would be a hard case to defend that this is unique or distinctive of internet communication. Put a few single guys in the presence of a pretty girl and check out the endless point-scoring conversations that ensue. Check out the conversations in the midst of office politics "by the water cooler". Especially if the boss is listening, the chatter will be all about presentation and scoring - or making subtle knocks against your perceived competition. And how many of us go through the day without hearing some complaint or criticism by one person about another? Insults, point scoring. Do you have examples of communication media where this doesn't generally take place, either overt or subtle? One thing that is unique to this forum is that there are several topics, such as evolution, intelligent design and abortion rights that have been discussed over and over for several years. That seems to point to Booker's thoughts that internet debates are a “perfect storm” of perpetual bickering and are repetitively pointlessness. I will not be back, I found all the data I need. Now I have a paper to write! Ciao! Carol H. This suggests to me that you have brought Brooker's remarks to this Forum and have been looking for substantiation for them. If you have truly been looking - without prejudice - at the threads that have cropped up again and again you will clearly see developments in the discussion; you will see modifications of opinions; you will see new aspects introduced. This all speaks to productivity in the discussions and debates, and this is a primary function of conversation - not necessarily to arrive at a consensus or even generally agreed opinion, but to temper opinions on the anvil while they are hot. (Ask any blacksmith how you modify hard metal). Go back far enough and you will see, for example, my own alteration of opinion on intelligent design. If you are wondering whether this is productive, feel free to PM individual members and take a poll. When you write your paper and argue that internet Forums are useless places of mere insult - using the Wharf as your example - you will have to explain to your peer-reviewers how you (and Brooker) arrived at the conclusion that this place is unproductive when you will have received (as I suspect you would if you bothered) poll results that show the regular posting members here would reply to you that they find this place productive, interesting and informative. (Otherwise, why would they keep coming here?) I suppose though that to write a paper arguing against Brooker's hypothesis would be harder to substantiate than the easy hypothesis that "all we do is argue and insult". Not that the evidence wouldn't be here, but that you would have to roll up your sleeves to dig it out. Evidence of progress is harder to put together than evidence of a static point in time. And on that notion, you may notice how this Forum dips into vitriol and yet, from within, by our own members, and wthout external moderation interference, we pull ourselves back to calm civility again. That is a dynamic that I hope will appear in your paper somewhere. A dynamic of reconciliation. I would like to hear your explanation as to how that dynamic occurs in such an 'unproductive' communication medium.  So you can choose to take the easy way, cherry-pick some insults from here, and fly with Brooker with his easy hypothesis, or you can do the hard yards and examine the Wharf honestly and put together the evidence where we have had fruitful and productive discussions that develop and lead forward. Like so many things under study though, there will be evidence that points both ways - which is why so many 'papers' from Academe tend to be added to the pile of 'unproductive' chatter: they propose a conclusion where the exact opposite conclusion can also be defended. |
|
|
|
Post by sordello on Jan 29, 2013 18:24:06 GMT -5
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 linkI suspect Brooker just may be clever enough to recognize the playful, self-describing hypocrisy of his remarks (highlighted in red). He adds to the parade of inane blog posts (or blog-like posts that pass for "essays" these days) that make one wish they could have those two minutes back in their lives. Mere derision being passed off as humour, or even wit. |
|
|
|
Post by hodagg on Jan 29, 2013 21:05:47 GMT -5
I just hope that taxpayer money isn't subsidizing this study by this Booker guy. Sounds like the kind of nonsense that would come from what passes for higher education today.
|
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Jan 30, 2013 7:22:20 GMT -5
I just hope that taxpayer money isn't subsidizing this study by this Booker guy. Sounds like the kind of nonsense that would come from what passes for higher education today. Booker is a British journalist, producer and humorist. As far as I can tell, he isn't involved in any studies and if he is a beneficiary of any subsidy, it likely comes from British taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Jan 31, 2013 1:47:42 GMT -5
I am studying communications. The internet and internet forums can be a place where communication gets misconstrued. Although I don't completely agree with all of Mr. Booker's remarks from my opening post, I think he does make some valid observations. One of the interesting points I have learned about internet debates is that people do often act in ways that they would not act if they were meeting people face to face. I have read through pages and pages of debates on this forum and one aspect of Mr. Bookers remarks are true. Debates often, rather quickly, devolve into insults and point scoring. I have been on many other forums and I have found that this type of debate is pretty common. One thing that is unique to this forum is that there are several topics, such as evolution, intelligent design and abortion rights that have been discussed over and over for several years. That seems to point to Booker's thoughts that internet debates are a “perfect storm” of perpetual bickering and are repetitively pointlessness. I will not be back, I found all the data I need. Now I have a paper to write! Ciao! Carol H. This is a very small forum where many of these so called debates are really just two members arguing with each other about a specific point. Very often, a thread will have multiple sub threads where different members are reading and responding only to portions of the thread. Larger forums will tend to have a greater variety of input, but the underlying problem with debating any controversial problem is a lack of attention to details by each side. At least on an internet forum you can attempt to make your case and leave it there for others to read. That certainly doesn't happen in everyday life or in politics where these things are supposed to be discussed fairly and honestly. Academia has a much better system for debate, but the problem is that in these social issues, the participants are usually too ideologically driven and get caught in the trap of producing expected results or doing studies that don't ask the right questions. Your argument above fits the former. Not that you would care. |
|
