7 ms·

I feel the 'social media is bad for you' thing, but for different reasons. I mean, I don't really understand the 'feeling inadequate because of my cousin's bab

by lsc 10y ago

I feel the 'social media is bad for you' thing, but for different reasons. I mean, I don't really understand the 'feeling inadequate because of my cousin's baby pictures' thing. I mean, I am happy for them, but that isn't the life I want, so I don't feel bad that I don't have it. Alternately, I could be less jealous than most people, but let's run with the more realistic first reason. For me, the problem with social media is a fundamental lack of self control; I get into 'someone is wrong on the internet' discussions, and for me, those are the 'addictive but not pleasant' aspects of social media. For me, a conversation is not fun if we aren't arguing in good faith ; if we can't acknowledge one another's good points and rhetorical flourishes, it is just not fun, and I end up feeling frustrated and rejected. The unhealthy part is that I feel the discussion is unfinished, and walking away takes a tremendous act of will, and even then, my mind keeps coming back to the conversation. I hope it is just a matter of practice; I mostly have left other mediums with these sorts of unfufilling conversations, or at least learned to restrain myself from participating in the most obviously unproductive conversations. I think the big difference with social media is largely cultural; lots of people are there who lack a background in early internet culture or academic culture, and our shared vocabulary doesn't run much past "you are wrong " and there isn't the social pressure to be civil like we have here, or to be smart, like there was in the heyday of kuro5hin.

Swizec 10y ago
> lots of people are there who lack a background in early internet culture or academic culture I think this hits it. Many (most?) people just aren't used to having people disagree with them. Let alone voice those disagreements and be expected to defend their beliefs and explain why they think they're right. For many people the way they think is correct, just is correct. It's not something that needs defending or even investigating. It's just how things are. Perhaps the problem is fundamentally how many different people social media exposes us to. And maybe if you weren't exposed to that in your formative years, it's a hard thing to get used to.
- platz 10y ago
  Framing that difference as a "lack" the other person has, may be right, but creates a sense of superiority over that person which also seems wrong, for certain people that are aware of their differences (they may not be "lacking" anything"). Some people are emotivists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism), which means that for them preferences are moral positions in themselves, not just reasons about the morality of preferences. it is “… the doctrine that all evaluative judgments and more specifically all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling.” In other words, emotivism holds that there can be no way of rationally justifying one’s claims about controversial issues. I think this view describes a great many number of people; though it's true that academia, STEM, and rational enlightenment thinking tends to filter it out or select against it.
  - Swizec 10y ago
    TIL! I've never heard of emotivism before. And I don't think that's what I was pointing towards. My comment is about the idea that people aren't used to having their beliefs investigated or challenged. No matter what the basis is for their existence. It's more a lack in their environment than in themselves I think. You can't get used to defending your beliefs until you're exposed to people and ideas that challenge them. I mean it's fine if your defense is "That's what feels right". But it's not fine if your response to "I think you're wrong" is to think you're being attacked and it makes you feel superbad.
    - platz 10y ago
      sure, though I think emotivism is pertinent here, for example > "I think you're wrong" is to think you're being attacked This is exactly what the emotivist thinks because challenging an idea means challenging a preference which is directly challenging the moral character of the individual. There is no ability to discuss things in a detached way for them; this seems to check out anecdotally. Is that "not fine?" - I certainly don't like it, and I don't think it's fine for people i choose to interact with, but my first step is to understand it, if only because there are so many people like this. Folks will continue to act like this despite my desire to see the opposite behavior, so it's good to be prepared and not self-deceive what other people are really like. > My comment is about the idea that people aren't used to having their beliefs investigated or challenged. I think I get where you're coming from. someone people not used to something could be said to having a deficiency in dealing with that situation and presumably with more experience they would change their behavior. But I think there may be a slight difference in what I was saying, which includes some overlap with your point, but also allows for people who are quite familiar with being challenged, but yet immediately disapprove of such behavior anyways, due to the explanations above.
- nathanasmith 10y ago
  >I think this hits it. Many (most?) people just aren't used to having people disagree with them. Let alone voice those disagreements and be expected to defend their beliefs and explain why they think they're right. And some people like myself just don't feel like sitting around arguing all day.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  You get to the heart of the issue. So much complaining about arguments in social media boils down to "they didn't let me be!", rarely accompanied by an explanation of what the opinion stated was, as if it didn't matter. If opinions matter, feelings will get hurt. There's ways to mitigate this to some degree, but at the end of the day many positions are irreconciliable, and just because people stop talking about it doesn't mean that it won't eventually bubble up.
aduitsis 10y ago
Thank you, that was extremely insightful. Sometimes it's a pity there is no Reddit gold equivalent in HN.
M_Grey 10y ago
This may sound bizarre, but I used to have that same problem... and it's actually arguing on the internet that made me realize I needed to lose the anger, lose the need to control, and... then I spent a couple of years really making an effort. If you're already at the point of recognizing what you've described about yourself, you've done the hardest part, and now you just need to build new habits. That said, avoiding obvious minefields like FB seems like a wise choice too.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  You're one of the best posters here imo, so good job. I disagree that argument is about recognizing each other's rhetorical flourishes. Argument is much, much, much more often about people opposed to each other, and bystanders making a decision about who won. See: courts.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    First of all, thank you, I really appreciate your kind words. Beyond that, I agree utterly about the notion that argument is too often seen as a sport or a "winning" game. The best arguments IMO are ones in which both parties are reaching out to each other, trying to make a point or communicate some idea. It's a contest, but it's also cooperative when everything goes well. I think about the Wright Brothers, who used the old rhetorical trick of, when they reached an impasse, switching positions in an argument. That's the way to do it! You can be hugely invested in a position, but still be willing to challenge it.
    - RodericDay 10y ago
      I don't know if I agree that the best arguments result in agreement between opponents. It's nice to have and good when it happens, but many arguments boil down to matters where there are, in very real terms, winners and losers. Not everything can be patched up procedurally, nor can people "switch up" when it's eg: a black man told to try to understand the slaver's argument. It's good to develop some capabilities to cope with difficult and heated discussions.
seanwilson 10y ago
> For me, the problem with social media is a fundamental lack of self control; I get into 'someone is wrong on the internet' discussions, and for me, those are the 'addictive but not pleasant' aspects of social media. Why not control yourself to not reply to people you know aren't going to have a healthy discussion with you? Surely the same issue exists in real life?
- ovulator 10y ago
  As an anecdote, I very rarely use Facebook. But recently saw someone on my feed share their thoughts on a very interesting topic that had a lot of nuance. I thought I would weigh in because I know this person is thoughtful and open to productive discussion, so I leave a comment. Of course their friends who I don't know can also see my comment, and they quickly weigh in with their un-thought out vitriol. I try to keep the discussion going for a little while, but they quickly degenerate it into ad-hominem attacks (which is impressive because I am a stranger to them) and I give up.
  - seanwilson 10y ago
    > Of course their friends who I don't know can also see my comment, and they quickly weigh in with their un-thought out vitriol. I try to keep the discussion going for a little while, but they quickly degenerate it into ad-hominem attacks (which is impressive because I am a stranger to them) and I give up. Sounds similar to real life though when serious topics come up...some people aren't interested in their views being challenged, get overly defensive and don't care about what an ad-hominem attack is. You're best either avoiding those kinds of conversations or those kinds of people.
    - ovulator 10y ago
      In real life when I engage with one friend about a topic his friend who I don't know doesn't step in and start attacking me.
      - seanwilson 10y ago
tmbsundar 10y ago
> I get into 'someone is wrong on the internet' discussions, and for me, those are the 'addictive but not pleasant' aspects of social media. This is exacerbated by not having the luxury of taking cues from facial expressions, body language, smiles and the context of the situation. Moreover, f2f discussions are mostly real time and synchronous vs the social media ones being asynchronous, allowing people to pick up days old thread and continue the discussions, thus there is no end at all if one decides to weave the topic further.
- kordless 10y ago
  > This is exacerbated by not having the luxury of taking cues from facial expressions, body language, smiles and the context of the situation. This is caused by this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
usrusr 10y ago
Uh oh, someone's right on the internet, now what do I do? When I occasionally do stumble into an internet conversation on Facebook or the like where the absence of experience with all those older cycles of internet culture is palpable it feels like I am wasting hard earned skill.
- musha68k 10y ago
  That's why I call it DeplorablesBook but that's also where the problem lies maybe. Most probably. Maybe certainly. We need to engage in those tiresome discussions collectively. We need to talk more, with more people from more diverse backgrounds if we want to change anything actually. Let's educate everyone so that we get an even better internet than the one we came to love back in the 90s and early 00s! Just got a recommendation for this great correlating speech by a friend actually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70&feature=youtu.be&t=1m6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70&feature=youtu.be...
lucideer 10y ago
> I don't really understand the 'feeling inadequate because of my cousin's baby pictures' thing I concur. I've never understood this, and tbh haven't met anyone who does. > For me, the problem with social media is a fundamental lack of self control... I find this interesting because as a very frequent Facebook user, I don't really encounter this there, I guess due to the whole filter-bubble kind of effect of social circles. Facebook discussion are all reinforcing rather than combative, so the question of good faith debate rarely even comes into it at all. The echo chamber has it's own reputation for being "bad for you" for other reasons however. > I mostly have left other mediums with these sorts of unfufilling conversations I've definitely engaged in one or two of these on HN, but generally they're in a tiny minority. As an alternate example though, while I don't really tweet, and I figure Twitter is a more likely medium for those sorts of "unfulfilling conversations", it seems to offer a lot of value to counter-balance that aspect.

by lsc 10y ago

Swizec 10y ago

> lots of people are there who lack a background in early internet culture or academic culture I think this hits it. Many (most?) people just aren't used to having people disagree with them. Let alone voice those disagreements and be expected to defend their beliefs and explain why they think they're right. For many people the way they think is correct, just is correct. It's not something that needs defending or even investigating. It's just how things are. Perhaps the problem is fundamentally how many different people social media exposes us to. And maybe if you weren't exposed to that in your formative years, it's a hard thing to get used to.

platz 10y ago
Framing that difference as a "lack" the other person has, may be right, but creates a sense of superiority over that person which also seems wrong, for certain people that are aware of their differences (they may not be "lacking" anything"). Some people are emotivists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism), which means that for them preferences are moral positions in themselves, not just reasons about the morality of preferences. it is “… the doctrine that all evaluative judgments and more specifically all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling.” In other words, emotivism holds that there can be no way of rationally justifying one’s claims about controversial issues. I think this view describes a great many number of people; though it's true that academia, STEM, and rational enlightenment thinking tends to filter it out or select against it.
- Swizec 10y ago
  TIL! I've never heard of emotivism before. And I don't think that's what I was pointing towards. My comment is about the idea that people aren't used to having their beliefs investigated or challenged. No matter what the basis is for their existence. It's more a lack in their environment than in themselves I think. You can't get used to defending your beliefs until you're exposed to people and ideas that challenge them. I mean it's fine if your defense is "That's what feels right". But it's not fine if your response to "I think you're wrong" is to think you're being attacked and it makes you feel superbad.
  - platz 10y ago
    sure, though I think emotivism is pertinent here, for example > "I think you're wrong" is to think you're being attacked This is exactly what the emotivist thinks because challenging an idea means challenging a preference which is directly challenging the moral character of the individual. There is no ability to discuss things in a detached way for them; this seems to check out anecdotally. Is that "not fine?" - I certainly don't like it, and I don't think it's fine for people i choose to interact with, but my first step is to understand it, if only because there are so many people like this. Folks will continue to act like this despite my desire to see the opposite behavior, so it's good to be prepared and not self-deceive what other people are really like. > My comment is about the idea that people aren't used to having their beliefs investigated or challenged. I think I get where you're coming from. someone people not used to something could be said to having a deficiency in dealing with that situation and presumably with more experience they would change their behavior. But I think there may be a slight difference in what I was saying, which includes some overlap with your point, but also allows for people who are quite familiar with being challenged, but yet immediately disapprove of such behavior anyways, due to the explanations above.
nathanasmith 10y ago
>I think this hits it. Many (most?) people just aren't used to having people disagree with them. Let alone voice those disagreements and be expected to defend their beliefs and explain why they think they're right. And some people like myself just don't feel like sitting around arguing all day.
RodericDay 10y ago
You get to the heart of the issue. So much complaining about arguments in social media boils down to "they didn't let me be!", rarely accompanied by an explanation of what the opinion stated was, as if it didn't matter. If opinions matter, feelings will get hurt. There's ways to mitigate this to some degree, but at the end of the day many positions are irreconciliable, and just because people stop talking about it doesn't mean that it won't eventually bubble up.

aduitsis 10y ago

Thank you, that was extremely insightful. Sometimes it's a pity there is no Reddit gold equivalent in HN.

M_Grey 10y ago

This may sound bizarre, but I used to have that same problem... and it's actually arguing on the internet that made me realize I needed to lose the anger, lose the need to control, and... then I spent a couple of years really making an effort. If you're already at the point of recognizing what you've described about yourself, you've done the hardest part, and now you just need to build new habits. That said, avoiding obvious minefields like FB seems like a wise choice too.

RodericDay 10y ago
You're one of the best posters here imo, so good job. I disagree that argument is about recognizing each other's rhetorical flourishes. Argument is much, much, much more often about people opposed to each other, and bystanders making a decision about who won. See: courts.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  First of all, thank you, I really appreciate your kind words. Beyond that, I agree utterly about the notion that argument is too often seen as a sport or a "winning" game. The best arguments IMO are ones in which both parties are reaching out to each other, trying to make a point or communicate some idea. It's a contest, but it's also cooperative when everything goes well. I think about the Wright Brothers, who used the old rhetorical trick of, when they reached an impasse, switching positions in an argument. That's the way to do it! You can be hugely invested in a position, but still be willing to challenge it.
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    I don't know if I agree that the best arguments result in agreement between opponents. It's nice to have and good when it happens, but many arguments boil down to matters where there are, in very real terms, winners and losers. Not everything can be patched up procedurally, nor can people "switch up" when it's eg: a black man told to try to understand the slaver's argument. It's good to develop some capabilities to cope with difficult and heated discussions.

seanwilson 10y ago

> For me, the problem with social media is a fundamental lack of self control; I get into 'someone is wrong on the internet' discussions, and for me, those are the 'addictive but not pleasant' aspects of social media. Why not control yourself to not reply to people you know aren't going to have a healthy discussion with you? Surely the same issue exists in real life?

ovulator 10y ago
As an anecdote, I very rarely use Facebook. But recently saw someone on my feed share their thoughts on a very interesting topic that had a lot of nuance. I thought I would weigh in because I know this person is thoughtful and open to productive discussion, so I leave a comment. Of course their friends who I don't know can also see my comment, and they quickly weigh in with their un-thought out vitriol. I try to keep the discussion going for a little while, but they quickly degenerate it into ad-hominem attacks (which is impressive because I am a stranger to them) and I give up.
- seanwilson 10y ago
  > Of course their friends who I don't know can also see my comment, and they quickly weigh in with their un-thought out vitriol. I try to keep the discussion going for a little while, but they quickly degenerate it into ad-hominem attacks (which is impressive because I am a stranger to them) and I give up. Sounds similar to real life though when serious topics come up...some people aren't interested in their views being challenged, get overly defensive and don't care about what an ad-hominem attack is. You're best either avoiding those kinds of conversations or those kinds of people.
  - ovulator 10y ago
    In real life when I engage with one friend about a topic his friend who I don't know doesn't step in and start attacking me.
    - seanwilson 10y ago

tmbsundar 10y ago

> I get into 'someone is wrong on the internet' discussions, and for me, those are the 'addictive but not pleasant' aspects of social media. This is exacerbated by not having the luxury of taking cues from facial expressions, body language, smiles and the context of the situation. Moreover, f2f discussions are mostly real time and synchronous vs the social media ones being asynchronous, allowing people to pick up days old thread and continue the discussions, thus there is no end at all if one decides to weave the topic further.

kordless 10y ago
> This is exacerbated by not having the luxury of taking cues from facial expressions, body language, smiles and the context of the situation. This is caused by this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

usrusr 10y ago

Uh oh, someone's right on the internet, now what do I do? When I occasionally do stumble into an internet conversation on Facebook or the like where the absence of experience with all those older cycles of internet culture is palpable it feels like I am wasting hard earned skill.

musha68k 10y ago
That's why I call it DeplorablesBook but that's also where the problem lies maybe. Most probably. Maybe certainly. We need to engage in those tiresome discussions collectively. We need to talk more, with more people from more diverse backgrounds if we want to change anything actually. Let's educate everyone so that we get an even better internet than the one we came to love back in the 90s and early 00s! Just got a recommendation for this great correlating speech by a friend actually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70&feature=youtu.be&t=1m6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70&feature=youtu.be...

lucideer 10y ago

> I don't really understand the 'feeling inadequate because of my cousin's baby pictures' thing I concur. I've never understood this, and tbh haven't met anyone who does. > For me, the problem with social media is a fundamental lack of self control... I find this interesting because as a very frequent Facebook user, I don't really encounter this there, I guess due to the whole filter-bubble kind of effect of social circles. Facebook discussion are all reinforcing rather than combative, so the question of good faith debate rarely even comes into it at all. The echo chamber has it's own reputation for being "bad for you" for other reasons however. > I mostly have left other mediums with these sorts of unfufilling conversations I've definitely engaged in one or two of these on HN, but generally they're in a tiny minority. As an alternate example though, while I don't really tweet, and I figure Twitter is a more likely medium for those sorts of "unfulfilling conversations", it seems to offer a lot of value to counter-balance that aspect.