6 ms·

1962 study: Subjects divided in two groups, both angered. The study cohort believed their frustrater had been harmed and experiences less emotional tension than

1962 study: Subjects divided in two groups, both angered. The study cohort believed their frustrater had been harmed and experiences less emotional tension than the control group. Of note, the group who enjoyed hostility catharsis did not become friendlier. I don't think it's a shocking observation political hostility on all sides is often a strategy for self-care in the form of hostility catharsis. Along these lines, if Facebook, Twitter, etc. were sincerely interested in improving online discourse, they would jettison "fact checking" and censorship for additional content that focuses on the safety of the present moment, temporal perspective, breathing, visualization, humor & timeouts. Every one of those interventions are proven to work in many cases, do no harm, allow the free flow of ideas and where effective open doors for bridge building. Yeah, seems hokey... until you actually try these strategies and discover they provide tremendous relief. Study abstract: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1963-05053-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1963-05053-001

slumdev 5y ago
> they would jettison "fact checking" and censorship Telling someone their beliefs aren't valid is rude if they're preaching something like flat earth or "law of attraction" or Lysenkoism, but it's not the end of the world. However, telling someone their beliefs aren't valid when those beliefs are merely unpopular or inconvenient reduces the credibility of the "fact checker" and increases the hostility and insularism of the person with these beliefs. In early 2020, the fact checkers told us that anything less than an N95 mask doesn't work. The fact checkers of today tell us that any face mask prevents the transmission of the virus, and they've even come up with words like "anti-masker" to dehumanize people who question them or who merely adhere to their early 2020 statements. In mid-2020, the fact checkers told us that the lab leak theory was preposterous, and promoting it was a Facebook/Twitter excommunicable offense. Today, this idea is mainstream. In early 2021, the fact checkers told us that the vaccine stops the spread of the virus. In mid-2021, the fact checkers told us that the vaccine reduces symptom severity. Today, mainstream fact checkers are recognizing that vaccine immunity wanes and is ineffective against new variants. Fact checkers seem to be wrong more often than they're right. So why does the fact checker get to decide what I can post on Facebook and Twitter?
- kortex 5y ago
  Speaking of fact checking, this whole post needs a _citation needed_. I don't recall fact checkers _ever_ say masks below N95 "doesn't work". There was a brief period where mask wearing wasn't recommended, in a possibly ill-suited ploy to prevent hoarding. I don't recall fact checkers ever saying the lab theory was "preposterous", only that it was unsupported by evidence at the time. I don't recall fact checkers ever saying the vaccine "stops" the virus spread, only that it dramatically reduces transmission. There was always concerns about variant escape from like, April 2020. Addition: Clearly, there is a disconnect between what I experienced "fact checkers" saying, and you, or others, experienced. Using the phrasing "fact checkers said X" is extremely veridical in tone, and opens the door for lots of clashing with anyone (such as myself) with differing observations. Also, when you say "fact checkers did X", are you speaking for _all_ fact checkers? Some? Which ones? It's an epistemological mine field. Addition 2, before I get nit-picked over the "masks don't work". OP's statement is: > In early 2020, the fact checkers told us that anything less than an N95 mask doesn't work. The fact checkers of today tell us that any face mask prevents the transmission of the virus... So I interpret "work" here to mean "prevent transmission of the virus." I remember extremely distinctly at the time the recommended guidance, because my aunt asked about whether she should wear a mask. I told her, as was guidance at the time, late Feb 2020, that a typical surgical mask would not dramatically reduce her risk of contracting COVID, she would need a respirator (N95), and at this point in time, unless you were high risk, this was probably overkill. Cases were rare enough that your best bet at the time was handwashing and social distancing. Then, two weeks later, around Mar 14, I told her "yeah actually you should be wearing a mask around others, even cloth ones, lest you be an asymptomatic carrier." What changed in that timeframe? The number of cases in the USA started skyrocketing, and we discovered that COVID can be asymptomatic in a large percent of cases, and has a long incubation period. New information was acquired, the recommendations changed. That's how all rational, informed decision making should work.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    Indeed. I really don't think it's helpful to say "Fact checkers said X" without providing proof and context. Unsurprisingly it turns out that social media - platforms designed to promote aggressive argument for "engagement" - are a very bad way to distribute public health information. Or reputable factual information about anything at all. Reality-based audiences will try to select credible sources. But everyone else gets a diet of anger, fear, hearsay, misunderstandings, shock-value anecdotes, lies, and noise. I think it's unwise to ignore how much of an influence this has had on what's happening now.
nathias 5y ago
any sources on the effects of > content that focuses on the safety of the present moment, temporal perspective, breathing, visualization, humor & timeouts
acituan 5y ago
> Along these lines, if Facebook, Twitter, etc. were sincerely interested in improving online discourse, they would jettison "fact checking" and censorship for additional content that focuses on the safety of the present moment, temporal perspective, breathing, visualization, humor & timeouts. Except those companies are in the business of emotional disregulation in the name of “engagement”. Last thing I want is for them to have even more authority on the participants’ emotional states. When not riled up through manipulation of what they see, most people have a good sense of how to be good to each other. The other problem is social media getting overrepresented in comparison to real world interactions in our lifetime of discourses. I want the full experience of the disagreeable other, ideally in a friend, so that we can hold the tension of disagreement with some love and beers. Textual/propositional discourse is a mere simulation of this, we’re all stranger brains in vats spitting out argumentation in a truncated form of existence. Perception of being right overcomes the actual need for being right and being held in positive regard. We’re here more to impress, and less to dialogue and cohere.
- kodah 5y ago
  Is this paper exclusive to a certain website? I've had discussions with people of various political persuasions that are downright hostile on this website. If people on this website with engagement mostly removed can't control themselves, who can? I've looked through some of these people's profiles before and I've been shocked to find that in non-political discussions they're pretty normal. They're not trolls per se, unless you threaten (using this loosely, such as believing in or having experiences counter to) something core to their identity or way of life. My takeaway, thus far, has been that without you being physically sat in front of someone they can't observe how something so close and dear to them could possibly hurt someone. They can't imagine that something that seems "righteous" could alienate people or the wrong people if their purpose was to alienate. They only see that through the various signals we can't capture in a DOM or across HTTP.
exo-pla-net 5y ago
The purpose of fact-checking isn't to improve online discourse. It's to reduce public health crises, like vaccination hesitancy, and extremism based on falsehoods (e.g. countless false claims of ballot irregularities), leading to political violence. But in terms of reducing toxicity, your idea of introducing self-care interventions is great.

slumdev 5y ago

> they would jettison "fact checking" and censorship Telling someone their beliefs aren't valid is rude if they're preaching something like flat earth or "law of attraction" or Lysenkoism, but it's not the end of the world. However, telling someone their beliefs aren't valid when those beliefs are merely unpopular or inconvenient reduces the credibility of the "fact checker" and increases the hostility and insularism of the person with these beliefs. In early 2020, the fact checkers told us that anything less than an N95 mask doesn't work. The fact checkers of today tell us that any face mask prevents the transmission of the virus, and they've even come up with words like "anti-masker" to dehumanize people who question them or who merely adhere to their early 2020 statements. In mid-2020, the fact checkers told us that the lab leak theory was preposterous, and promoting it was a Facebook/Twitter excommunicable offense. Today, this idea is mainstream. In early 2021, the fact checkers told us that the vaccine stops the spread of the virus. In mid-2021, the fact checkers told us that the vaccine reduces symptom severity. Today, mainstream fact checkers are recognizing that vaccine immunity wanes and is ineffective against new variants. Fact checkers seem to be wrong more often than they're right. So why does the fact checker get to decide what I can post on Facebook and Twitter?

kortex 5y ago
Speaking of fact checking, this whole post needs a _citation needed_. I don't recall fact checkers _ever_ say masks below N95 "doesn't work". There was a brief period where mask wearing wasn't recommended, in a possibly ill-suited ploy to prevent hoarding. I don't recall fact checkers ever saying the lab theory was "preposterous", only that it was unsupported by evidence at the time. I don't recall fact checkers ever saying the vaccine "stops" the virus spread, only that it dramatically reduces transmission. There was always concerns about variant escape from like, April 2020. Addition: Clearly, there is a disconnect between what I experienced "fact checkers" saying, and you, or others, experienced. Using the phrasing "fact checkers said X" is extremely veridical in tone, and opens the door for lots of clashing with anyone (such as myself) with differing observations. Also, when you say "fact checkers did X", are you speaking for _all_ fact checkers? Some? Which ones? It's an epistemological mine field. Addition 2, before I get nit-picked over the "masks don't work". OP's statement is: > In early 2020, the fact checkers told us that anything less than an N95 mask doesn't work. The fact checkers of today tell us that any face mask prevents the transmission of the virus... So I interpret "work" here to mean "prevent transmission of the virus." I remember extremely distinctly at the time the recommended guidance, because my aunt asked about whether she should wear a mask. I told her, as was guidance at the time, late Feb 2020, that a typical surgical mask would not dramatically reduce her risk of contracting COVID, she would need a respirator (N95), and at this point in time, unless you were high risk, this was probably overkill. Cases were rare enough that your best bet at the time was handwashing and social distancing. Then, two weeks later, around Mar 14, I told her "yeah actually you should be wearing a mask around others, even cloth ones, lest you be an asymptomatic carrier." What changed in that timeframe? The number of cases in the USA started skyrocketing, and we discovered that COVID can be asymptomatic in a large percent of cases, and has a long incubation period. New information was acquired, the recommendations changed. That's how all rational, informed decision making should work.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Indeed. I really don't think it's helpful to say "Fact checkers said X" without providing proof and context. Unsurprisingly it turns out that social media - platforms designed to promote aggressive argument for "engagement" - are a very bad way to distribute public health information. Or reputable factual information about anything at all. Reality-based audiences will try to select credible sources. But everyone else gets a diet of anger, fear, hearsay, misunderstandings, shock-value anecdotes, lies, and noise. I think it's unwise to ignore how much of an influence this has had on what's happening now.

nathias 5y ago

any sources on the effects of > content that focuses on the safety of the present moment, temporal perspective, breathing, visualization, humor & timeouts

acituan 5y ago

> Along these lines, if Facebook, Twitter, etc. were sincerely interested in improving online discourse, they would jettison "fact checking" and censorship for additional content that focuses on the safety of the present moment, temporal perspective, breathing, visualization, humor & timeouts. Except those companies are in the business of emotional disregulation in the name of “engagement”. Last thing I want is for them to have even more authority on the participants’ emotional states. When not riled up through manipulation of what they see, most people have a good sense of how to be good to each other. The other problem is social media getting overrepresented in comparison to real world interactions in our lifetime of discourses. I want the full experience of the disagreeable other, ideally in a friend, so that we can hold the tension of disagreement with some love and beers. Textual/propositional discourse is a mere simulation of this, we’re all stranger brains in vats spitting out argumentation in a truncated form of existence. Perception of being right overcomes the actual need for being right and being held in positive regard. We’re here more to impress, and less to dialogue and cohere.

kodah 5y ago
Is this paper exclusive to a certain website? I've had discussions with people of various political persuasions that are downright hostile on this website. If people on this website with engagement mostly removed can't control themselves, who can? I've looked through some of these people's profiles before and I've been shocked to find that in non-political discussions they're pretty normal. They're not trolls per se, unless you threaten (using this loosely, such as believing in or having experiences counter to) something core to their identity or way of life. My takeaway, thus far, has been that without you being physically sat in front of someone they can't observe how something so close and dear to them could possibly hurt someone. They can't imagine that something that seems "righteous" could alienate people or the wrong people if their purpose was to alienate. They only see that through the various signals we can't capture in a DOM or across HTTP.

exo-pla-net 5y ago

The purpose of fact-checking isn't to improve online discourse. It's to reduce public health crises, like vaccination hesitancy, and extremism based on falsehoods (e.g. countless false claims of ballot irregularities), leading to political violence. But in terms of reducing toxicity, your idea of introducing self-care interventions is great.