4 ms·

> Whether you are agreeing or disagreeing, but there's not a lot of actual conversation, just... reactions. Could you elaborate on the distinction you’re makin

> Whether you are agreeing or disagreeing, but there's not a lot of actual conversation, just... reactions. Could you elaborate on the distinction you’re making between genuine conversations and records of reaction? Specifically, did you imply that tone and recognition of the other party are factors?

anr13 5y ago
Thats hard, and I got some feedback that I know how to make a few changes around that. I plan to make the picking of a cafe the second option and ability to move content between them so it's not a panic if posting in the correct location. Also the inputs to create a new conversation on your account from the main feed view at the top to be more inline with what users expect and not a button to open.
marginalia_nu 5y ago
It's very different to talk to someone you have a rapport with from talking to a perfect stranger, and I definitely think the recognition matters. You get these weird interactions all the time on the Internet: If I ask someone a question about their reasoning, someone else may very well respond with what they think. In a lot of Internet conversation it's like you are correcting people who you disagree with and then expounding what you think is true. That isn't really what conversation is like, I don't think.
- psyc 5y ago
  In real life, I'm focused on the thing they said that I agree with, and replying to that. On the internet, I'm often replying to the part I disagree with. On the internet, I'll correct a factual mistake immediately. In real life, I try to ignore it if possible so as not to disturb the flow of conversation. In real life, if I'm talking to somebody at all, I'm probably at least open to friendship. On the internet, I usually don't care.
- burrows 5y ago
  > You get these weird interactions all the time on the Internet: If I ask someone a question about their reasoning, someone else may very well respond with what they think. Is the question about the other party’s reasoning as in thought process or reasoning as in the argument they’ve written down? I think of arguments as public processes/entities, in that it doesn’t matter who/where critique comes from. But human beings have particular social psychology so there may be ‘effects’ from drive by critique. > In a lot of Internet conversation it's like you are correcting people who you disagree with and then expounding what you think is true. Often when I read something I don’t agree with, my mind immediately creates a caricature of the author and I get the impulse to crush/fix them.

anr13 5y ago

Thats hard, and I got some feedback that I know how to make a few changes around that. I plan to make the picking of a cafe the second option and ability to move content between them so it's not a panic if posting in the correct location. Also the inputs to create a new conversation on your account from the main feed view at the top to be more inline with what users expect and not a button to open.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

It's very different to talk to someone you have a rapport with from talking to a perfect stranger, and I definitely think the recognition matters. You get these weird interactions all the time on the Internet: If I ask someone a question about their reasoning, someone else may very well respond with what they think. In a lot of Internet conversation it's like you are correcting people who you disagree with and then expounding what you think is true. That isn't really what conversation is like, I don't think.

psyc 5y ago
In real life, I'm focused on the thing they said that I agree with, and replying to that. On the internet, I'm often replying to the part I disagree with. On the internet, I'll correct a factual mistake immediately. In real life, I try to ignore it if possible so as not to disturb the flow of conversation. In real life, if I'm talking to somebody at all, I'm probably at least open to friendship. On the internet, I usually don't care.
burrows 5y ago
> You get these weird interactions all the time on the Internet: If I ask someone a question about their reasoning, someone else may very well respond with what they think. Is the question about the other party’s reasoning as in thought process or reasoning as in the argument they’ve written down? I think of arguments as public processes/entities, in that it doesn’t matter who/where critique comes from. But human beings have particular social psychology so there may be ‘effects’ from drive by critique. > In a lot of Internet conversation it's like you are correcting people who you disagree with and then expounding what you think is true. Often when I read something I don’t agree with, my mind immediately creates a caricature of the author and I get the impulse to crush/fix them.