4 ms·

People don't feel guilt online, generally, because they either forget the person they are talking to is a vulnerable human, or they just imagine them as someone

People don't feel guilt online, generally, because they either forget the person they are talking to is a vulnerable human, or they just imagine them as someone deserving of their vitriol. However, as soon as they are sat in front of someone and are picking up on the visual clues in facial expressions and body language which make it clear that what they are saying is actually affecting a real person with feelings, almost everyone has a profound sense of empathy or guilt.

systemvoltage 4y ago
Would this apply to remote work culture?
- CoastalCoder 4y ago
  Yes, in my experience. But the difference is somewhat diminished because even though you (mostly) don't see the people in person, you do get the benefits of a long term relationship. E.g., you get a better sense of what's safe to discuss candidly with each person, and in some cases you're invested in each other's welfare.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Yeah, I can see that. What I usually used to do when working remotely is to try to at least meet each coworkers once. Ideally, once a month to have lunch if they’re not too far away. But, I feel like the in-person advantages far outweigh anything remote work has to offer. It’s so much better to build relationships with real physically close humans. It’s the best part of being alive I feel. Obviously YMMV, but we should acknowledge that hiding facial expressions with masks or behind internet tubes is not ideal and has major subsconcious implications for communication between humans. One of the reasons why I love visiting Asian cities like Hanoi and Jakarta is that people are less allergic to being close to each other. Complete opposite of Sweden and some parts of US.
- drivingmenuts 4y ago
  It could, but you don’t get a paycheck from online forums. Remembering that someone is paying you will sometimes work to curb excessive misbehavior.
sph 4y ago
In other words, our mirror neurons and empathy aren't made for online communication. On the Internet, we're all psychopaths.
- throwawayboise 4y ago
  > On the Internet, we're all psychopaths. That might be the best one-line summary of the problems with social media I've ever seen.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    Nearly. In Internet debates we're all sociopaths. People can be very empathetic online, but not when they're disagreeing about fundamental values. But let's not pretend this is exclusively an online phenomenon. One-to-one debates can be civilised in person. But as soon as you get more than a handful of people involved there's a real possibility of violence - even if it's only ridicule and condescension. The odds of physical violence scale quickly as the numbers increase.
    - sph 4y ago
      > In Internet debates we're all sociopaths. People can be very empathetic online Psychopaths can be empathetic. I had a nice discussion with a self-professed psychopath here on HN and that was my take away. Instead of feeling bad in the gut like you would if you were to insult a stranger face to face, a psychopath would learn that some actions are not OK even if it's hard to imagine the impact they're having. Same with Internet discussions. I'll try not to be an arsehole online, but it's much harder to connect with a person through text, whereas in person I loathe the feeling of making somebody feel bad. It's a visceral emotion that's completely absent when chatting through text.
  - ilaksh 4y ago
    Except that it's not. The concept most people don't fully understand here is that of worldview. On the internet, people often are honest, and say what they really think. This reflects their (often divergent) beliefs about the world. Again, in the context of meta-discussions like this, most people do not know what a belief is. For example, it does not mean only religious belief. It does not mean "a false idea that someone else has". Beliefs are actually foundational concepts and viewpoints in everyone's brain. And the most core beliefs are generally reductionist regardless of who you are. Think about looking off into the distance. You can't have an infinite concept of what's out there so it all fades to a point. A big part of the problem in many of these online conflicts is that the opposing parties are effectively occupying different realities. But even more difficult is that each is 100% certain theirs is the correct version. And even more difficult is the fact that as I said, they don't understand this concept of worldview or realize that no worldview is perfectly accurate. Actually most don't understand the difference between a worldview, a normal viewpoint, and a true fact about the universe. Even more difficult is the fact that worldviews are closely linked to group identity. So much of the behavior is raw tribalism (trying to protect/promote your own group subconsciously) attached to worldviews, but the people think they are just defending true facts about the world.
AnonCoward4 4y ago
I agree with that assessment. Which means it should come as no surprise to anyone, if people are harsher online to people they literally do not know. It's not nice, but the alternative is also not very pleasant, which is real life and the constant misuse of status and lack of anonymity. Although it kind of creeped up to the internet as well.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Would this apply to remote work culture?

CoastalCoder 4y ago
Yes, in my experience. But the difference is somewhat diminished because even though you (mostly) don't see the people in person, you do get the benefits of a long term relationship. E.g., you get a better sense of what's safe to discuss candidly with each person, and in some cases you're invested in each other's welfare.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Yeah, I can see that. What I usually used to do when working remotely is to try to at least meet each coworkers once. Ideally, once a month to have lunch if they’re not too far away. But, I feel like the in-person advantages far outweigh anything remote work has to offer. It’s so much better to build relationships with real physically close humans. It’s the best part of being alive I feel. Obviously YMMV, but we should acknowledge that hiding facial expressions with masks or behind internet tubes is not ideal and has major subsconcious implications for communication between humans. One of the reasons why I love visiting Asian cities like Hanoi and Jakarta is that people are less allergic to being close to each other. Complete opposite of Sweden and some parts of US.
drivingmenuts 4y ago
It could, but you don’t get a paycheck from online forums. Remembering that someone is paying you will sometimes work to curb excessive misbehavior.

sph 4y ago

In other words, our mirror neurons and empathy aren't made for online communication. On the Internet, we're all psychopaths.

throwawayboise 4y ago
> On the Internet, we're all psychopaths. That might be the best one-line summary of the problems with social media I've ever seen.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Nearly. In Internet debates we're all sociopaths. People can be very empathetic online, but not when they're disagreeing about fundamental values. But let's not pretend this is exclusively an online phenomenon. One-to-one debates can be civilised in person. But as soon as you get more than a handful of people involved there's a real possibility of violence - even if it's only ridicule and condescension. The odds of physical violence scale quickly as the numbers increase.
  - sph 4y ago
    > In Internet debates we're all sociopaths. People can be very empathetic online Psychopaths can be empathetic. I had a nice discussion with a self-professed psychopath here on HN and that was my take away. Instead of feeling bad in the gut like you would if you were to insult a stranger face to face, a psychopath would learn that some actions are not OK even if it's hard to imagine the impact they're having. Same with Internet discussions. I'll try not to be an arsehole online, but it's much harder to connect with a person through text, whereas in person I loathe the feeling of making somebody feel bad. It's a visceral emotion that's completely absent when chatting through text.
- ilaksh 4y ago
  Except that it's not. The concept most people don't fully understand here is that of worldview. On the internet, people often are honest, and say what they really think. This reflects their (often divergent) beliefs about the world. Again, in the context of meta-discussions like this, most people do not know what a belief is. For example, it does not mean only religious belief. It does not mean "a false idea that someone else has". Beliefs are actually foundational concepts and viewpoints in everyone's brain. And the most core beliefs are generally reductionist regardless of who you are. Think about looking off into the distance. You can't have an infinite concept of what's out there so it all fades to a point. A big part of the problem in many of these online conflicts is that the opposing parties are effectively occupying different realities. But even more difficult is that each is 100% certain theirs is the correct version. And even more difficult is the fact that as I said, they don't understand this concept of worldview or realize that no worldview is perfectly accurate. Actually most don't understand the difference between a worldview, a normal viewpoint, and a true fact about the universe. Even more difficult is the fact that worldviews are closely linked to group identity. So much of the behavior is raw tribalism (trying to protect/promote your own group subconsciously) attached to worldviews, but the people think they are just defending true facts about the world.

AnonCoward4 4y ago

I agree with that assessment. Which means it should come as no surprise to anyone, if people are harsher online to people they literally do not know. It's not nice, but the alternative is also not very pleasant, which is real life and the constant misuse of status and lack of anonymity. Although it kind of creeped up to the internet as well.