4 ms·

> When I scroll through social media, I often leave demoralized, with the sense that the entire world is on fire and people are inflamed with hatred towards one

by xg15 1y ago

> When I scroll through social media, I often leave demoralized, with the sense that the entire world is on fire and people are inflamed with hatred towards one another. Yet, when I step outside into the streets of New York City to grab a coffee or meet a friend for lunch, it feels downright tranquil. Alternative explanation: The online world is "real" and the real-life interactions are "fake", at least as far as political opinions are concerned. The social conventions for online and face-to-face interactions are still markedly different (with good reason). When face-to-face, we generally care a lot more about maintaining a pleasant conversational environment and usually avoid things that would insult or hurt the person we are talking with. The focus is also a lot more about everyday issues and a lot less about abstract political topics like it would be online. All of this means that face-to-face, we will probably talk a lot less about divisive political topics than we would do online. But it does not mean we have fewer opinions on those topics, only that we won't show them so easily. So it could be that the online discourse really is a truthful mirror of the political division of society, only that in real life, those divisions are much more hidden behind layers of politeness.

another_twist 1y ago
How does the alternate theory work ? The evidence here suggests that instigation on social media is usually targeted and limited to a handful of accounts. If it were indeed the case that people are more real online and more towards the right politically, then we shouldn't observe this concentration. It would be more diffused.
albumen 1y ago
Or, online discourse has polarised opinion through The Algorithm promoting inflammatory, divisive content. In real life, when people talk, they see the other person as a human with more understandable motivations, and tend to find a lot more common ground. So perhaps instead of "in real life, those divisions are much more hidden behind layers of politeness"; "in real life, divisions turn out to be largely illusory (or more moderate; or more understandable) once you get to know someone".
- scarface_74 1y ago
  Most people in real life only have deep conversations with like minded people. In the polite company you just don’t talk about politics, religion or other divisive topics. There is no illusion about how most rural Christian Americans think about gay people, minorities, liberal west coast elites, Muslims, etc.
  - PaulHoule 1y ago
    No illusion about how many of those people think about Christians too. I'm in the second most liberal county in the Northeast US and I'd say on a frigid cold night and they called a Code Blue people who go to church are manning the homeless shelter while LGBT...IQA+#@?^! people are tweeting about how Sarah McBride is a sell-out. Then again, the people I know who go to to church are the people who've been to federal prison because they stormed the gates protesting a nuclear weapons faclity.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      And how many of those people voted for politicians that are systematically harming non straight people, demonizing immigrants, have no concern about inequalities in the justice system, etc? I know a few socially liberal devout Christians. I know many others that on the individual level would try their best to make anyone of any religion, sexuality, etc comfortable. But still vote for politicians that campaign on policies that hurt the group.
      - PaulHoule 1y ago
        Some of the Trumpiest voters are "evangelicals who don't go Church". On the other hand there is the strange case of the Mormons who have made Utah one of the reddest states in the nation although it has low levels of dark personality, inequality and corruption whereas my state of New York is the opposite. (Louisiana in the other hand is red and dark and Vermont blue and light) I have a lot of respect for the values of many Mormons such as Steven Covey but boy does it drive me crazy that they pulled out of supporting the Scouts when the Scouts opened up to gays. People have numerous reasons for voting the way they do, I know from conversations that there were people who weren't thinking from a "always blue" or "always red" frame but saw the last election as a comparison. They saw Trump and Harris as bad alternatives and picked the one they thought was least bad. Overall the college-educated voted for Harris and others voted for Trump. The argument that "Trump is bad for democracy" wasn't as salient for people as "Harris is ineffective".
JKCalhoun 1y ago
> All of this means that face-to-face, we will probably talk a lot less about divisive political topics than we would do online. I see your point — I think more than a couple Twilight Zone episodes that Serling penned explored the "monsters" that are within us. But I disagree. Because I think when you are face-to-face you're more likely to see nuance in your option and others. "I hate gays!" you say. But then you find yourself chatting with your neighbor and his husband and have been thankful for them, on several occasions, for helping you get your car started in the winter, or whatever. "Black people scare me!" But then you have to admit that the two black families that go to your church are not threatening at all....
- scarface_74 1y ago
  > Black people scare me!" But then you have to admit that the two black families that go to your church are not threatening at all.... They are still racist pricks. The ones at church are just the “good ones” who do a good enough job of code switching - ie so the racists say “you’re not like most Black people”. (yes I’m Black).
  - nsagent 1y ago
    You don't win people over by singling them out.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    You'll have to tell me then (I'm white) are the "nuanced racists" worse? Or are they on a learning curve?
    - xboxnolifes 1y ago
      I don't think they're on a learning curve. I think they're in a worldview bubble they cannot see out of. When something different enters the bubble, it's an anomaly (one of the good ones). It's like doublethink. It can't be a learning curve, because it's completely stationary. They've been in that spot most of, if not all of, their life. At least that's how I see the "nuanced racists" in my life (I'm white, fwiw, so it's not the other side view you were probably looking for).
mensetmanusman 1y ago
Online discourse is a shard of a shattered mirror.
9x39 1y ago
Prior to ubiquitous mobile Internet and social media, we had geographic boundaries around communities. Now those lines are being rapidly blurred, and there's bleedover in regional thought into some semblance of broader online community. But the point is that the observation that the world seems nuts and a liberal city in the West feels cosmopolitan isn't necessarily wrong - the liberal West is a global minority. Illiberal views are the global majority. What did we expect when we started merging thought globally? And most of the world isn't even 'online' yet in sense they've joined these spaces, they're marginally connected based on how you measure it, or in their own regional spaces.
timr 1y ago
> The social conventions for online and face-to-face interactions are still markedly different (with good reason). When face-to-face, we generally care a lot more about maintaining a pleasant conversational environment and usually avoid things that would insult or hurt the person we are talking with. The focus is also a lot more about everyday issues and a lot less about abstract political topics like it would be online. It's an interesting theory, and I almost want to agree, but I can assure you that the same approximate percentage of extremist idiots exist in real-world NYC as online. If you doubt me, go to the fountain in Washington Square Park pretty much whenever, and you will meet them. Most people are moderate on most issues. That's just statistics...and it's actually backed up by all sorts of polling.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  Polling can’t even accurately figure out if people are going to vote R or D two weeks from the poll. Color me skeptical that public opinion polling in anything more complex is more accurate and not simply used to itself shape public perception and opinion. Even polling “experts” like Silver regularly make huge misses on binary questions (his Florida bet) let alone stuff like the Selzer poll. It’s really hard to take any complex issue polling seriously. It’s a tough sell to convince me that sure, these binary choice election polls with a verifiable result (the election) are wrong, but totally unverifiable public opinion polling with possibly framed questions represent reality.
  - timr 1y ago
    That's actually an indication that what I'm saying is true. Polls aren't sensitive to pick up the subtle differences that divide the two-party system in the USA. For all that the people in the tails of the distributions want to believe otherwise, the difference between "red state" and "blue state" is a few percentage points, nationwide.
    - Amezarak 1y ago
      These polls are just asking “who are you going to vote for”, there’s no subtlety to them - and the Selzer poll was still off by 16 points. Nate Silver after all his polling meta analysis bet 100k that Trump would win Florida narrowly at best. He won it by 15 points. They aren’t deducing voting behavior from your positions. They are just asking you who you were going to vote for and they can’t get it right. Given those facts, I can’t see any reason to believe even the results of a fraught question like “do you consider yourself a moderate?”
PaulHoule 1y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
arp242 1y ago
Most people are fine, even online. As the article says, it's really just a small group that's completely out of control. Maybe people are a bit more direct and blunt over text, but that's a different thing than what the article is about. We've all had that mad idiot ranting at the pub. You smile and nod and move somewhere else. What's his potential audience? Not so much. That same person is now Tweeting >500 times a day, replying to all sorts of posts with misinformation and (typically) vitriol and insults. All of these people are quite unpleasant in real life too (well, until they get Buzz Aldrin'd anyway).
- musicale 1y ago
  > All of these people are quite unpleasant in real life too (well, until they get Buzz Aldrin'd anyway). We just need to send them to the moon to improve a bit.

by xg15 1y ago

another_twist 1y ago

How does the alternate theory work ? The evidence here suggests that instigation on social media is usually targeted and limited to a handful of accounts. If it were indeed the case that people are more real online and more towards the right politically, then we shouldn't observe this concentration. It would be more diffused.

albumen 1y ago

Or, online discourse has polarised opinion through The Algorithm promoting inflammatory, divisive content. In real life, when people talk, they see the other person as a human with more understandable motivations, and tend to find a lot more common ground. So perhaps instead of "in real life, those divisions are much more hidden behind layers of politeness"; "in real life, divisions turn out to be largely illusory (or more moderate; or more understandable) once you get to know someone".

scarface_74 1y ago
Most people in real life only have deep conversations with like minded people. In the polite company you just don’t talk about politics, religion or other divisive topics. There is no illusion about how most rural Christian Americans think about gay people, minorities, liberal west coast elites, Muslims, etc.
- PaulHoule 1y ago
  No illusion about how many of those people think about Christians too. I'm in the second most liberal county in the Northeast US and I'd say on a frigid cold night and they called a Code Blue people who go to church are manning the homeless shelter while LGBT...IQA+#@?^! people are tweeting about how Sarah McBride is a sell-out. Then again, the people I know who go to to church are the people who've been to federal prison because they stormed the gates protesting a nuclear weapons faclity.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    And how many of those people voted for politicians that are systematically harming non straight people, demonizing immigrants, have no concern about inequalities in the justice system, etc? I know a few socially liberal devout Christians. I know many others that on the individual level would try their best to make anyone of any religion, sexuality, etc comfortable. But still vote for politicians that campaign on policies that hurt the group.
    - PaulHoule 1y ago
      Some of the Trumpiest voters are "evangelicals who don't go Church". On the other hand there is the strange case of the Mormons who have made Utah one of the reddest states in the nation although it has low levels of dark personality, inequality and corruption whereas my state of New York is the opposite. (Louisiana in the other hand is red and dark and Vermont blue and light) I have a lot of respect for the values of many Mormons such as Steven Covey but boy does it drive me crazy that they pulled out of supporting the Scouts when the Scouts opened up to gays. People have numerous reasons for voting the way they do, I know from conversations that there were people who weren't thinking from a "always blue" or "always red" frame but saw the last election as a comparison. They saw Trump and Harris as bad alternatives and picked the one they thought was least bad. Overall the college-educated voted for Harris and others voted for Trump. The argument that "Trump is bad for democracy" wasn't as salient for people as "Harris is ineffective".

JKCalhoun 1y ago

> All of this means that face-to-face, we will probably talk a lot less about divisive political topics than we would do online. I see your point — I think more than a couple Twilight Zone episodes that Serling penned explored the "monsters" that are within us. But I disagree. Because I think when you are face-to-face you're more likely to see nuance in your option and others. "I hate gays!" you say. But then you find yourself chatting with your neighbor and his husband and have been thankful for them, on several occasions, for helping you get your car started in the winter, or whatever. "Black people scare me!" But then you have to admit that the two black families that go to your church are not threatening at all....

scarface_74 1y ago
> Black people scare me!" But then you have to admit that the two black families that go to your church are not threatening at all.... They are still racist pricks. The ones at church are just the “good ones” who do a good enough job of code switching - ie so the racists say “you’re not like most Black people”. (yes I’m Black).
- nsagent 1y ago
  You don't win people over by singling them out.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  You'll have to tell me then (I'm white) are the "nuanced racists" worse? Or are they on a learning curve?
  - xboxnolifes 1y ago
    I don't think they're on a learning curve. I think they're in a worldview bubble they cannot see out of. When something different enters the bubble, it's an anomaly (one of the good ones). It's like doublethink. It can't be a learning curve, because it's completely stationary. They've been in that spot most of, if not all of, their life. At least that's how I see the "nuanced racists" in my life (I'm white, fwiw, so it's not the other side view you were probably looking for).

mensetmanusman 1y ago

Online discourse is a shard of a shattered mirror.

9x39 1y ago

Prior to ubiquitous mobile Internet and social media, we had geographic boundaries around communities. Now those lines are being rapidly blurred, and there's bleedover in regional thought into some semblance of broader online community. But the point is that the observation that the world seems nuts and a liberal city in the West feels cosmopolitan isn't necessarily wrong - the liberal West is a global minority. Illiberal views are the global majority. What did we expect when we started merging thought globally? And most of the world isn't even 'online' yet in sense they've joined these spaces, they're marginally connected based on how you measure it, or in their own regional spaces.

timr 1y ago

> The social conventions for online and face-to-face interactions are still markedly different (with good reason). When face-to-face, we generally care a lot more about maintaining a pleasant conversational environment and usually avoid things that would insult or hurt the person we are talking with. The focus is also a lot more about everyday issues and a lot less about abstract political topics like it would be online. It's an interesting theory, and I almost want to agree, but I can assure you that the same approximate percentage of extremist idiots exist in real-world NYC as online. If you doubt me, go to the fountain in Washington Square Park pretty much whenever, and you will meet them. Most people are moderate on most issues. That's just statistics...and it's actually backed up by all sorts of polling.

Amezarak 1y ago
Polling can’t even accurately figure out if people are going to vote R or D two weeks from the poll. Color me skeptical that public opinion polling in anything more complex is more accurate and not simply used to itself shape public perception and opinion. Even polling “experts” like Silver regularly make huge misses on binary questions (his Florida bet) let alone stuff like the Selzer poll. It’s really hard to take any complex issue polling seriously. It’s a tough sell to convince me that sure, these binary choice election polls with a verifiable result (the election) are wrong, but totally unverifiable public opinion polling with possibly framed questions represent reality.
- timr 1y ago
  That's actually an indication that what I'm saying is true. Polls aren't sensitive to pick up the subtle differences that divide the two-party system in the USA. For all that the people in the tails of the distributions want to believe otherwise, the difference between "red state" and "blue state" is a few percentage points, nationwide.
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    These polls are just asking “who are you going to vote for”, there’s no subtlety to them - and the Selzer poll was still off by 16 points. Nate Silver after all his polling meta analysis bet 100k that Trump would win Florida narrowly at best. He won it by 15 points. They aren’t deducing voting behavior from your positions. They are just asking you who you were going to vote for and they can’t get it right. Given those facts, I can’t see any reason to believe even the results of a fraught question like “do you consider yourself a moderate?”

PaulHoule 1y ago

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality

arp242 1y ago

Most people are fine, even online. As the article says, it's really just a small group that's completely out of control. Maybe people are a bit more direct and blunt over text, but that's a different thing than what the article is about. We've all had that mad idiot ranting at the pub. You smile and nod and move somewhere else. What's his potential audience? Not so much. That same person is now Tweeting >500 times a day, replying to all sorts of posts with misinformation and (typically) vitriol and insults. All of these people are quite unpleasant in real life too (well, until they get Buzz Aldrin'd anyway).

musicale 1y ago
> All of these people are quite unpleasant in real life too (well, until they get Buzz Aldrin'd anyway). We just need to send them to the moon to improve a bit.