Should Couchpotato Close His Account?

[SveNitoR]

Yeah, something like that, though he had no contact with the psychiatry since everyone else was to blame. His confidence was legendary however

 

[lackblogger]

Yeah. And if we are to put people in boxes, it's probably better to use factors which have at least some face validity if we have no data.

"Being insecure leads to posting a lot", is a weird conclusion.

https://evolutioncounseling.com/anxiety-and-talking-too-much-in-social-encounters/

It's difficult to know what to link due to there being so much choice and so many nooks and crannies to the subject of anxiety/nervousness/insecurity and etc, but I thought the one above is probably nicely concise. It's an actual subject area in psychology and counselling and health and all that.

And, yes, not talking (posting) at all is indeed the the equal and opposite end of the spectrum that can have the same underlying problems.

To use another old phrase which you probably wont react as negatively towards: Everything is good in moderation. Well, nearly everything, of course.

 

[bkrueger]

Yeah, something like that, though he had no contact with the psychiatry since everyone else was to blame. His confidence was legendary however

Did he have the initials D "Genius" T by any chance?

 

[TheDart]

https://evolutioncounseling.com/anxiety-and-talking-too-much-in-social-encounters/

It's difficult to know what to link due to there being so much choice and so many nooks and crannies to the subject of anxiety/nervousness/insecurity and etc, but I thought the one above is probably nicely concise. It's an actual subject area in psychology and counselling and health and all that.

And, yes, not talking (posting) at all is indeed the the equal and opposite end of the spectrum that can have the same underlying problems.

To use another old phrase which you probably wont react as negatively towards: Everything is good in moderation. Well, nearly everything, of course.

I'm pretty sure there's a significant difference between making a post on a forum and talking in a social setting.

Social settings tend to involve socializing - and being in close proximity to other people tend to provoke entirely different sensations than sitting alone in your room in front of a screen, where you're free to post or not to post without anyone even thinking about you.

In a social setting, there are many expectations not at all present on a typical forum.

The pressure to perform socially is a relatively well known concept - but I really don't think it can be equated to forum posting.

Well, they're obviously related to a certain extent - but also entirely different.

That would be my take on it, anyway.

 

[bkrueger]

I'm pretty sure there's a significant difference between making a post on a forum and talking in a social setting.

Social settings tend to involve socializing - and being in close proximity to other people tend to provoke entirely different sensations than sitting alone in your room in front of a screen, where you're free to post or not to post without anyone even thinking about you.

In a social setting, there are many expectations not at all present on a typical forum.

The pressure to perform socially is a relatively well known concept - but I really don't think it can be equated to forum posting.

Well, they're obviously related to a certain extent - but also entirely different.

That would be my take on it, anyway.

Agree completely. The downside is, that the absence of social control is the reason, why some places in the internet are full of hate. Not this forum, fortunately.

Edit: Therefore I am favorite of the rule: Only say on a forum, what you would say to a real person in the same room in the real world.

 

[TheDart]

Agree completely. The downside is, that the absence of social control is the reason, why some places in the internet are full of hate. Not this forum, fortunately.

Edit: Therefore I am favorite of the rule: Only say on a forum, what you would say to a real person in the same room in the real world.

I don't think the absence of "social control" is the reason, actually.

People are full of negative emotions regardless of any kind of social check, they're just motivated to hide it more when face-to-face.

But I think another big reason the Internet seems so full of hate is that we suck at reading intent through the screen.

I mean, we suck at it in general - but through the screen it's just that much worse.

We don't have tone of voice, we don't have facial expressions, we don't have body language - and so forth.

We've evolved to rely on that to a very large extent - so not having them will almost invariably ruin our chances of accurately guaging intent and what the person is actually saying.

It's doubly bad, because not only can you not read intent - the other person can't perceive your immediate response, either.

In a social setting, you will have instant access to the first reaction to anything you say - or even just what you do with your face and body.

That will allow for clarification before it's too late.

Online, you tend to lose other people too soon - and they're not going to bother giving you the chance to explain yourself, because they've already formed a rigid picture of who you are in their mind.

It's not like we can just post the first couple of words in a sentence and wait for the response

We have to actually make the entire post and our entire point, before we click "submit" - and then we can't correct or clarify anything when it's misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Oh well….

 

[bkrueger]

I don't think the absence of "social control" is the reason, actually.

People are full of negative emotions regardless of any kind of social check, they're just motivated to hide it more when face-to-face.

But I think another big reason the Internet seems so full of hate is that we suck at reading intent through the screen.

I mean, we suck at it in general - but through the screen it's just that much worse.

We don't have tone of voice, we don't have facial expressions, we don't have body language - and so forth.

We've evolved to rely on that to a very large extent - so not having them will almost invariably ruin our chances of accurately guaging intent and what the person is actually saying.

It's doubly bad, because not only can you not read intent - the other person can't perceive your immediate response, either.

In a social setting, you will have instant access to the first reaction to anything you say - or even just what you do with your face and body.

That will allow for clarification before it's too late.

Online, you tend to lose other people too soon - and they're not going to bother giving you the chance to explain yourself, because they've already formed a rigid picture of who you are in your mind.

It's not like we can just post the first couple of words in a sentence and wait for the response

We have to actually make the entire post and our entire point, because we click "submit" - and then we can't correct or clarify anything when it's being misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Oh well….

I see your point and agree. I have seen situations in Email discussions at my workplace where discussions starting from purely rational question escalated to open fight because both sides wanted to prove that there point of view was the only correct one. Therefore we (and probably many comapnies) have the unwritten rule: Only talk about non-controversial questions in Email and discuss controversial things from person to person. So this supports the aspects you listed. In essence this means that exchanges can end in fights without anybody having bad intentions.

But still there is the other aspect that in the internet some people feel that they can spread their hate in anonymity, while they wouldn't dare that in real life, because they would fear social or legal consequences. And this can be dangerous.

 

[TheDart]

But still there is the other aspect that in the internet some people feel that they can spread their hate in anonymity, while they wouldn't dare that in real life, because they would fear social or legal consequences. And this can be dangerous.

True enough, but I strongly advise caution with extreme words like hate.

We have a tendency to think the absolute worst of the people we don't agree with or understand. What they're saying might seem hateful or willfully destructive - but chances are they don't see it that way at all - and they might even have a point we haven't yet understood.

Also, we must remember that the people in power have a very real interest in keeping the people not in power divided and occupied with fighting each other.

Certainly in the US, I don't think there's ever been a time where the people holding the vast majority of resources have had more direct control over the media and government.

While I'm not big on conspiracy theories - I can't entirely dismiss that this relatively recent barrage of "cancel culture" and how so many seem oblivious of what happens when anyone can be guilty without the slightest real evidence of anything - is timed perfectly with some of the most severe pushback against capitalism and billionaires ruling the planet that has ever been.

Am I going crazy? Maybe - but there's something fishy about this explosion of stupidity and "wokeness".

 

[bkrueger]

True enough, but I strongly advise caution with extreme words like hate.

We have a tendency to think the absolute worst of the people we don't agree with or understand. What they're saying might seem hateful or willfully destructive - but chances are they don't see it that way at all - and they might even have a point we haven't yet understood.

When I talk about spreading hate I don't mean second guessing whether the person spreading the hate is really feeling hate at that moment. If he is a propagandist he can do that for completely unemotional reasons. My concern is the ignition of hate in readers who believe that propaganda eventually leading to hateful and even violent acts by these people. Obvious examples of such types of hate-spreaders are fascists or racists or Trump with his lies about a stolen election...

 

[crpgnut]

When deciding whether to post, I ask myself, "To nut or not to nut", for that is the question. Dartagnan was the winner by miles back in the day and JDR13 was the runner up. In both cases, these dudes posted copious amounts of text and there were few one-liners. I've been here as long as anyone but am not quite so wordy. Part of the reason is that I'm a picky gamer and I really don't post much at all in non-gaming threads. Also, I generally say my piece but don't stick around and read other people's replies to my piece. Could care less what anyone else thinks, for the most part.

 

[bkrueger]

When deciding whether to post, I ask myself, "To nut or not to nut", for that is the question. Dartagnan was the winner by miles back in the day and JDR13 was the runner up. In both cases, these dudes posted copious amounts of text and there were few one-liners. I've been here as long as anyone but am not quite so wordy. Part of the reason is that I'm a picky gamer and I really don't post much at all in non-gaming threads. Also, I generally say my piece but don't stick around and read other people's replies to my piece. Could care less what anyone else thinks, for the most part.

Probably a wise way to see it and good for your mental health and blood pressure too...

 

[TheDart]

When I talk about spreading hate I don't mean second guessing whether the person spreading the hate is really feeling hate at that moment. If he is a propagandist he can do that for completely unemotional reasons. My concern is the ignition of hate in readers who believe that propaganda eventually leading to hateful and even violent acts by these people. Obvious examples of such types of hate-spreaders are fascists or racists or Trump with his lies about a stolen election…

I don't think I quite got my message across, but that's ok.

I probably think about the concept of hate a little differently, and I'm sceptical that actual hatred is being spread around like that - to any great extent.

But I think that's enough hogging the thread with irrelevant stuff

 

[SveNitoR]

https://evolutioncounseling.com/anxiety-and-talking-too-much-in-social-encounters/



It's difficult to know what to link due to there being so much choice and so many nooks and crannies to the subject of anxiety/nervousness/insecurity and etc, but I thought the one above is probably nicely concise. It's an actual subject area in psychology and counselling and health and all that.



And, yes, not talking (posting) at all is indeed the the equal and opposite end of the spectrum that can have the same underlying problems.



To use another old phrase which you probably wont react as negatively towards: Everything is good in moderation. Well, nearly everything, of course.

Being in a social situation is key for all safety behaviors (including nervously talking a lot), except avoidance. The models I've seen and used all include being physically in a social situation. There are usually problems with anxious expectations and evaluations before and after social situations, but the main problem is in the situation itself.

Posting on a forum definitely triggers anxiety in a lot of people and there are some expectations about slow reciprocal behavior which might be slightly comparable to meeting in real life (for example worrying about the other person expecting me to answer their post, or worrying about how other people react).

But the safety behaviors are different, since in real life they are an immediate reactive strategy to increase in anxiety (I must say something now! - - > blabbering). On forums there is less time pressure an it takes a lot longer to write.

I do generally agree with your last sentiment, that most things are good in moderation. Depending on context extreme behavior can be beneficial, but usually not.