Behind the wheel of her car, a friend of mine turns into an entirely different person. While driving, she shouts expletives and flips fingers at anyone she deems deserving. In person, however, she’s the type who apologizes profusely for bumping into strangers and, even when she’s extremely upset, will only softly mumble “frick it” under her breath. Sometimes it’s hard to believe this is the same person, but she’s not alone. Road rage is common, partly because our cars grant us a degree of anonymity, which can turn us into jerks.
The same is true for arguing online. Researchers call it the online disinhibition effect. “We are social people, but online, we don’t have the cues to recognize and really empathize with other people, how they feel or how they’re reacting to things,” said Mike Ribble, the co-author of “The Digital Citizenship Handbook for School Leaders.” We envision the internet troll, a person who posts inflammatory, antagonizing content online, as a monster hiding behind the safety of the online world. In reality, trolls can be friends, neighbors, parents — even ourselves. Even if you don’t fit the definition of a troll, which is associated with a deliberate attempt to cause discord, it’s easy to find yourself wading in the murky waters of trolldom. In other words, we all have the capacity to engage in unproductive, meanspirited arguments online that don’t reflect our character in person.
“We participate in online discussions every day and also observe toxic behavior,” said Jure Leskovec, an associate professor of computer science at Stanford University who studies online trolling. “We wanted to understand it better and provide strategies to help make online discussion forums less toxic and more welcoming.”
Dr. Leskovec and his colleagues studied trolling behavior by simulating an online discussion with subjects. They found two main factors that drive bad behavior online: negative moods and discussion context.
The researchers manipulated the moods of ordinary people by having them take a difficult test, telling them it was easy, then allowing them to perform the test poorly. “We then measured their mood, confirming we put them in a bad mood, then let them comment,” Dr. Leskovec said. “Our experiment showed that people in a bad mood are more likely to write trolling comments.” Context was also important. The comments were more likely to be toxic when others had already left toxic comments.
“We also find that there is no ‘pay it forward’ for good behavior, but there is ‘pay it forward’ for bad behavior,” Dr. Leskovec explained. Negative behavior is much faster to spread and leads to a downward spiral of more bad behavior. The findings were enough for the researchers to conclude that under the right circumstances, ordinary people can behave like trolls. “Trolls are not born that way,” Dr. Leskovec said. “The environment makes them become toxic.”
Whatever the cause of bad behavior online, advocates and lawmakers are pushing for more digital citizenship to make online platforms more civil. “The definition of digital citizenship has taken on a lot of different terms,” said Mr. Ribble, who is also one of the original leaders of the International Society for Technology in Education’s Digital Citizenship Network. “But I see it as how we act and interact with each other in the digital space. We’re continually developing norms about appropriate and responsible technology use.”
Digital citizenship is important not just for creating a more empathic online world, but it’s also good for our mental health. With that in mind, here are some best practices for extending appropriate digital citizenship in your online discussions.
Practice empathy
Researchers at Cornell studied how people win arguments online by analyzing the Reddit community ChangeMyView. “Changing a person’s opinion is a common goal in many settings, but is extremely challenging at the same time,” said Chenhao Tan, one of the co-authors of the study. “It would be very useful to understand its underlying mechanism, and how arguments might shape the persuasion process.”
ChangeMyView is unique in that it offers a set of ground rules for debating, which include explaining the reasoning behind your view and not being hostile to fellow commenters. But you can adopt these rules in your own interactions, and Dr. Tan said that empathy — trying to understand where the other person’s opinion comes from — was one of the most important tips for effectively arguing online.
“Many places do not provide an easy way to do this in a noncombative way,” he said. “If the other party can explain why they hold a particular opinion, it will establish common ground for the conversation.” In practice, this might mean explaining the reasoning behind your own view or asking someone else for theirs in order to truly understand why they think the way they do.
Stop if you’re in a bad mood
Before you hit send, take a second to check your emotional state.
“When in a bad mood, refrain from posting,” Dr. Leskovec suggested. “Breathe in and breathe out.” He added that it’s important to stop when you can see that the argument has become toxic, because it will only get worse from there. “Prevent downward spirals. Don’t participate in toxic discussions. Nothing good will come out of it,” he said.
Take your time
“We’re in a society where we don’t take time to look at the other person,” Mr. Ribble said. “And too often it’s about speed — how quickly I can get something posted — without considering who that other person is.”
In his book, Mr. Ribble recommends a four-part process: Stop and take a breath before posting anything, think about whether what you’re saying is true and helpful, empathize with the person on the other end, and finally, post if you’ve gone through that process and deem your comment appropriate.
Pay attention to language
In Dr. Tan’s study, researchers found that the subtle ways in which language was used had a big effect on the argument. “For example, in many situations, directly quoting another person may not be the best way to change her opinion,” Dr. Tan said. “This might happen because directly quoting someone’s exact words might be perceived as nitpicking on their wording rather than empathizing with her whole view.”
If you notice the person you’re debating uses “we” instead of “I” to discuss an opinion, that could be a sign that he or she is less open-minded. “Individualizing one’s relationship with a belief using first-person pronouns affirms the self, while first-person plurals can indicate a diluted sense of group responsibility for the view,” Dr. Tan said. In other words, it’s easier to change one person’s mind than the minds of an entire group; so when someone uses “we,” it could be a subtle, unconscious way of putting up a barrier against your argument, in which case, it’s probably best to move on.
The research also found that longer replies are more persuasive than one-liners. It’s effective to provide clear evidence to support your argument, too. While this sounds somewhat obvious, it’s actually a somewhat surprising finding. According to the study, “Our results also show that it is useful to include links as evidence — an interesting contrast to studies of the backfire effect: ‘When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.’” People generally have a hard time admitting they’re wrong, but at least in the context of this study, linked evidence was persuasive.
Limit your replies
After three back-and-forth replies, your chances of persuading anyone plummet. The study found that one, two and three replies increased the chance of changing someone’s mind, but three was the magic number. More than that, and replies seem to be pointless and might come across as combative rather than persuasive.
Dr. Tan added that the platform itself matters. When commenters have clear, transparent rules to follow in the discussion, as they do in ChangeMyView, they’re a lot more likely to keep their trolling in check. “It might be useful for platforms to establish some common ground rules rather than set up battlegrounds for people,” he said. So it doesn’t hurt to think twice about the platforms you engage with online.
Of course, sometimes it’s just not worth engaging in online debates. When someone is trolling — using hateful, offensive language to incite anger — it’s best to skip the conversation altogether. Debating isn’t always about winning an argument; sometimes it’s just about respectfully sharing different opinions or views on a subject. It’s easier for most of us to do this in real life, where we can pick up on cues like tone and body language. A bit more awareness of those social cues in the online world can go a long way toward curbing our digital road rage.
"how" - Google News
December 13, 2019 at 11:00AM
https://ift.tt/38y3Clp
How to Argue on the Internet Without Losing Your Mind - The New York Times
"how" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2MfXd3I
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "How to Argue on the Internet Without Losing Your Mind - The New York Times"
Post a Comment