I’m sure we’ve all had something like this happen to us on the internet. You post what you think is a casual, off-hand comment on the internet, about something that’s inconsequential (say the color of Scarlett O’Hara’s dress in one scene in Gone With the Wind), and instead of people just ignoring it, and continuing on with whatever they were talking about in the thread or whatever, all conversation comes to a screeching halt, and people start demanding that you provide documentation backing up your statement (regardless if its something which is fact based, or not, yes, they’ll demand that you provide evidence of your opinion). Meanwhile, someone can make a claim in a thread about something which isn’t superficial (say, that Obama’s a secret gay Muslim atheist, who was born in Kenya and is plotting to sell our organs to the aliens from Omicron Persei 8 in exchange for their technology), and nobody bats an eye.
Even if you respond to the questions put forward to you about why you said what you did about Scarlett O’Hara’s dress, they’re dismissed on the thinnest of pretenses, with demands that you provide evidence, which not even someone involved with the designing or the manufacturing of the dress would be able to answer. Pointing this out isn’t met with a “Oh, you’re right, my bad.” kind of response, but with angry invective demanding that you respond with the information they request. I know that there’s been studies which have shown that when you argue with someone on the internet, even if you provide evidence that the other person is wrong, they’re not likely to believe it, and instead will cling to their position no matter what, but I’m not aware of anything which explains why people are likely to glom on to something trivial and attack it more fiercely than they are something which is important. Anybody know?
Haha, that’s a good question.
I think it has to do with the fact that the Internet is an outlet for some individuals with no lives - the so called “basement dweller” who spends their entire life online. Trivial disagreements end up becoming as important, or more important than serious disagreements.
Its just so weird, though. A friend of mine wasn’t happy with the wiper blades on his new car, so he went to a forum dedicated to that car and asked for recommendations for better blades, and someone, instead of making a recommendation, looked up the average annual rainfall for where my friend lives, compared it to the rainfall where they lived, and then proceeded to say that because the amounts were similar, and the poster was happy with the performance, my friend should be as well! This completely ignores the fact that just because the averages are the same, it doesn’t mean that the patterns are going to be the same. (One location might get most of their rain in a few heavy downpours, while the other location might get theirs spread out over a longer period of lighter rains.)
I'm sure we've all had something like this happen to us on the internet. You post what you think is a casual, off-hand comment on the internet, about something that's inconsequential (say the color of Scarlett O'Hara's dress in one scene in Gone With the Wind), and instead of people just ignoring it, and continuing on with whatever they were talking about in the thread or whatever, all conversation comes to a screeching halt, and people start demanding that you provide documentation backing up your statement (regardless if its something which is fact based, or not, yes, they'll demand that you provide evidence of your opinion). Meanwhile, someone can make a claim in a thread about something which isn't superficial (say, that Obama's a secret gay Muslim atheist, who was born in Kenya and is plotting to sell our organs to the aliens from Omicron Persei 8 in exchange for their technology), and nobody bats an eye. Even if you respond to the questions put forward to you about why you said what you did about Scarlett O'Hara's dress, they're dismissed on the thinnest of pretenses, with demands that you provide evidence, which not even someone involved with the designing or the manufacturing of the dress would be able to answer. Pointing this out isn't met with a "Oh, you're right, my bad." kind of response, but with angry invective demanding that you respond with the information they request. I know that there's been studies which have shown that when you argue with someone on the internet, even if you provide evidence that the other person is wrong, they're not likely to believe it, and instead will cling to their position no matter what, but I'm not aware of anything which explains why people are likely to glom on to something trivial and attack it more fiercely than they are something which is important. Anybody know?Human nature and determinism. We're all weird for the same reasons. We can't help it. We're determined to act as we do, then cook up justifications that have no rational basis. We are programmed robots. Lois
Maybe they confuse subterfuge with critical thinking. Right and wrong are only subjective opinions to them. Truth is the idea that inundates to dominate. In their arena, rational thought is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Maybe they confuse subterfuge with critical thinking. Right and wrong are only subjective opinions to them. Truth is the idea that inundates to dominate. In their arena, rational thought is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.Too true. Lois
The advantage of the trivial argument is the lack of consequences. If you win, you’re right, you get the gold star. If you lose, so what. And the more trivial, the less expert knowledge available. In High School Physics, we would have class discussion about things like the difference between running in the rain or walking, do you end up drier by running? It was more about thinking about what you need to think about than anything. Granted, we didn’t go on forever. That’s more about not having any checks on your time or any way to provide social sanctions.
The advantage of the trivial argument is the lack of consequences. If you win, you're right, you get the gold star. If you lose, so what. And the more trivial, the less expert knowledge available. In High School Physics, we would have class discussion about things like the difference between running in the rain or walking, do you end up drier by running? It was more about thinking about what you need to think about than anything. Granted, we didn't go on forever. That's more about not having any checks on your time or any way to provide social sanctions.That's the beauty of the Internet. Lois
I think it’s like an “intellectual” version of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). Except it’s an “intellectual” version of the artificial manipulation of primal emotions. And anyone can try to be a virtual “wrestling” star, without serious risk of injury.
If anyone doesn’t like my take on this, then bring it on brutha! Like Ryback, I say “Feed - Me - More!!!”
Another thing is that in the US at least, things are so charged and divided politically, socially, etc. (Most of it via Faux News and the like). The Tea Party movement has gotten so many people filled with hate that they take it out any way they can, even in trivial forums about trivial things. If Obama said the sky was blue they’d find a way to call him a liar and denounce him, and anyone who agrees with him. I see something similar in traffic…the light’s red, there’s a wall of cars between where I’m at and the light, but the guy next to me’s like, goddamn if I’m gonna let you get ahead of me. So he speeds up to get to the light before me and comes to a dead stop 4 seconds before me. Similarly with changing lanes. The surest way to NOT change lanes is to put on your directional. As soon as you do that the person back aways in the lane you want to get into will speed up and block you.