I think the problem is the combination of lack of context plus immediacy. In a conversation you have immediacy, and sometimes say things you instantly regret. But you can see how the other participant reacts, and he can hear your tone of voice etc.

When you write a letter with a quill on paper, you have all the time in the world to get it right. Think first, because it’s a pain to put down, and a pain to do over. You have very little context (sometimes the guy’s handwriting can give things away), but you don’t usually speak from the gut and write something you will regret.

I have noticed significantly higher levels of discussion on mailing lists that were digest-only, as compared to the same list (i.e. the same individuals) when it went to individual messages. People would send off as many short, unreasoned messages as they felt like, rather than putting a little more effort into the only message they could get through that day.

So I think the problem is that most communications channels on the Internet have evolved to facilitate writing without thinking. And I don’t think Google Wave really addresses that (to pick a channel that’s supposed to be cutting edge).

That is, you have to decide if you want to get better at controlling your gut, or at least accepting it and putting its reactions aside, and so throw yourself full-force into situations where you will have to do so, or if you would rather spare yourself and instead avoid those same situations. There’s no “right” answer, except what you want and what you need.

One thought though about exercising authority, if you’re going to do it, I think …an utter lack of skill at pleasantly exercising said authority… is the point because pleasant authorities are rarely heeded (or rather, aren’t seen as authorities). When’s the last time a cop ticketed you pleasantly, or arrested you pleasantly? If the justice system was pleasant, would more or less people obey the law?

I don’t know, I tend to think, however, the point of authority is that it needs to be authoritarian, to discourage breaking the rules or challenging it. I admit I may be wrong in this, though.

Anyways, belated happy birthday!

Secondly, people react badly to text-based electronic communication as a matter of course. It has none of the cues that allow people to read the emotional tone of the statement, despite it being, in the main, conversational. And because people cannot “read” this response they get frustrated and angry. It’s an entirely human response, since minimizing emotional signals is a sign of hostility in the real world (especially in “polite” society). But most writers don’t realise this – they know what they wrote (including the emotional context), so are bewildered when readers react badly to what they say, which just raises the aggression levels. And in any public fora, leaving aside the individuals just trolling for arguments, you will get people who disagree with you and the ideas that you hold.

And it is a mistake thinking blogging is a private conversation. You are getting up on a soapbox in the market and broadcasting your ideas to all and sundry. Most won’t listen. Some will recognise you stay and listen to what you have to say. Some may get on their own soapboxes and attempt to shout you down. But it will usually only be personal if they actually know you, even though it may seem like it. At least, that’s the supposition I use, and it seems to work.

[One is curious as to what people think of me based on the very small slice of me that they see. But it is an intellectual curiosity, simply because I know that they can have absolutely no idea of who or what I actually am from such a limited perspective, and anything anyone comes up with will be so badly wrong it will hurt. Then again, that's even the case in the real world.]

Thirdly: I thought Avatar was a great movie and am proud to admit it. Tearing it apart is akin to dissecting a frog. Both die as a result. Enjoy what it is for what it is, and feel free to walk (or fly) on Pandora for a time.

Personally speaking, I think we may be wired very similarly in terms of our inability to not react to aggression on the internet. But I am way more thick-skinned and reflective (and less proud) then I was 2 years ago. I’ve also learned to (sometimes) add a layer of interpretation to posts I am reading, one that attempts to account for context, personality of the poster and the missing physical nuances of live communication. All this has resulted in a much more productive and pleasant time on the internet for me and way less walking around unable to get my mind off of someone who dissed me or “was wrong on the internet.”

At the collective level, I may be a bit pollyanic here, but I feel that I have seen improvements in our general behaviour. There appears to be a bit more give and take, more experienced posters who are learning as I am trying to and site management that is evolving and adapting to the new medium.

So in summary, I say that just because humans are now having a really hard time communicating on the internet, it doesn’t mean that it is inherently impossible to have a positive discourse and that we should all strive (as you have done so very admirably and successfully; I’ve seen the slight hints of tension in the past and respect how you have disciplined yourself) to do better.

On the other hand, we are still the human species and so far haven’t shown much ability to improve our behaviour with each other outside of the internet…

My otter nature says that if you always worry about the shadows outside the hole you never see the shiny fish. Oh, now he’s gone again looking at something.

I think it’s a major shame if you don’t feel you can say you went and did a thing and had a really great time. The more positivity I see the more likely some of it will take.

And actually a blog is one of the better places for that. You *can* control it; you can probably turn off comments altogether to preserve a nice corner. Or you can see if other people want to celebrate with you. I dunno, have you had a history of eejits turning up here? (Present company excepted.) What if you want to look back over it and remember those experiences?

Best of luck managing the internet, man. I know I am often impressed with how well you do it, and wish I could evince the same facility that you routinely demonstrate. It’s actually kind of nice to know there are gnashing teeth underneath that facade.

I think it would be a wonderful thing if courtesy and respect were just sort of defaults for everyone online – not to say they wouldn’t change over time, but at least you could assume an individual was a rational, friendly, reasonable person to begin with. Gabe and Tycho actually have a formula for this.

Your observations certainly ring true with me. On the net, anyone with a keyboard can (and will) jump in on a conversation, as opposed to typical social situations where a stranger crashing an active conversation would be unusual. Of course, that is the nature of the Internet and forums — we *want* it to be open and allow strangers to participate in the conversation, as often there are new insights and points of view that are worthwhile.

That tendency for the negative interactions to get in your head is something I have struggled with and honestly has led me to largely withdraw from forums myself, even ones that run on my own servers. While the majority of interactions are positive, the few that aren’t can really get to you.

Anyway, great post, thanks for sharing