Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues • Hacker News Board

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#201

Post by CryptoPunk » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 4:36 AM UTC

verytrivial wrote: post #48

Trolls create anger and conflict and conflict drives engagement. But that is as nothing compared to the engagement you get from public spectacles of righteous indignation. Social media breeds a special sort narcissistic positive feedback loop and it turns out a very small amount of validation is all that is required to set people off. But trolls usually know they're trolls. On the other hand take for example Twitter…

Trolling can have social value. It can expose the absurdity of a prevailing social movement, as in the case of Oli London, whose parody account acts as a devastating critique of the mainstream trans rights movement and its demands that gender be redefined as a self-sensed property that is assigned through self-identification, and demands pronoun use in accordance with this new definition (which is why university courses now start with each student declaring their personal pronouns).

Non-conformity and conflict are not always bad things. They can be a symptom of disharmony, but the correct solution to the disharmony may be a shifting of the status quo, rather than a stamping out of the dissident voices. The path of least resistance to reducing conflict is to silence dissident voices, but that removes a valuable source of constructive change that reduces conflict in the long run.

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#202

Post by unishark » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 4:36 AM UTC

sreque wrote: post #31

3grdlurker wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the current culture of never disagreeing with anyone so you can never possibly offend anyone I'm not sure what you're talking about--I wonder if this is just your extremely subjective experience of the internet? Because I thought that the internet lately has been nothing but disagreement.

I think people disagree with each other all the time right now, but rarely ever actually listen. You can't update your view of the world based on feedback if you refuse to take the feedback seriously in the first place or think critically about opposing points of view.

I'd say it's a little more rational. People have different life experiences and have reached different conclusions. When they see other people making claims which they "know" from experience to be wrong, they point them out and explain why. As a metaphor, imagine someone who doesn't live in your country making insulting and incorrect statements about it based on a combination of ignorant stereotypes and misinterpreted facts, long-disproven rumors, etc. You go correct them from a position of knowing more. It's the "someone is wrong on the internet" effect, cycling forever.

Also, yes, mentally ill people. I'm sure of it...

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#203

Post by giantrobot » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:21 AM UTC

HarryHirsch wrote: post #168

giantrobot wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there's a point where the not yet completely dependent person should say "It's not even 4 o'clock yet and there's no social reason, what am I doing with this can of beer?" Alcoholism is a mental illness and can have comorbidity with other mental issues. For many the answer to your "why am I holding this beer" is "I don't want to feel". But the alcoholic (not in any sort of recovery) never gets to the self refle…

Sure, many people self-medicate with alcohol, it's a GABA agonist and works for anxiety. But people don't live in a vacuum, there'll be reactions from family members and friends to their excessive consumption. It's not that people reason themselves into alcoholism, but a good number do recognize that they have a problem by the time the wife has had enough. It's the same thing with intrusive thoughts - medication plus…

> there'll be reactions from family members and friends to their excessive consumption

This happens far less than you think. Alcoholics and other addicts will seek out or only socialize with enablers. They will also seek out codependent relationships. They'll do it subconsciously because they don't want pushback against their actions.

Realizing they have a problem isn't helpful for most alcoholics. Realizing they have a problem is just another thing driving them to drink. An alcoholic's family falling apart is often just the first in a series of shitty events on their descent to their rock bottom point.

One of the big differences between alcoholism and other mental illnesses is drinking is viewed as a "normal" behavior. Unless you're counting their drinks or actively tracking their visits to a bar most people aren't going to realize the alcoholic is drinking more and more often than they think.

I know several recovering alcoholics. When they were drinking simply knowing they had a problem was useless. That's like an asthmatic knowing they have asthma and someone just expecting them to breathe better. It just doesn't work that way.

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#204

Post by toofy » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:29 AM UTC

chrismeller wrote: post #10

This is one of the main reasons I feel like the current culture of never disagreeing with anyone so you can never possibly offend anyone is ultimately toxic. As a person with (currently treated and doing fine) psychological issues I don’t expect any single comment to get through to you, but if there are never any negative indicators that you are the problem, rather than everyone else… there is a mathematically insign…

> ….I feel like the current culture of never disagreeing with anyone…

I’m not sure I follow. Do you see a culture where no one disagrees with each other? From my perspective it would appear that the opposite is true. Particularly in social media which is jam packed full of people who disagree with each other very very often.

Where are you seeing a culture where people aren’t constantly disagreeing with each other?

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#205

Post by eyelidlessness » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:31 AM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #200

eyelidlessness wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of a reason, in two parts: lots of people are motivated by things other than mental health to behave negatively online; most people with mental illness are already afraid of being blamed and targeted.

>>most people with mental illness are already afraid of being blamed and targeted. On what evidence do you base this on?

Being a person with mental illness in a community of people with mental illness and routinely talking about this all day long every day

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#206

Post by paperwasp42 » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:44 AM UTC

Dracophoenix wrote: post #185

paperwasp42 wrote: post #124

Having worked in the publishing industry, my experiences support the conclusions of this article. About ~40% of authors I worked with had diagnosed mental health issues, and were quite open about their struggles. Most were a delight to work with--I strongly admire people who can be open and honest about their struggles. But about ~15% were... not so delightful. Working with them was hell, because they'd flip-flop con…

If you wouldn't mind my asking how does someone get in contact with a publisher to write a book? Not to sound condescending, but if someone with mental health issues can get a good deal, what makes this industry difficult for most others to break into?

The difficulty is in writing a publishable manuscript. Most authors spend about a decade and several practice manuscripts honing their craft before they are published.

Publishing doesn't require working 9-5, or daily check ins, or other things that generally handicap people with mental health issues. So you'll see a lot more authors with serious mental health issue than, say, software programmers (and personally, I think this is an amazing and positive thing, in many ways. Like I said, most of these mentally ill authors are just fantastic human beings who I loved working with).

Of course, their mental illness doesn't make them any less talented or brilliant. Actually, I observed the opposite--the authors I worked with who were truly genius generally struggled with some variety of mental illness.

To get in contact with a publisher, generally you need to first be represented by a literary agent. This is another faucet of publishing that enables more people with mental illness to thrive in the industry. Agents can act as the professional, polished barrier between the publisher and author, which makes a publisher less likely to even realize the author has mental health issues until the contract is done and signed. Again, this has pros and cons. The pros is that a lot of amazing people with mental health struggles manage to get contracts, without publishers having the chance to discriminate. The con is that some trolls get contracts as well, without the publisher realizing what kind of person they're signing on.

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#207

Post by unethical_ban » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:47 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #134

unethical_ban wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose I'll follow the rules, but I think shadowbanning is really tacky to do except in the case of actual spam. Note my name. I was shadow-banned for one sarcastic comment eight years ago, despite being an otherwise good-faith, decent contributor. Maybe things are different now, but I've never gotten over the feeling of wasting my time putting thoughts together and responding to a conversation and finding out I m…

We don't shadowban established accounts—we tell people we're banning them and why: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... . That's been the case for many years. I wrote about this the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27573675 . The exceptions are spammers and serial trolls. For those we continue to use shadowbanning, for different reasons. In the case of spammers, telling them…

dang, I've said before in other comments, but I respect the hell out of you. I'd buy you a drink. I think your kind of thoughtfulness and humility are what we need in every citizen, not to mention leaders in the community.

I'm not trying to bring you down. I really am talking in good faith. And I know agitators can wear you down. Perhaps I haven't come to terms with the needs to isolate or sandbox people online. Perhaps I didn't read his history, but I tend to give HN accounts the benefit of the doubt more than most.

Anyway. No worries. I hear you.

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#208

Post by pseudalopex » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 6:00 AM UTC

slipframe wrote: post #193

pseudalopex wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phobic doesn't just mean afraid. Hydrophobic molecules for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_phobia > Specific phobia is an anxiety disorder, characterized by an extreme, unreasonable, and irrational fear associated with a specific object or situation.[1][2] Specific phobia can lead to avoidance of the object or situation, persistence of the fear, and significant distress or problems functioning associated with the fear. A phobia can be the fear of anything. Whatever th…

The suffix has more than 1 meaning.[1]

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobic

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#209

Post by pseudalopex » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 6:01 AM UTC

taneq wrote: post #195

pseudalopex wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the etymological fallacy. Phobic literally means having an intolerance or aversion for.[1] [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobic

There's still a chasm between "having an intolerance of or aversion for" and "being mean to".

Being mean to people because they belong to a group is intolerant of that group.

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#210

Post by watwut » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 7:14 AM UTC

chrismeller wrote: post #10

This is one of the main reasons I feel like the current culture of never disagreeing with anyone so you can never possibly offend anyone is ultimately toxic. As a person with (currently treated and doing fine) psychological issues I don’t expect any single comment to get through to you, but if there are never any negative indicators that you are the problem, rather than everyone else… there is a mathematically insign…

This sounds like you want feedback that you behaved badly. And I have hard time to map that on first paragraph that is about disagreement or offense.