On the (Seeming) Negativity of On-Line Communities
I admit it; I have emotions. Generally, I try to ignore them, but sometimes I pay more attention to them then I would like.
Today, I finally caught up with methodically going through all of my LJ Friend's entries and reading all the ones I missed during my last absence. For some of you (e.g. jeltzz, essius, etc.), this is screenpages and screenpages of entries. I assume these people can tell when I have read their Live Journal, because they must get a mailbox full of comments from me.
It always happens when I go through this process of catching up, that my inbox is full of "negative" responses, that is, disagreements or arguments. It is in some ways emotionally draining to put in so much effort into reading people's entries and commenting to find countless arguments to reply to afterwards.
But such an emotional response is not really warranted, I know.
It is not terribly complicated to understand that a positive response takes only a few words: yes, right on, amen, ditto, agreed, etc., while a negative response generally takes paragraphs. It is also a matter of efficiency. Is it really necessary to say, "I agree," to every entry with which you agree? Of course not. It is generally understood that no answer is not a disagreement.
Also, written communication is vastly different from one-on-one vocal communication, and a forum is also vastly different than one-on-one communication. When you are speaking with someone, you nod, say a few supporting comments here and there to indicate that you are in agreement or at least listening. And even when text messaging or instant messaging someone, you usually get something like that as well.
But an on-line forum is much different and understandably so.
And I wonder if that in part makes the Internet feel like a more negative, cynical place.
Yes, a lot of us are just negative here. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
(Please don't feel any need to post kudos or any such things on my journal. That's not why I have an LJ. My silly emotions can just deal with it.)
Today, I finally caught up with methodically going through all of my LJ Friend's entries and reading all the ones I missed during my last absence. For some of you (e.g. jeltzz, essius, etc.), this is screenpages and screenpages of entries. I assume these people can tell when I have read their Live Journal, because they must get a mailbox full of comments from me.
It always happens when I go through this process of catching up, that my inbox is full of "negative" responses, that is, disagreements or arguments. It is in some ways emotionally draining to put in so much effort into reading people's entries and commenting to find countless arguments to reply to afterwards.
But such an emotional response is not really warranted, I know.
It is not terribly complicated to understand that a positive response takes only a few words: yes, right on, amen, ditto, agreed, etc., while a negative response generally takes paragraphs. It is also a matter of efficiency. Is it really necessary to say, "I agree," to every entry with which you agree? Of course not. It is generally understood that no answer is not a disagreement.
Also, written communication is vastly different from one-on-one vocal communication, and a forum is also vastly different than one-on-one communication. When you are speaking with someone, you nod, say a few supporting comments here and there to indicate that you are in agreement or at least listening. And even when text messaging or instant messaging someone, you usually get something like that as well.
But an on-line forum is much different and understandably so.
And I wonder if that in part makes the Internet feel like a more negative, cynical place.
Yes, a lot of us are just negative here. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
(Please don't feel any need to post kudos or any such things on my journal. That's not why I have an LJ. My silly emotions can just deal with it.)