Likes: 
I'm Right; You're Wrong
The Problem: Polarity
The digital world is a binary world; computers work with zero and one - true and
false. In a striking parallel, people in online discussions often seek Yes/No answers
rather than compromise. Rather than seeking a middle ground, a struggle arises to
determine who is right and who is wrong. If the truth lies somewhere in between,
there can rarely be a resolution, and the debate can continue indefinitely.
You're Right; I'm Wrong
The Problem: Ego
One wag once remarked that the sentence typed least often on the Internet is "I was
wrong".
It is indeed hard for us to admit defeat, especially if we have typed several
impassioned messages establishing our position. We are afraid to lose face, or we do
not know how to concede gracefully.
This problem is sometimes related to that of polarity: we may feel that we have to be
right or wrong. We may also think that an issue must be resolved in a single post.
Yet we can often deflect an argument simply by responding, "Yes, that makes sense."
We do not have to make a formal surrender!
They're Wrong; You're Wrong
The Problem: Transference
Flame wars can break out when one person tentatively takes a position that another
participant feels strongly about. The original poster may then be seen as
representative of the entire opposing side.
For example, if I was to express support for a particular political candidate's
stance on some issue, you may heap upon me the scorn you feel for the entire
political party. Since you cannot attack the party itself, you transfer your
hostility to me. If I don't realize that this has taken place, I might end up
fighting with you.
You Mustn't Be Right
The Problem: Antiprocess
Most people have a fairly fixed set of beliefs with which they are comfortable. These
help them get through life, and if these ideas are in jeopardy they may react
irrationally.
This involves a psychological defense mechanism known as "avoidance of cognitive
dissonance". I refer to this problem as "antiprocess" because while the person
preprocesses the information subconsciously, he or she does not process the
information consciously. Indeed, he or she actively evades conscious processing. When
this happens the person can appear to be stubborn or even stupid.
Once you learn to spot antiprocess, you will see how it causes unresolvable
arguments. Certain types of phrases (which I refer to as "Unwarranted Ascription")
serve as warning signs that a debate has run up against antiprocess:
You know perfectly well ...
You are deliberately ...
You are intentionally trying to deceive ...
You know I'm right, but ...
When you see somebody "mind-reading" like this - telling somebody else what they
"know" or what they are thinking - it's quite likely that antiprocess has entered
into the discussion.
There are other warning signs. It is a good idea to familiarize yourself with the
various logical fallacies, such as Ad hominem, Argumentum ad populum, Straw Man, and
so on. (These are documented in many places on the net and are outside the scope of
this article.) It is my belief that we pick up these techniques as we learn language
and keep them in our subconscious catalog of defensive techniques. We may understand,
on a purely rational level, why each of these techniques is fallacious, but we are
nonetheless tempted to fall back on them when our emotional well-being is threatened.
You're Not Listening
The Problem: Frustration
When you are in a crowd, it is hard to be heard above everybody else. You can
compensate by raising your voice - but this does not work online.
When people think they are not being given a fair hearing, they may become more and
more emphatic. They start using words such as "clearly" and "obviously" more often,
and make key terms stand out by placing them in UPPERCASE. Expressions such as "any
fool can see" start popping up. When you see people ramping up in this manner, an
argument is looming.
On the other hand, some people do this habitually when they write messages.
Everything is stated as if it should be obvious to any intelligent person once they
have the facts (as the poster sees them). This stands as a subtle challenge, if not
an insult, to those who may think differently.
People who demand to be heard may also increase the length of their posts, or post
more often. This often has the opposite effect they desired: people start skimming or
skipping what they say. That is when we start seeing phrases such as, "Didn't you
read what I wrote?" or "I've already explained to you that...".
Clearly (ahem), this is a conversation that is heading for trouble.
I Thought You Knew
The Problem: Miscommunication
People sometimes get angry when they misinterpret what others have written. The other
person may have written a joke that didn't quite work, or may have written what they
thought was self-evidentally a bit of playful teasing. They may use a word correctly
and have it taken the wrong way ("You're ignorant of ..." does not mean the other
person is uneducated; it means they do not know).
In addition, people sometimes post messages when they are not at their best. They may
be tired or even two beers past their usual limit. People who know them well will
probably not take offense if they write something a bit coarse, but others may have
their feathers ruffled by a careless remark.
If you are participating on a message board, it helps to have a thick skin.
I'm Right; You're Deluded
The Problem: Flamebait
"Flamebait" (sometimes rendered "Flame Bait") is a subject that people feel strongly
about and which almost always causes causes sharp divisions in viewpoint. In general,
these topics involve sex, religion and politics.
When flame war veterans see one of these topics come up, they often restrict their
reply to something like, "This is flamebait; I'm not touching this topic."
Inexperienced users, on the other hand, blithely charge in, and the same tired
arguments are trotted out for the millionth time. Nobody changes their position and
everybody gets irritated.
I'm Right; You're Hooked
The Problem: Trolling
Internet trolls are people who set out to start arguments or otherwise make people on
message boards uncomfortable. They can do this by posting "flamebait" topics or by
writing preposterous or insulting messages. (I have written an article that provides
a more detailed explanation of "Internet Trolls"; you can click here to read it in a
new window.)
Trolls may participate in the ensuing argument, or they may simply write what I call
"Drive-by Postings". That is to say, they will ignite the flame war and then sit back
and watch the show.
Cagey net users quickly recognize trolls for what they are and warn their fellow
posters that "You are being trolled" (or words to that effect). However, since there
is a constant influx of new users on the net, trolls are going to be able to
entertain themselves for a long time to come.
I'm Within the Rules
The Problem: Brinking
Some users find sport in seeing how close they can get to being thrown off a message
board. The system administrator will often have a set of rules (typically known as
the "Terms of Service") which specify how people should conduct themselves. One type
of poster, which I call a "brinker", attempts to get as near to the edge as he or she
possibly can without actually going over.
Unlike the troll, who directs his or her efforts at the users of a system, the
brinker is actually toying with the system administrator. He or she can be a thorn in
the side of the administrator, holding the good name and popularity of the system at
stake. Most administrators hesitate to throw people off the system unless they have
broken an explicit rule. The brinker enjoys using words (or, occasionally, computer
hacking) to exploit "grey areas" and thus wreak havoc.
Brinkers, like trolls, elevate their hobby to an art form (albeit an unpleasant one).
They can be so subtle that the administrator may not be sure that he or she is being
brinked. For example, on a message board I once ran I explained to the users about
"flamebait". Within a week, one of them had started up a flamebait topic. I was
tempted to close it down before it devolved into the usual bickering, but that may
have made me look dictatorial. So was the creation of the topic a dig at me, or was I
being paranoid? Assessing that user's past actions, I concluded that I'd been
brinked.
If an administrator runs an informal board, it may be counterproductive to explicitly
list all the rules. I have sometimes been "taken to court" (so to speak) by users
when I kicked somebody off a message board, and had my own rules used to "prove" that
my action was not justified. Most message board administrators, if they do have a
list of rules, include a statement that they may block any user "at our discretion".
In other words, they can banish somebody without stating a specific reason. This
still irritates people, but at least the administrator is covered by his or her own
rules.
** Conclusion
It is exceedingly rare to see somebody change their position during a flame war, no
matter how much the facts are stacked against them. However, this does not mean that
we should never have intense discussions online. Even people who will not admit error
may remember the conversation and allow the information to affect their viewpoint in
the future. Moreover, onlookers who are following the debate may be swayed by the
person with the most persuasive approach.
Note that I did not say, "The person who has the best information" or "The person who
makes the best case". If we were purely logical creatures we would not have flame
wars - or wars of any sort. The writer Kurt Vonnegut Jr. once opined that when people
see a debate they side with the person they like the best. Since it is hard to like
somebody who is ranting and raving, it behooves us to learn a bit of self-control if
we wish to garner support for what we say.
Moreover, I would like to think that most of us actually do seek after truth. We may
be waylaid by our lower nature but nobody consciously believes a lie. It is for this
reason that I think it is helpful to learn to spot how other people get into silly
arguments ... and then learn to spot this tendency in ourselves.
Quote
