
How Web Forums Make Neuroticism Viral - imartin2k
https://www.truthhawk.com/web-forums-make-neuroticism-viral/
======
cocktailpeanuts
> It is weirdos and neurotics that are most disposed to spending all their
> time posting online

This is not true. Every single human being has multiple different
sides/personas depending on the context in which they engage.

For example, many people think "Trolls" are some mythical category of assholes
they will never run into in real life, but the thing is, everyone can act like
a troll depending on the circumstance. This is why Twitter can't fix the spam
problem. Because they think the goal is to eradicate this mythical group of
people. But the reality is everyone on Twitter is in one way or another
annoying to someone else, without even them realizing.

I am probably much much busier person than OP in real life, but I still have
time to post on HN. I am definitely not a weirdo and neurotic who has nothing
better to do. I probably spend less time posting online than the OP spend time
watch TV shows.

The reason I say this is because without understanding WHO exactly "trolls"
are, you will always lose. When you understand trolls are just ordinary people
like yourself, only then you can find a way to deal with them.

p.s.

I have acted like a neurotic person on certain forums when I was in a
desperate situation, and I am perfectly aware of that. That doesn't mean I am
a weirdo who has nothing better to do. Anyone in those situations would
probably behave that way too. Knowing that doesn't make it any less annoying,
but my point is that I can sympathize, and I know that these people are not
all weirdos.

~~~
enentesinmyeyes
When they he says neurotic the author is probably not talking about people
like you who occasionally take internet slapfights too seriously. They're
probably talking about people like that dude on 4chan who wrote a 97 page
document about another poster

[http://i1.kym-
cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/622/581/94e...](http://i1.kym-
cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/622/581/94e.jpg)

[http://per.vyrd.net/of/utv.pdf](http://per.vyrd.net/of/utv.pdf)

~~~
nostrademons
I can think of a few dudes who wrote several hundred pages about someone they
barely even knew [1], but we don't usually consider them neurotic.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#The_Gospels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#The_Gospels)

~~~
tstrimple
They believed a man walked on water, changed water into wine and was
resurrected from the dead. Maybe neurosis is the explanation.

~~~
77pt77
More like psychosis.

~~~
bbcbasic
Just good storytelling. The people who believe it OTOH...

------
Noumenon72
Perhaps this is the reason that Dungeons and Dragons DM advice is so detailed
and exhaustive that it would take hours to prepare each session, while actual
D&D games with very little DM prep are usually still fun.

I got the "I must shoot 10,000 free throws to be prepared" attitude about
becoming a developer -- must know Linux, concurrency, all interview questions,
salary negotiation, and so on. It was daunting but ultimately correct, I got
the kind of job I wanted and doubt I could have done it without being neurotic
about it.

Or maybe I would have been fine and I'm still being neurotic and overdoing it.
This article's perspective is helpful because "Remember that all this advice
is coming from neurotics" was not something I took into account.

------
Tossrock
A webcomic called Toothpaste For Dinner has my favorite take on this idea:
[http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/index.php?date=051810](http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/index.php?date=051810)

------
pella
my favorite "game"

Nicky Case: WE BECOME WHAT WE BEHOLD; a game about news cycles, vicious
cycles, infinite cycles

"ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴇᴅɪᴀ's vicious cycles. Here's the feedback loop:

    
    
      conflict → the media blows it up → even more conflict" [1] 
    

[https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb](https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb) ( need ~5min)

[1] [http://blog.ncase.me/we-become-what-we-behold-a-post-
mortem/](http://blog.ncase.me/we-become-what-we-behold-a-post-mortem/)

~~~
JBReefer
Required reading on the matter:

[https://medium.com/@parkermolloy/5-things-the-media-does-
to-...](https://medium.com/@parkermolloy/5-things-the-media-does-to-
manufacture-outrage-ba79125e1262)

------
LordHumungous
> It is weirdos and neurotics that are most disposed to spending all their
> time posting online

Uh.. hey...

But seriously, I think it's also simple the case that an anonymous internet
forum is a great place to vent your innermost feelings.

------
roganp
This reminds me of an Atlantic article that I found quite disturbing :
[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-w...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-
way-to-be-mad/304671/)

It is about the origin pathological ideas and how the internet might make them
more prevalent.

~~~
blablabla123
Really interesting topic, I read the intro and the end. But the last paragraph
seems to underline it: most of the people haven't seen a Psychologist or
talked to anyone.

I'm quite convinced that online communication is really Lo-Fi. Though I'm
still wondering whether it does more harm than it does good. I can only speak
for myself, over the last 10 years I decreased my online life a lot and I
recommend others to do the same. (Apart from work, but I mean that's just
coding stuff and mostly researching. ;)) Ironically there's a global trend in
the last 10 years making "online" cool and most people spend many hours
socializing online.

------
Apocryphon
Having both been on the Something Awful forums and read some of the major
stories there about the low points of the site's history and community dramas,
this article makes sense to me. The reason why many forums, even "normal" ones
about mothers, have mass social dysfunction because they're self-selecting
communities.

------
dgant
This was a big cause of the death of CampusNetwork, which in 2004-5 was a
credible competitor to Facebook. Because it encouraged for campus-wide
conversation -- rather than just conversation with your immediate contacts --
it gravitated towards politically extreme conversation that dissuaded
mainstream participation. Which is a shame, because it did act as a good way
to meet new people, which isn't Facebook's forte.

~~~
cookiecaper
Yeah, the thing that has to be understood, IMO, is that everyone will say they
want to be part of a brave new forum where interesting ideas are discussed and
there is a lot of intellectual stimulation.

This is a complete and utter lie. People routinely tell it to themselves
without realizing its blatant falsity.

Most people find conflict unsettling and can handle it only in the smallest
doses. People identify their ideas with themselves and take attacks or
criticisms of them as personal slights. In written media like online
discussion, these responses are amplified because there is little room for
tone or other dampening/mitigating signals from the speaker, and the written
form makes the harsh words seem more final and official. A slighted person
will often feel the need to respond on the record, whereas in person they may
have been more likely to dismiss the remark.

Cognitive dissonance creates a powerful feeling of unease. When that signal is
received, the common interpretation is to make some passing attempt to rebut,
like "You know, it's not even worth the time", so that you feel like you won,
and then to never return to the place that caused bad feelings.

The reason that reddit has always been a big echo chamber and unable to really
get mainstream adoption is because it has a fixed front page. This doesn't
account for the differing mainstream tastes. reddit has a steady supply of
atheistic young men because that's the audience that they appeal to when you
load up reddit.com.

Despite the lies they tell themselves so they can feel noble and open-minded,
people DO NOT want to be challenged. They want their egos stroked.

If confronted with an idea that seems contradictory to something important to
their self-conception, they will immediately become defensive; this is true
even among friends when it can sometimes be recovered, but strangers online
have zero social capital to deploy to absorb this hit. For most, taking a
position in a discussion is nothing more than a way to signal allegiance to a
tribe. If your users do not have a way to ensure their experiences aligns with
their tribal values and preferences, they will leave.

This is important for tech entrepreneurs and people seeking to "bridge the
gap". It's bigger than many people realize, and much bigger than people will
willingly admit. Efforts in this direction must be baby steps, and no one
should expect to perform a great reconciliation.

~~~
posterboy
> the thing that has to be understood, IMO, is that everyone will say ...

> ... a complete and utter lie

I'd say that's an overly broad generalization, if it wasn' for "IMO" and the
following

> People identify their ideas with themselves

Which is an obvious self-reference. I would on occasion say "you" to mean
"one", but actually mean "me" in an hypothetical fashion.

But then comes the offensive attack:

> Despite the lies they tell themselves so they can feel noble and open-
> minded, people DO NOT want to be challenged. They want their egos stroked.

This is an informal accusation that would upset people because its unfounded.
See, I can write an informal accusation all the same, but I don't expect you
to like it. I can't really write a formal argument about it, because I lack
training in formal rhethorics.

~~~
cookiecaper
>Which is an obvious self-reference. I would on occasion say "you" to mean
"one", but actually mean "me" in an hypothetical fashion.

I don't think it's [just] me. Identity politics is based on attempting to
program this impulse.

>This is an informal accusation that would upset people because its unfounded.

I think the evidence is abundant. It upsets people because it trivializes
their behaviors and makes them feel unimportant and predictable (that is, it
fails to stroke their egos). People like things that make them feel in control
and important. Commentary around psychological realities rarely does this
because psychology itself is about analyzing and generalizing human behavior.

------
ben_jones
How about checking your phone every five seconds even though you know you have
no notifications for neuroticism? Stop picking on my internet forums.

------
chillingeffect
All brilliantly stated. I would only add that it's not "all" participants in
communities (on and offline), but archetypes, legends and hierarchies spring
up espousing the "ultimate", perfect or essential ways of performing the
activity...

almost no one can or does live up to them. That confuses neophytes.... so
don't be stymied by sage advice!

------
htns
Bland neuroticism makes itself viral. The threads are easy to come up with and
everyone can chip in. The OP gets an anonymous confessional and the rest get
to feel better about themselves.

Those kinds of forums are top results because they minimize distress. Google
having solid advice for every little thing would drive people neurotic.

------
abalashov
_If you’re a talented artist, you probably spend your time actually making art
rather than discussing technique online. Top amateur athletes are too busy
actually training and playing to spend five hours a day on a forum for their
hobby._

Is this _always_ true?

I mean, of course it's true at the _extremes_ ; if someone literally spends
_all_ their waking hours posting on forums about X, they're probably not
getting very much X done.

But discussion and polemic is more complementary to some occupations and
disciplines than others, one must acknowledge—as this article seemingly
doesn't. Publishing academics spend a lot of time on rigourous and structured
rebuttals of each other's theories, a kind of highly professional and esoteric
Reddit with long bibliographies. They probably partake of some informal
channels to soft-trial some of their positions and hone some of the thorny
bits before pushing to production, so to speak. They might spend a lot of time
on that.

Attorneys learn how to write more eloquent and persuasive pleadings and briefs
by way of practice. A lot of practice. Surely some of them chisel the
background knowledge and social skills required to operate in their world
online. If that's a serious learning tool, you're probably using it more than
15 minutes/day. You might even have a senior badge on some PHPBB legal board.

A lot of skills can be learned or improved on the Internet by reading and
participating in sometimes contentious discussions about them. The strong
religion in motorcycle repair and boating forums isn't all puffery and
neurotic wheel-spinning; a lot of the commentators are quite well-informed
about the range of available componentry and DIY techniques, even if they
sometimes bite each other's heads off in arguments about the One True Way to
overhaul a marine toilet or which ape hangers are the best.

The hours developers spend arguing about React vs. Angular on HN aren't
necessarily wasted; some of the discussions are rich, vibrant and informative,
and make both the writers and the readers better developers or technical
managers.

I myself learned a great deal about history and politics in high school by
arguing heatedly with informed people online. If I were an aspiring politician
or writer, expository writing in support of a particular ideological
conviction would have legitimate value and relevance as a skill set, and this
kind of exercise helps to hone it.

It takes a certain kind of personality to devote a lot of energy to online
discussions. Some people don't like to think and argue about methodology or
meta- issues, or otherwise engage their analytical faculties very much when
socialising. They just _do_. Good for them. However, this is a difference of
style rather than substance. Everyone has to have "continuing education" of
_some_ description to remain fluent in their field. And yes, of course there's
a limit beyond which pure theory and no practice lies for simple reasons of
time and economics, but it just depends.

So, I don't disagree with the fundamental premise, but as is so often the
case, this article paints the online world with a broad brush.

~~~
cookiecaper
I totally agree that engaging with the community is immensely valuable in
technical pursuits like law and coding. I'm sure a lesser amount of engagement
is also beneficial for skills that are somewhat more subjective, like art.
These are great ways to stay apprised of the state of the art and to keep a
pulse on the zeitgeist.

However, I think that the author is correct that a lot of
fansites/forums/groups for [what are normally considered] casual interests are
full of very obsessive people whose advice and opinions are not worth taking
seriously. In some cases, these people may be completely non-functional and
detached from reality.

It's really important that we step back and allow ourselves to see and enjoy
the whole picture, instead of allowing the bubble of our online hangouts to
color perceptions too much. The big picture is usually much wider, much less
exclusive, and much less angry, and it's really healthy to appreciate that,
_especially_ when a community starts piling on.

------
imgabe
I think this could be extended to the mass media in general. Where do we get
our information from? Journalists. What do journalists do? They write news
articles. They don't actually do any of the things they write about, they only
write. We very seldom (in comparison) get perspective from the people who are
doing things - because they are too busy doing them to talk about it.

~~~
cpncrunch
>We very seldom (in comparison) get perspective from the people who are doing
things - because they are too busy doing them to talk about it.

Actually, journalists interview these people.

~~~
imgabe
And that interview is filtered through the journalist's perspective.

