Follow up to last post: Character and Body Language

After sharing my last post, someone linked me to this video:

In it Dr Diana Hsieh answers questions about why disputes are so belligerent in online communities as opposed to local communities. Dr Hsieh provides some very interesting explanations for this difference whilst also admitting that arguments in local communities can be similarly aggressive and belligerent. However, in online communities there are a number of factors which tend to polarise debate and stop people from moderating themselves, as I argued yesterday.

Two points in her argument are particularly interesting from an Aristotelian perspective. The first is that in local communities, in particular where we know those with whom we are arguing such as family members and neighbours, we tend to know the character of those particular others. As such, when they say something we fundamentally disagree with, we don't take it as their final word on the matter. Both sides have time to reflect and change during the conversation as well as in between exchanges. In other words, we give the other person time to explain him or herself and give his or her reasons for thinking or acting the way he or she does. Furthermore, the other person is more willing and able to listen to us and take on board what we say. Discussions can then be more exploratory and are more likely to have a positive outcome, even if they have moments of belligerence or shrillness.

In online debates with relative strangers, however, we don't usually know the character of the person with whom we are arguing. We take what they say as their final word. We don't have time to reflect and neither do they. We don't give them the benefit of the doubt. Because the character of the opponent is unknown to me, I am less likely to give them respect and consideration if they express a view which is fundamentally opposed to mine.

The second interesting point from an Aristotelian perspective is that in the face-to-face conversations of local community we have the benefit of body language, gauging the other persons feelings and reactions from pauses, tone and facial expressions. This, Hsieh argues, is extremely important because it often provides evidence that someone is really struggling to understand something or that they are hurt by a remark. This allows me to withdraw from an argument, to think before I speak and to worry about causing offence and upset. I am more likely to act from the virtues of benevolence and sympathy if I can see what effect my words are having on my interlocutor. Online debates, however, do not foster such virtues. The other is only available to us as text on a screen and possibly an avatar picture. The other is depersonalised. As Hsieh points out, online communities are more likely to polarise because the aim is usually not constructive and explorative discussion but rather to crush the arguments of the abstract opponent.