Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cranks, Trolls and Other Blessings of the Online World
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1 of 39 (88527)
02-25-2004 8:25 AM


I've been reading the book Emergence by Stephen Johnson. Mostly fascinating, parts of it are a bit of a slog, and last night after rummaging through a presentation on how coverage of the Jennifer Flowers affair by the Internet media forced the mainstream media to follow suit, I found myself reading this description of our particular online world beginning at the bottom of page 149:
[text=black]A threaded discussion board turns out to be an ideal ecosystem for that peculiar species known as the crank - the ideologue obsessed with a certain issue or interpretive model, who has no qualms about interjecting his or her worldview into any discussion, and apparently no day job or family life to keep him from posting voluminous commentary at the slightest provocation. We all know people like this, the ones grinding their ax from the back of the seminar room or the coffee shop: the conspiracy theorist, the rabid libertarian, the evangelist - the ones who insist on bringing all conversations back to their particular issue, objecting to any conversation that doesn't play by their rules. In real life, we've developed a series of social conventions that keep the crank from dominating our conversations. For the most pathological cases, they simply don't get invited out to dinner very often. But for the borderline case, a subtle but powerful mechanism is at work in any face-to-face group conversation: if an individual is holding a conversation hostage with an irrelevant obsession, groups can naturally establish a consensus - using words, body language, facial expressions, even a show of hands - making it clear that the majority of the group feels their time is being wasted. The face-to-face world is populated by countless impromptu polls that take the group's collective pulse. Most of them happen so quickly that we don't even know that we're participating in them, and that transparency is one reason why they're as powerful as they are. In the face-to-face world, we are all social thermostats: reading the group temperature and adjusting our behavior accordingly.
Some of those self-regulatory social skills translate into cyberspace - particularly in a threaded discussion forum or an e-mail exchange, where participants have the time and space to express their ideas in long form, rather than in the spontaneous eruptions of real-time chat. But there is a crucial difference in an environment like ECHO or the Well - or in the discussion areas we built at FEED. In a public discussion thread, not all the participants are visible. A given conversation may have five or six active contributors and several dozen "lurkers" who read through the posts but don't chime in with their own words. This creates a fundamental imbalance in the system of threaded discussion and gives the crank an opportunity to dominate the space in a way that would be much more difficult off-line. In a threaded discussion, you're speaking both to the other active participants and to the lurkers, and however much you might offend or bore your direct interlocutors, you can always appeal to that silent majority out there - an audience that is both present and absent at the same time. The crank can cling to the possibility that everyone else tuning in is enthralled by his prose, while the active participants can't turn to the room and say, "Show of hands: Is this guy a lunatic or what?"
The crank exploits a crucial disparity in the flow of information: while we conventionally think of threaded discussions as two-way systems, for the lurkers that flow follows a one-way path. They hear us talking, but we hear nothing of them: no laughs, no hisses, no restless stirring, no snores, no rolling eyeballs. When you factor in the lurkers, a threaded discussion turns out to be less interactive than a traditional face-to-face lecture, and significantly less so than a conversation around a dinner table, where even the most reticent participants contribute with gestures and facial expressions. Group conversations in the real world have an uncanny aptitude for reaching a certain kind of homeostasis: the conversation moves toward a zone that pleases as much of the group as possible and drowns out voices that offend. A group conversation is a kind of circuit board, with primary inputs coming from the official speakers, and secondary inputs coming from the responses of the audience and other speakers. The primary inputs adjust their signal based on the secondary inputs of group feedback. Human beings - for reasons that we will explore in the final section - are exceptionally talented at assessing the mental states of other people, both through the direct exchanges of spoken language and the more oblique feedback mechanisms of gesture and intonation. That two-way exchange gives our face-to-face group conversations precisely the flexibility and responsiveness that Wiener found lacking in masscommunications.
I suspect Wiener would immediately have understood the virtual community's problem with cranks and lurkers. Where the Flowers affair was a case of runaway positive feedback, the tyranny of the crank results from a scarcity of feedback: a system where the information flows are unidirectional, where the audience is present and at the same time invisible. These liabilities run parallel to the problems of one-way linking that we saw in the previous chapter. Hypertext links and virtual communities were supposed to be the advance guard of the interactive revolution, but in a real sense they only got halfway to the promised land. (Needless to say, the ants were there millions of years ago.) And if the cranks and obsessive-compulsives flourish in a small-scale online community of several thousand members, imagine the anarchy and noise generated by a million community members. Surely there is a "climax stage" on that scale where the online growth turns cancerous, where the knowable community becomes a nightmare of overdevelopment. If feedback couldn't help regulate the digital villages of early online communication, what hope can it possibly have on the vast grid of the World Wide Web?[/text]
This is followed by descriptions of just how these problems have been addressed at sites like SlashDot, and this board will be exploring solutions to the same issues later this year. Some have already provided feedback and ideas about this, but more discussion would be welcome.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percy, 02-25-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2004 8:41 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2004 9:02 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 4 by Peter, posted 02-25-2004 9:47 AM Percy has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 2 of 39 (88529)
02-25-2004 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
02-25-2004 8:25 AM


I think the question that interests me most is this: do they know?
Does Syamsu know he's a crank? What about Brad? Or Stephen? If they do, why do they continue? If they don't, why don't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 02-25-2004 8:25 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 9:57 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 34 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-02-2004 2:09 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 39 (88532)
02-25-2004 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
02-25-2004 8:25 AM


quote:
But for the borderline case, a subtle but powerful mechanism is at work in any face-to-face group conversation: if an individual is holding a conversation hostage with an irrelevant obsession, groups can naturally establish a consensus - using words, body language, facial expressions, even a show of hands - making it clear that the majority of the group feels their time is being wasted.
I get the feeling that Johnson doesn't hang out with very many examples of that special type of nerd who constantly confuses his own enthusiasm with his audience's interest. Absolutely none of the above seems to apply to these people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 02-25-2004 8:25 AM Percy has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 4 of 39 (88562)
02-25-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
02-25-2004 8:25 AM


I don't really see that it is that much of a problem.
In a forum (like this) Lurkers are non-participants, and quite
frankly it never occurred to me that there might be people
who just read this stuff without wanting to make a comment.
In terms of cranks --- if someone is too cranky they know
it in one of two ways (even if they don't realise they
are cranks) 1) Lot's of people disagree with them.
2) Almost everyone stops responding to their posts.
(possibly (3) Their threads tend to get closed a lot ).
What exactly is the problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 02-25-2004 8:25 AM Percy has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 39 (88567)
02-25-2004 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Dr Jack
02-25-2004 8:41 AM


Sy is completely oblivious. Brad..since nobody here can understand a word of what he says I withold judgement. He could have the most bizarre form of dyslexia known and actually be saying something intelligent.In his own way he tries to participate and debate. Stephen and his soul mate Salty both had major meltdowns on this site..so I think that even if they do not admit they are cranks, Somewhere in their brains they know they are waaay out on the fringe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2004 8:41 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2004 10:04 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 6 of 39 (88571)
02-25-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
02-25-2004 9:57 AM


Brad..since nobody here can understand a word of what he says I withold judgement. He could have the most bizarre form of dyslexia known and actually be saying something intelligent.
Interesting hypothesis. There is a Dyslexia related disorder called Dysraxia (not such about the spelling, only ever heard the word) which inhibits the ability to form coherent sentences only in the written word. Sufferers can be intelligent, and highly comprehensible in person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 9:57 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 10:59 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 18 by Brad McFall, posted 02-25-2004 2:26 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 7 of 39 (88586)
02-25-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Jack
02-25-2004 10:04 AM


Guess someone would have to talk to Brad in person...maybe next time I'm in Ithaca I'll look him up. I grew up there and am bound to go back someday for a visit. I guess one benefit is that even if he then knows my real identity, it will still be a secret at EvC since nobody would undertand what he was saying if he posted anything about me
Dysrexia...how about Dysyamsu..an affliction whereby the person affected cannot form coherent thoughts period? I think it must be contagious since Stephen ben Yeshua got a really bad case of it. I think the plausibility that he will recover is pretty low.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2004 10:04 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 39 (88589)
02-25-2004 11:14 AM


The biggest crank I have seen around here was Mike Doran. Thankfully, he kindly kept his ideas to one or two threads. So he was a polite crank at least. Nonetheless, many of us here got fed up with his posts after he wouldn't answer simple questions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 11:19 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 39 (88591)
02-25-2004 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Loudmouth
02-25-2004 11:14 AM


You must have come after Peter Borger, Ten-sai aka zephan, salty and wordswordsman left...crankus maximus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 02-25-2004 11:14 AM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 02-25-2004 11:47 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 10 of 39 (88597)
02-25-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
02-25-2004 11:19 AM


And let's not forget Barryven, who regaled us this past summer with his New Age Magic Happy Love Science. He exhibited the usual crank strategy of giving a grand farewell at the end of every post, letting everybody know how hurt and rejected he felt. And then posting again the next day.
regards,
Esteban "Adieu, autre fois" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 11:19 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 12:04 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 39 (88603)
02-25-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by MrHambre
02-25-2004 11:47 AM


I think salty wins the all time "most proclaimed exits" award. I think he even claimed he was insulted and leaving after his first post..he then continued for about a month.
Syamsu could win the "how did I end up here?" award. I think he was looking for a website on detergents, only read the first two words on the site and then assumed he was in the right place because somebody in the laundromat may have told him so. Besides, Darwinism is clearly suppressing the debate on detergents based on ideology. Some guy called Dawkins said something about selfish jeans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 02-25-2004 11:47 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 02-25-2004 12:25 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 12 of 39 (88608)
02-25-2004 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mammuthus
02-25-2004 12:04 PM


Crank Yankers remix
I don't really know who qualifies as a crank. It could be me. It could be you. I suppose that group consensus forms a judgement.
All that I know is that I enjoy debate with those of you in the virtual room who disagree with me. I believe that we sharpen each other in our ability to articulate our respective beliefs. A good opponent is the best training that a warrior can have. As long as we verbally joust in an overall spirit of love, nothing bad will ever come of open communication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 12:04 PM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by MrHambre, posted 02-25-2004 1:11 PM Phat has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 13 of 39 (88614)
02-25-2004 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
02-25-2004 12:25 PM


Wearing the Crank Hat
Phatboy,
I certainly feel you qualify as a crank. You're a lot nicer and less confrontational than the other cranks we harbor here. However, the citation in Percy's OP examined the context of Internet discussions, where the real-world feedback is missing and every post is a work of art on the wall of the digital gallery. Your groundless insistence that God exists, you have proof, your proof is valid, your source says so, your source is just as valid as any other, etc., would be drowned out by ridicule in any ordinary debate setting. The fact that the Internet allows crackpot ideas to assume the same respectable faade as those that are based in some rational methodology is what keeps crankdom alive.
Neither Syamsu, or Stephen ben, or you is truly 'debating' in the realistic sense of the word. A crank can't present anything more than his opinion to support his arguments, and part of rational debate is understanding the subject at hand in the context of the extensive body of knowledge that surrounds it. A crank dismisses any response to his claims as folly, since there is no conceivable evidence that can refute his assertions. There's a difference between engaging in a lengthy discussion and completely wasting one's time.
regards,
Esteban "Mine's a Kandinsky" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 02-25-2004 12:25 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-25-2004 1:17 PM MrHambre has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 39 (88615)
02-25-2004 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MrHambre
02-25-2004 1:11 PM


Re: Wearing the Crank Hat
If I was Phatboy, I would respond, "The Kandinsky... it's painted on both sides."
But I'm not, so I won't.

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MrHambre, posted 02-25-2004 1:11 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by MrHambre, posted 02-25-2004 1:26 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 15 of 39 (88618)
02-25-2004 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dan Carroll
02-25-2004 1:17 PM


Re: Wearing the Crank Hat
If I were Phatboy, I would respond:
"But Dan, your example about dancing raccoons is beside the point. I was talking about the existence of God."
But I'm not.
regards,
Esteban "And I'm Glad" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-25-2004 1:17 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-25-2004 1:28 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024