A theory of why Americans are wallowing in self-pity and voting for bad character. Plus, I talk textiles and foreign affairs—and an expert defends my horrible speaking voice.
There is a selection bias on Twitter and other political forums where the worst behavior gets the most prominence, which easily could get one to over-estimate the amount of awful people out there.
The pluralistic ignorance runs in the other direction: Very-online modern people are ignorant of their neighbors’ behavior (except what they see on engagement-maximizing algorithm-driven social media), while people in the past (or in small communities that interact irl today) know much more about them. Then, because very-online moderns are above all ignorant of the fact that there’s stuff they’re ignorant of, they accuse the people in the past of being the ones who didn’t know what was going on. But who do you think knows more about the real life of their neighbors, in all their complexity: A work-from-home urbanite who has her groceries delivered when she doesn’t use self checkout, or someone who says “hello” in person to everyone she passes on the street as she goes to her job in-person, and then make small talk with the checker at the grocery store so she can get ingredients to make something for the potluck?
Also, has John Thrasher not heard of regular, run-of-the-mill rumors? Because people had plenty of ways to gossip about their neighbors’ misbehavior before the internet existed.
You summarize your exchange with John Thrasher: “It’s not just that people now know that elites don’t live up to presumed standards of competence and conduct. It’s that everyone seems to be awful—or at least enough people do that you can feel permitted to be awful yourself.” This is something that only someone who gets all their information from reading stuff on the internet rather than spending significant time with real people in real life would say. As you also note, “I’m not sure that’s true in general, but it certainly feels true on Twitter.” Indeed. So get off Twitter/X, and go to the church picnic or community block party.
That’s why I’m surprised by your take on this: “people in the past were dumb,” “everything is terrible” and “the online world is real” doesn’t really seem to be your style.
I have lived in a small community where there is no such thing as self-checkout or work-from-home for over a decade now. Like I had always read about people in the past, here no one locks their doors, even when they leave on vacation. Why do you think people trust each other that much: because they’re just too ignorant about who their neighbors really are without being able to read about them on algorithm-curated social media, or because they actually know something about their neighbors that team Ring camera does not?
I would argue that the tone of this comment is a good example how the internet reveals people behaving badly and encourages emulation of that bad behavior. You know nothing about John Thrasher beyond a social science hypothesis he put forward in a conversation with me and yet you project onto him--and me--stereotypes and attitudes you learned online. FWIW, he doesn't conform to your stereotypes.
Also the hypothesis does not say "people in the past were dumb." It says they maintained positive social conventions through the practice of hypocrisy--the tribute that vice pays to virtue--and discretion. The hypothesis actually suggests there's value in that.
I appreciate your clarification, and apologize for my misunderstanding and for not reading your excerpt of John Thrasher’s work with more charity. I ask for your forgiveness for my tone. I want you to know that I really respect your work, and was really surprised by what I perceived you as saying. I guess it seemed out of character because I was misinterpreting it.
I still think his hypothesis is wrong—as far as I’m correct in my understanding of it. My understanding is that he’s saying that people weren’t as aware of the misbehavior of other people until the internet made them so. Please correct this if I’m wrong.
I enjoyed the video on vocal fry about 1000 times more than I expected. I was entertained and informed about a subject I had no clue about. Now I will probably go mad noticing vocal fry everywhere.
Concerning your main topic: It’s an interesting theory, but there are a lot of correlations out there. In my opinion, the simplest explanation is “the vocal fry wheel gets the grease".
To expand on the TMI idea, you also have a problem of social media showing people being punished for behavior you view as good or even neutral. This goes from mundane to extreme incidents and events. There are examples of basic interactions having bad ends, e.g. the Alan Colie case.
It is not just the growing recognition that bad behavior is more prevalent that one would believe. You have the erosion in the belief that good behavior on your part will have a safe outcome.
There is a selection bias on Twitter and other political forums where the worst behavior gets the most prominence, which easily could get one to over-estimate the amount of awful people out there.
If I see or hear bout people behaving in an unseemly manner, I use it as a lesson to try to avoid doing the same.
Really a wise choice. (Wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others.)
Yet unseemly words or actions often energize a response, which an algo treats as good and promotable.
The pluralistic ignorance runs in the other direction: Very-online modern people are ignorant of their neighbors’ behavior (except what they see on engagement-maximizing algorithm-driven social media), while people in the past (or in small communities that interact irl today) know much more about them. Then, because very-online moderns are above all ignorant of the fact that there’s stuff they’re ignorant of, they accuse the people in the past of being the ones who didn’t know what was going on. But who do you think knows more about the real life of their neighbors, in all their complexity: A work-from-home urbanite who has her groceries delivered when she doesn’t use self checkout, or someone who says “hello” in person to everyone she passes on the street as she goes to her job in-person, and then make small talk with the checker at the grocery store so she can get ingredients to make something for the potluck?
Also, has John Thrasher not heard of regular, run-of-the-mill rumors? Because people had plenty of ways to gossip about their neighbors’ misbehavior before the internet existed.
You summarize your exchange with John Thrasher: “It’s not just that people now know that elites don’t live up to presumed standards of competence and conduct. It’s that everyone seems to be awful—or at least enough people do that you can feel permitted to be awful yourself.” This is something that only someone who gets all their information from reading stuff on the internet rather than spending significant time with real people in real life would say. As you also note, “I’m not sure that’s true in general, but it certainly feels true on Twitter.” Indeed. So get off Twitter/X, and go to the church picnic or community block party.
That’s why I’m surprised by your take on this: “people in the past were dumb,” “everything is terrible” and “the online world is real” doesn’t really seem to be your style.
I have lived in a small community where there is no such thing as self-checkout or work-from-home for over a decade now. Like I had always read about people in the past, here no one locks their doors, even when they leave on vacation. Why do you think people trust each other that much: because they’re just too ignorant about who their neighbors really are without being able to read about them on algorithm-curated social media, or because they actually know something about their neighbors that team Ring camera does not?
I would argue that the tone of this comment is a good example how the internet reveals people behaving badly and encourages emulation of that bad behavior. You know nothing about John Thrasher beyond a social science hypothesis he put forward in a conversation with me and yet you project onto him--and me--stereotypes and attitudes you learned online. FWIW, he doesn't conform to your stereotypes.
Also the hypothesis does not say "people in the past were dumb." It says they maintained positive social conventions through the practice of hypocrisy--the tribute that vice pays to virtue--and discretion. The hypothesis actually suggests there's value in that.
I appreciate your clarification, and apologize for my misunderstanding and for not reading your excerpt of John Thrasher’s work with more charity. I ask for your forgiveness for my tone. I want you to know that I really respect your work, and was really surprised by what I perceived you as saying. I guess it seemed out of character because I was misinterpreting it.
I still think his hypothesis is wrong—as far as I’m correct in my understanding of it. My understanding is that he’s saying that people weren’t as aware of the misbehavior of other people until the internet made them so. Please correct this if I’m wrong.
I enjoyed the video on vocal fry about 1000 times more than I expected. I was entertained and informed about a subject I had no clue about. Now I will probably go mad noticing vocal fry everywhere.
Concerning your main topic: It’s an interesting theory, but there are a lot of correlations out there. In my opinion, the simplest explanation is “the vocal fry wheel gets the grease".
To expand on the TMI idea, you also have a problem of social media showing people being punished for behavior you view as good or even neutral. This goes from mundane to extreme incidents and events. There are examples of basic interactions having bad ends, e.g. the Alan Colie case.
It is not just the growing recognition that bad behavior is more prevalent that one would believe. You have the erosion in the belief that good behavior on your part will have a safe outcome.