[lostcolony]

It is more true online, and for a lot of reasons.

I meet someone at a party and we become Facebook friends. I then post some sort of political article or comment to my feed. They see it, disagree with it, and (likely) either comment on it in a non-polite manner, or stay silent, but either way categorize me in their head as a crazy right/left winger. Why? Because these are what is easiest to do for 'crazy' opinions coming from strangers.

Compare that with what can happen in real life. I get to know someone over the course of multiple interactions; all my political comments are kept to those I already know and trust. Eventually we get to a point we know and trust each other, and I venture an opinion, one they disagree with. They say "I disagree with that", and we discuss it. Why? Because we already know each other, value each other, trust each other, and are seeking legitimately to understand and/or sway one another, while also preserving the relationship.

The internet has essentially made it so the thoughts we used to reserve for those we knew in depth, are becoming aired to strangers, and responded to accordingly.

While it means that insular bubbles of thought (the rural family who doesn't know anyone who believes in gun control, say) are encountering people who disagree with them, those people are strangers, and there's no reason to give them any credence. If anything, it just makes one even more vociferous, because now you can preach to people who -aren't- in the choir.

[memracom]

So why do you publish your innermost thoughts to a bunch of strangers on Facebook like that? Even in the online world it is possible to find many different forums where you can discuss things with people who are open for real discussion and conversation. Don't let Facebook grind everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Use many forums.

Become a regular in the comments section of certain blogs. Create aliases and join web forums or email lists or a Reddit subcommunity or something. And encourage diversity of discussion groups.

Just being on HackerNews is already a step in the right direction. And maybe some of us will build apps and sites that encourage people to form smaller groups to discuss issues without having to fight off trolls and uninformed newbie types.

The Internet used to have a lot more of that when mailing lists were the main way to have discussions. And there were services like the Well, and Compuserve that put a lot of effort into managing interest groups with sysops who kept them from getting out of hand.

The WELL in particular, put a lot of effort into the psychological aspects of humans in groups, in writing their guidelines for users and for the sysops managing the groups.

[TeMPOraL]

I have a tiny hope that after experiencing this phenomenon from both sides - both seeing and being the lunatic stranger - most people will learn to embrace that their beliefs may not always be correct or universal.

It's a tiny hope.

[lostcolony]

I wish I had that hope. I've seen people who in person I've had intelligent, rational discussions with on areas we disagree, then post virulent political posts that tear apart strawmen arguments. I actually quite like this article because it paints this out as why we do it. With someone we disagree with in person, they're still part of our tribe. We know them, we like them, we trust them. With someone on the internet, they're 'the other'.

[TeMPOraL]

Yeah. I've seen those people too. It's about signaling, I think. Hell, I often have to stop myself from resharing stupid strawmans on Facebook just to "stick it" to the outgroup.

[Nursie]

I don't know. I had one or two friends come out as anti-vax IRL and we didn't have a discussion, instead my opinion of them just plummeted.

[DrScump]

Does someone who opposes media-driven thinking (with supporting science to show why) about any one vaccine get lumped into "anti-vaxxers" in your mind? Because that all-or-nothing thinking fallacy is a key symptom of the problem.

[Nursie]

If they have a factual basis for their views that's fine.

But in general I was talking about folks who have, for whatever reason, said things like "oh we're not vaccinating our children", meaning all vaccines.

There is no reasonable basis for this outlook.

[TeMPOraL]

Try to have that discussion. It's enlightening.

[Nursie]

In what sense?

The only thing it can really do is inform me what sort of bizarre misinformation they have bought into. Unlikely ever to repair the drop in my opinion.

[TeMPOraL]

I think you may find out that the "bizarre misinformation" is a bit more nuanced than you think, and the issue is not about facts at all.

I spent some time talking to antivaxxers; I've shared my impressions in a parallel subthread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10878136

[Nursie]

I understand all that, that's not enlightening. I am well aware of the emotional motivations behind the position.

They dropped in my estimation because they allowed this emotional reaction to endanger their children.

[Swizec]

Here's what I don't understand, and I'm likely the weird one here: Why are political opinions considered private? Is it an anglosaxon thing? Is it a middleclass thing? It feels completely alien to me.

Where I come from politics (in one form or another) are the first thing you talk about with new people that you meet. It's the most fruitful ground for conversation that goes beyond mundane boring smalltalk nobody cares about.

I mean, isn't that the whole basis for democracy? That people discuss these things?

Hell, isn't most mainstream-but-not-quite-pop art political in nature?

[Cyberdog]

> Here's what I don't understand, and I'm likely the weird one here: Why are political opinions considered private?

People often keep their political opinions private in polite society simply because of what this whole thread is about - it's very easy for people who don't know you very well to judge you by the political opinions you spout and then possibly treat you more poorly because of that. This is why I tend to keep my mouth shut about political stuff at my workplace. (It doesn't help that I know that, statistically speaking, my opinion will be at odds with most of the others in my industry and location.)

[DrScump]

This.

And if you differ because you are more informed about the topic than your peers, that only makes the social isolation problem worse.

[TeMPOraL]

I think it's an age-old custom. There are two things that are off-topic for casual conversations with non-family-members - political and religious beliefs. People tend to tie them to their egos, and it pretty much always results in resentment. It's a general population equivalent of inexperienced developers arguing about merits of programming languages or text editors.

'pg actually wrote an essay about it once.

http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html