Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tend to agree with the OP.

It is possibly due to the prevelance of male players and too much tosstesterone.
Much of the confrontation is unnecessary and amounts to boys seeing who can pee highest.

There is far more lack of patience and agression here compared to the modelling forums. Things get pretty heated over certain things, but on the whole it is a lot more civilised on the latter.

Polonius wrote:The point is still that the smarter you are, the more aware you are that there are way smarter people out there than you, thus making you more likely to underestimate your intellect.

the dumber you are, the less likely you are to either truly notice intelligence, and/or are less likely to be in situations dealing with intellects often.

A person that goes through high school, trade school, and works as a skilled tradesman might be average to just above in intelligence nationally, but could think himself quite the intellect based on his peers and inability to really grasp when he's wrong.

A person that goes to an elite university learns in three weeks that he's surrounded by people both smarter in general, and far more knowledgeable in any given field.

First don't fall in the trap of comparing intellect to job choices. While I'm sure that statistically over large numbers people in certain fields tend to be smarter than others, I've known people in less educated fields who were very intelligent by my estimation, and I've known people with doctorate degrees who do what I feel are incredibly unenlightened things, like buying in to a news blurb without thought, for instance.

I think a lot of that has to do with training. For instance, whether I'm smart or stupid is immaterial, if I make a statement without a source at hand I try to preface it with "to the best of my knowledge" or "anecdotal" or " Correct me if I'm wrong". That comes from being trained in a field that uses empirical evidence to make a case.

It was just an example, and I've met the exception to nearly any possible rule. I've also worked some pretty blue collar jobs and gone to law school, and I know which group had a higher average intellect.

Training is a big part of intellectualism. Learning to question, think, reason things out, and make decisions is part of intellectualism, and is correlated, but not controlled, by raw intelligence, formal education, etc.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Tend to agree with the OP.

It is possibly due to the prevelance of male players and too much tosstesterone.
Much of the confrontation is unnecessary and amounts to boys seeing who can pee highest.

There is far more lack of patience and agression here compared to the modelling forums. Things get pretty heated over certain things, but on the whole it is a lot more civilised on the latter.

Oh, I think YMDC is waaaaay ruder than the OT forum. The way people speak to each other over there is insane.

Albatross wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Tend to agree with the OP.

It is possibly due to the prevelance of male players and too much tosstesterone.
Much of the confrontation is unnecessary and amounts to boys seeing who can pee highest.

There is far more lack of patience and agression here compared to the modelling forums. Things get pretty heated over certain things, but on the whole it is a lot more civilised on the latter.

Oh, I think YMDC is waaaaay ruder than the OT forum. The way people speak to each other over there is insane.

Hey, if I learned one thing from YMDC is that every sentence in written english has EXACTLY one meaning. I don't see what the problem is.

Polonius wrote:Nearly everybody has a different persona online than in person.

Mauleed was a famous Dakka example, lol.

gorgon wrote:Mauleed was a famous Dakka example, lol.

In-joke I'm missing out on?

sA

No, no joke. His old internet persona on this site that people remember is not what he's like in real life. I think the vast majority of Dakkaites would have a great time gaming with him. I know I'm not the only one who'd tell you that.

Like Polonius said, it's pretty common for people to be different in person. I'd like to think I'm not too different than my online persona, but I probably am. *shrug*

By my experience wargamers are argumentative and confrontational offline as well.

Having an advanced understanding of statistics and monkeys... I think we all need to remember on Dakka that Conventional Wisdom and Stereotyping are often bad if not wrong.

A few years ago when I started posting here I was a lot angrier and more impatient. As time has gone by I've mellowed. I think I'm actually calmer and less snappish or aggressive on dakka. (I'm not really aggressive IRL, more emphatic when I'm arguing about something.)
I've always been pretty argumentative though. I swear less and make less jokes here, because my sense of humour is inappropriate in general and doesn't translate well to text. So I'm different, but not more confrontational.

Polonius wrote:It was just an example, and I've met the exception to nearly any possible rule. I've also worked some pretty blue collar jobs and gone to law school, and I know which group had a higher average intellect.

I'm essentially the same. Currently I'm a gym manager, I've also been to an elite University (well, college, but close enough), and its fairly obvious which group of people tends towards a higher level of intellectual ability.

That being said, I consider myself to be an intelligent person, and I currently spend my days training people who want nothing more from life than six-pack abs. Of course, I've also done that training, so there is something to be said for considering situational biases.

Polonius wrote:
Training is a big part of intellectualism. Learning to question, think, reason things out, and make decisions is part of intellectualism, and is correlated, but not controlled, by raw intelligence, formal education, etc.

I can vouch for this. In college I studied philosophy, and political science. Political science students tended to be driven primarily by emotional associations to certain causes, as one would expect. They would come into class with a position, and then argue for that position; regardless of how the evidence appeared. Philosophy was very different. There were a couple people who would consistently push for one ethical standard or another, and there was always the Kuhn v. Popper battle, but in general the conversation was civil, and the approach logical. I think the primary reason for this difference was the logic requirement in the philosophy department. All philosophy majors were required to take at least two courses in formal logic, and this seemed to directly influence their approach to argument. Conversely, the only requirements for political science students were 'Political Theory' and 'The Politics of Gender, Culture, and Civilization'; the latter being the sort of course informed primarily by emotion.

Now, that isn't to say that the philosophy department was a paragon of rational virtue. Far from it, as many of the professors who were so logical in dealing with things like ethical theory failed to keep the wheels on when discussing politics, or certain regions of the US. In many ways I think that rationality is something which is applied in case specific situations. Its rare to find someone who is truly rational in the sense that he functions only on logical processes. And if you did find such a person you would probably think of him as having some sort of disorder.

Besides, elite university students are often very immature. They are all quite intelligent, but the blow to the ego that comes from no longer being the 'smartest' person is often difficult to process. Often times students will react to this by trying to prove they really are the smartest by working for the best grades; leading to the ridiculous competitive spirit that permeates much of the undergraduate atmosphere. Other people, like myself when I went through this period, will tune out, get drunk, and minimize the amount of work done while maximizing the grade received, or at least achieving an acceptable standard (for me this was a B).

Of course, the lesson that we should all take from this is that 'proving' intelligence is not hierarchical. Sure, there are IQ tests, but the difference between someone with 140 IQ and someone with a 210 IQ is not overly significant in terms of professional or personal accomplishment. I see the whole thing as a matter of thresholds, rather than raw scores; making the concept of being the 'smartest' a whole lot less important.

Grignard wrote:
I think why you get some people's goad is that you come off as pedantic sometimes and because you're *not* confrontational. Emotions are hard to read for me and hard for anyone to read on the internet. You *don't* rise to bait and you don't argue from emotion. My mental image of you is as Chuck Norris in some kind of sensei to a special forces group role that can calmly assassinate a guard then foil the terrorist nuclear bomb plot, then expound on the folly of man and how we all need to find inner peace with diet, exercise, and training. I'm guessing it RL you could defuse a potentially violent situation between two or more arguers, and then kick someone's ass if that failed

Along with the guy that came up with Zorgle and Shuma, you were about my least favorite guy on this board when I first joined for the whole pedantic reason and your calmness while being unwilling to back down. I don't know what changed, I guess because I noticed you would indeed agree with me if you actually did agree with me and that there was never any personal attack involved. Now you're in my top 10 favorite posters on this board.

This is easily the best compliment I've ever received on the internet.

In my opinion intelligence isn't a quality that can be measured.

I act pretty much the same here as I do IRL. treat others the way i want to be treated. I still wont take S*&T from anyone though.

I think I'm pretty much the same irl as I am on the forums, and I think the people that know me in both places would agree.

The anger in some of these threads though... I don't understand it.

I tend to act similarly to how I act on the internet. When it comes to philosophical ideas on international relations, religion, or government I will wear my heart on my sleeve and tell what I believe in.

Although dogma annoyed the hell out of me at first, I kind of enjoy arguing with him at times. You see, dogma (and I think polonious) are like mysterious robots who will let you learn something, but only if you push the right buttons.

Also, I will agree with previous statements; strategy players are intellectuals for the most part. After all, they must have some higher thinking in order to plan a game of warhammer and have strategies as well. This being so causes aggression as we vie to be the #1 logic engine on this site.

I think everyone is more confrontational on the net because of the impersonality of the net.
If you tell a real life person his argument is literally gak there could be violence involved even.
If you tell a person on the net his argument is literally gak he will send you a really, really irate IM.
Since people know the difference, people tend to take liberties with their...nads, I guess.
As for wargaming forums, I really don't think so. Since this is not CoD, there is no 'well ur build sucks noob' stuff. There's the whole 'ZOMG UNIT OVERPOWERED' thing but all in all the conversations are quite tame.
Greetsz,
Mr. Self Destruct

People behave differently, according to the context an interaction takes place in. You can expect informality online, simply for the fact that many people do not excel with the written word.

Generally, I notice things about many posters I am familiar with, that I would consider easily attributed to online posting habits. When I talk to a person face to face, patterns will emerge in my tone. On the internet, there is little to no tone, like a drawing made with nothing but lines. This may suggest that many people attempt to represent tone, where none is easily perceived.

A brief look into internet culture in general, will provide a good amount of understanding, as to why people would be so loud. Long story short, volume matters more than tone on the internet. In many situations tone will be replaced with volume, which often comes in the form of repetitive actions. I find people to be infinitely more predictable on the net, and I am honestly surprised when they are not.

I can also see that the majority of posters are trying to look more civilized and intelligent because of this thread's topic.

I behave the same I do in life as I do as dakka. Although I think I at least try to act civil on here.

halonachos wrote:I can also see that the majority of posters are trying to look more civilized and intelligent because of this thread's topic.

Hahaha

You noticed that too?

Im not debating the intelligence claims, since theres so many ways to quantify that its not a practical debate point. But I do know some people that are brilliant- but kinda suck at the games.

Regardless though- Ive seen in person tournament rules disagreements turn into shouting matches, threats, thrown miniatures and several other varieties of mantrums.

I talk to people online just like I do in person. Its something I learned when working in a super max prison. Sure- I could talk smack to an inmate in his cell- and that big heavy steel door means he couldnt touch me. But- I also realized that someday that door might not be there. Just like someday somebody I talk to here- we might not have a computer between us.

So if I call someone here slowed, or tell them they are full of crap, I fully expect them to man-up to their behavior. Sadly though the ones that hide behind the PC tell me how mean/B*tchy/PMS'ing/man hating I am instead of looking at why I said what I did. Conversely- if Im wrong about something I'll fess up to it as well.

But, quite often the reactions to things I say remind me just how sheltered many gamers are- thats not a bad thing in itself- only when they think theyve seen and know all there is to know because they went to a college or something silly.

I’m a fair bit more confrontational on-line.

Talking to someone one to one, you can get through more conversation in 15 minutes than you can in an hour on-line, so that leaves a lot more time for niceties and to draw someone to your point. Taking three or four sentences to draw someone to your point is a lot more practical than taking three or four posts over two days to do the same – so it becomes practical to just say it outright.

There are also a lot more social expectations and consequences in life. If I know a point is a touchy subject for my girlfriend or a family member I’ll let it go, because the relationship I have with any of them is a lot greater than some political issue. On-line, though, the relationship is purely one of discussion, and that means there is a lot less of a reason to keep any subject out of bounds. That’s no excuse to be a jerk, if a subject is sensitive to someone then it should be approached with care, but a subject I might approach with care on-line I will avoid entirely in real life.

Another contributing factor, related to the above , is the number of people on-line who simply will not attempt any care when debating a subject, either out of a lack of care or out an actual desire to anger other people. That leads to increased tension across the board.

But more than anything, there is simply more nonsense on-line. There are more controversial subjects raised constantly, more people with stronger opinions ready to contribute, and the internet is full of geeks, and no group is as willing to talk about subjects they nothing about than geeks. The result of all that is that it probably takes a year to see as much crazy in real life as you can read in a day on-line. There are a lot of ways to approach discussions with people you disagree with, but the only real way to approach conversation with someone spouting nonsense is to say flat out ‘that’s nonsense’. Which is combative, but also unavoidable.

mattyrm wrote:Its rare i see someone say 'feth knows mate!'

If I don't think I have anything to contribute on a subject I don't post. I read the YMDC forum but I don't think I've ever posted because I don't have that strong a knowledge of the rules. I assume most people are the same.

Kilkrazy wrote:It bears repeating that stupid people tend to overestimate their intellect since they do not have the cognitive abilities to recognise their lack of ability.

Conversely, intelligent people tend to underestimate their intellect because they are more aware of the things they don't know and they ways they can go wrong.

There was a great study done a few years ago that assessed people's skill in a subject against their ability to recognise skill in themselves and others. For instance, they had the group undertake a driving test, and then had them rank each other's driving skill. The best performers were able to rank the other drivers quite closely to their actual skill, the worst performers scored other drivers all over the shop. They did the same for humour and a range of other skills and the results came out the same each time - people who were good at something were good at assessing their skill and the skills of others, while people who were bad at it were poor at assessing their skill and the skil of others.

I think the same would apply to intelligence, with the proviso that intelligence is complex and includes many distinct elements.

I have been at a few tourny and games were people get way way to heated and sometimes it is over little stuff... I think people just get really really into their armies.

On a related note Mistress, you and I have been in several thread together and I don't think you have ever come across as any of those things.

There's a board I had to pay for a year's membership to join, and there's little to none of the trolling nonsense that happens on this and other forums. It's the peril of having an open door policy that allows any old Tom, Dick or Harry to show up, put on a "mask", and say what they want with little to no consequence.

Please refer to the following diagram:



The people there are supportive and like each other for the most part. Of course, there is a downside, as sometimes you wonder if you're getting truly honest critiques when you show your work/lists to them.

I love Penny Arcade! Speaking of which I am going to PAX, may have to start a PAX thread sooner or later...

Sorry for proving the point and hi-jacking the thread.... Back to the regularly scheduled programing!:

thegrav wrote:I have been at a few tourny and games were people get way way to heated and sometimes it is over little stuff... I think people just get really really into their armies.

On a related note Mistress, you and I have been in several thread together and I don't think you have ever come across as any of those things.

Hehehe, Ive been described as some sort of mean nasty monster amongst other things. Generally it happens when someone makes a BS claim- I say 'Hey thats BS'. They deny its BS, so I beat them over the head with something to show its BS. And then get called unflattering things for it.

So far though, no one has seemed to hold a grudge about it- which usually shows they were jsut mad at the time, but on some level conceded the point and have moved past it- which is a good thing since it means they learned from it. If someone talks bad about me, but in the end can learn from it, I'll keep being the occasional bad guy

sebster wrote:I’m a fair bit more confrontational on-line.

I have usually read you as a fairly calm individual. Perhaps your pushing against certain points, where no solution is in sight, could be perceived as confrontational.

Talking to someone one to one, you can get through more conversation in 15 minutes than you can in an hour on-line, so that leaves a lot more time for niceties and to draw someone to your point. Taking three or four sentences to draw someone to your point is a lot more practical than taking three or four posts over two days to do the same – so it becomes practical to just say it outright.

There are also a lot more social expectations and consequences in life. If I know a point is a touchy subject for my girlfriend or a family member I’ll let it go, because the relationship I have with any of them is a lot greater than some political issue. On-line, though, the relationship is purely one of discussion, and that means there is a lot less of a reason to keep any subject out of bounds. That’s no excuse to be a jerk, if a subject is sensitive to someone then it should be approached with care, but a subject I might approach with care on-line I will avoid entirely in real life.

That has generally been my experience as well.

Another contributing factor, related to the above , is the number of people on-line who simply will not attempt any care when debating a subject, either out of a lack of care or out an actual desire to anger other people. That leads to increased tension across the board.

But more than anything, there is simply more nonsense on-line. There are more controversial subjects raised constantly, more people with stronger opinions ready to contribute, and the internet is full of geeks, and no group is as willing to talk about subjects they nothing about than geeks. The result of all that is that it probably takes a year to see as much crazy in real life as you can read in a day on-line. There are a lot of ways to approach discussions with people you disagree with, but the only real way to approach conversation with someone spouting nonsense is to say flat out ‘that’s nonsense’. Which is combative, but also unavoidable.

There are more diplomatic ways to raise such a point, but it is definitely more direct to do so in such a manner.

A lot of 'why' the net is so loud, has an awful lot to do with the large amounts of people involved. It is much easier to have a conversation involving opinions that are likely to be at ends with each other, when considering participants from across the world. The largest conversations I have been involved in, usually involved no more than 5 or 6 people; attending a large lecture, does not provide for literal conversation. On the net I can easily engage in a dozen threads at a time, over the course of a day. That is pretty cool, IMO.

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Its rare i see someone say 'feth knows mate!'

If I don't think I have anything to contribute on a subject I don't post. I read the YMDC forum but I don't think I've ever posted because I don't have that strong a knowledge of the rules. I assume most people are the same.

I think that mattyrm is referring to situations, in which people will simply refuse to back down. I try to avoid threads that are bogged down in arguments like that. I don't respond to 99% of the stuff I read, because it would likely take me twice as long to say something, as it would to learn something.

dogma wrote:I can vouch for this. In college I studied philosophy, and political science. Political science students tended to be driven primarily by emotional associations to certain causes, as one would expect. They would come into class with a position, and then argue for that position; regardless of how the evidence appeared. Philosophy was very different. There were a couple people who would consistently push for one ethical standard or another, and there was always the Kuhn v. Popper battle, but in general the conversation was civil, and the approach logical. I think the primary reason for this difference was the logic requirement in the philosophy department. All philosophy majors were required to take at least two courses in formal logic, and this seemed to directly influence their approach to argument. Conversely, the only requirements for political science students were 'Political Theory' and 'The Politics of Gender, Culture, and Civilization'; the latter being the sort of course informed primarily by emotion.

Now, that isn't to say that the philosophy department was a paragon of rational virtue. Far from it, as many of the professors who were so logical in dealing with things like ethical theory failed to keep the wheels on when discussing politics, or certain regions of the US. In many ways I think that rationality is something which is applied in case specific situations. Its rare to find someone who is truly rational in the sense that he functions only on logical processes. And if you did find such a person you would probably think of him as having some sort of disorder.

This bears repeating. I'll add that the most useful class I took during my undergrad was a course on "Scientific Reasoning" for philosophy students. The unfortunate thing was that it counted as a logic course in a department that didn't offer logic courses beyond the standard Second Order Predicate Logic & Model Theory, perhaps because most students (and quite a few professors) were in philosophy because they were told there would be no math. The fortunate thing is that, despite the simplistic 'math' component (basic stats, etc), the professor made a big deal about how attention to rigor was important to good philosophy; it was not enough to know logic: you had to use it and particularly the time consuming and tiresome procedures that constitute its use.

That's why so many people who are otherwise smart do dumb things or say dumb things, because they can't be 'on' all the time. So the first reason why so many wargamers are so confrontational, and indeed so many of everyone are so confrontational, is that they're generally unaware of how to discuss things in a calm and rational manner, how to debate constructively, and how to both give and take constructive criticism. Even knowing these things, people won't use them if their interlocators can't or won't.

So there's the disconnect between those who know better and those who don't, but then there's the fact that those who know better aren't going to put themselves at a disadvantage during the pissing contest that the people who don't know any better consider 'debate'.

Wow. There is alot of intelligent discourse going on in this thread.

Is that because a female started a thread in the OT forum?

Or is it because people actually do see the distinction in how online personalities are different from personal and public personalities not related to computers?

Or is it how people treat subjects? A person who is able to become dispassionate about a topic is probably the most objective person in an enterally subjective world. The online world makes it difficult to be objective as most people are online during their off-time, recreational time, or at their emotional/energy low to which things that irriate them make them less prone to rational discourse.

Wrexasaur wrote:I have usually read you as a fairly calm individual. Perhaps your pushing against certain points, where no solution is in sight, could be perceived as confrontational.

I try not to make anything personal and try to keep to the facts, but I will tell someone plainly they're wrong on-line a lot more than I would in real life. While I don't do it as an attack, I understand how it can be taken. I'm also a little more insistant on-line as well, if I show someone's point as wrong in real life and they just drop it or change the subject I'll let it go. That's not so much the case on-line, here I figure all we have on-line is discussion, we might as well be good at that, and that includes people being honest enough to admit they made an error and move on.

There are more diplomatic ways to raise such a point, but it is definitely more direct to do so in such a manner.

A lot of 'why' the net is so loud, has an awful lot to do with the large amounts of people involved. It is much easier to have a conversation involving opinions that are likely to be at ends with each other, when considering participants from across the world. The largest conversations I have been involved in, usually involved no more than 5 or 6 people; attending a large lecture, does not provide for literal conversation. On the net I can easily engage in a dozen threads at a time, over the course of a day. That is pretty cool, IMO.

It's funny how quick we get used to some things that are pretty damn cool. Being able to chat with people around the world is pretty damn awesome.

But yeah, I agree with your point that people have to be louder to be heard on the internet.

sebster wrote:I think that mattyrm is referring to situations, in which people will simply refuse to back down. I try to avoid threads that are bogged down in arguments like that. I don't respond to 99% of the stuff I read, because it would likely take me twice as long to say something, as it would to learn something.

Oh okay, I misread mattyrm's previous comment. Meant in that way I agree entirely, people will refuse to back down on points where they're obviously wrong in a way that I've never seen in the real world. I've been in and read threads where someone will spend pages dancing around the plain reality that they were wrong, and I just end up wondering if this person has no shame at all.

I think that might be what it is on-line, a lack of shame. If you've got a half dozen mates telling you you're completely wrong you can be shamed into conceding... but on-line if it's just strangers and no-one will ever know you can keep deluding yourself that you're not really wrong, and so it goes for day after day.