Anonymity has also been shown to encourage participation; by promoting a greater sense of community identity, users don’t have to worry about standing out individually. Anonymity can also boost a certain kind of creative thinking and lead to improvements in problem-solving. In a study that examined student learning, the psychologists Ina Blau and Avner Caspi found that, while face-to-face interactions tended to provide greater satisfaction, in anonymous settings participation and risk-taking flourished.
Anonymous forums can also be remarkably self-regulating: we tend to discount anonymous or pseudonymous comments to a much larger degree than commentary from other, more easily identifiable sources. In a 2012 study of anonymity in computer interactions, researchers found that, while anonymous comments were more likely to be contrarian and extreme than non-anonymous ones, they were also far less likely to change a subject’s opinion on an ethical issue, echoing earlier results from the University of Arizona.
An interesting article given our form of discourse here at CP. I've thought about anonymity in online interactions quite a bit, given my relative lack of anonymity here (I post using my real name). Often times I've wanted to post something and thought differently about it because of the fact I do post using my real name.
Sometimes I purposely don't post about complex topics because I don't want my viewpoints to be taken the wrong way or misinterpreted. I would probably post a lot more low-quality comments if I were anonymous on this site.
Quote:
Multiple studies have also illustrated that when people don’t think they are going to be held immediately accountable for their words they are more likely to fall back on mental shortcuts in their thinking and writing, processing information less thoroughly. They become, as a result, more likely to resort to simplistic evaluations of complicated issues, as the psychologist Philip Tetlock has repeatedly found over several decades of research on accountability.
An interesting discussion either way.
The Following User Says Thank You to malcolmk14 For This Useful Post:
An interesting article given our form of discourse here at CP. I've thought about anonymity in online interactions quite a bit, given my relative lack of anonymity here (I post using my real name). Often times I've wanted to post something and thought differently about it because of the fact I do post using my real name.
Sometimes I purposely don't post about complex topics because I don't want my viewpoints to be taken the wrong way or misinterpreted. I would probably post a lot more low-quality comments if I were anonymous on this site.
An interesting discussion either way.
It's never stopped me and yes, I use my real name also
I prefer anonymity, and the temptation is always there to comment on everything, but I'm learning to filter myself. Sometimes I'll type out a lengthy post that seems quite clever to me at the time, then I'll read it and think "will this post enrich the conversation?" Half the time I'll decide to delete the message without ever posting it, and just go back to lurking. Unless I'm drunk...
I think that the your online pseudonym has a reputation. And on sites where people post regularly this reputation prevents some extremism from taking place comoared to say a newspapers comment section.
I am a hater. I hate extremism in all of its expressions. I hate extremist views on the right and on the left. I hate both dogooders' and cynicists' extremism. I hate pretty much any view that knows for sure what's best for everyone. I will argue an extreme view from either side of the fence just because it is extreme. Any view that is not open for critical reasoning and challenge, I am up for it. Online, in real life, doesn't matter.
P.S. BTW, a proud New Yorker subscriber for 12 years.
I see your New Yorker and raise you The Economist.
I think the Snowden case has lifted The Guardian as the one that rules over all. Despite enormous pressure, they keep asking all the hard questions and the right questions.
(Completely unrelated quotes to this topic, just examples of what I mean by "asking the right questions")
NSFW!
Quote:
Our reporting has revealed spying on conferences designed to negotiate economic agreements, the Organization of American States, oil companies, ministries that oversee mines and energy resources, the democratically elected leaders of allied states, and entire populations in those states. Can even President Obama and his most devoted loyalists continue to maintain, with a straight face, that this is all about Terrorism?
Quote:
If the German and French governments – and the German and French people – are so pleased to learn of how their privacy is being systematically assaulted by a foreign power over which they exert no influence, shouldn't they be offering asylum to the person who exposed it all
Quote:
how are American and British officials, in light of their conduct in all of this, going to maintain the pretense that they are defenders of press freedoms and are in a position to lecture and condemn others for violations? In what might be the most explicit hostility to such freedoms yet – as well as the most unmistakable evidence of rampant panic – the NSA's director, General Keith Alexander, actually demanded Thursday that the reporting being done by newspapers around the world on this secret surveillance system be halted
As to online comments, here's some sad science from Popular Science magazine, on why they shut down their comments section.
Quote:
Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.
That's heavy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
The Psychology of Online Comments [New Yorker]
