Comment by howmayiannoyyou | Hacker News Reader

Comment by howmayiannoyyou | Hacker News Reader

howmayiannoyyou

1962 study: Subjects divided in two groups, both angered. The study cohort believed their frustrater had been harmed and experiences less emotional tension than the control group. Of note, the group who enjoyed hostility catharsis did not become friendlier.

I don't think it's a shocking observation political hostility on all sides is often a strategy for self-care in the form of hostility catharsis.

Along these lines, if Facebook, Twitter, etc. were sincerely interested in improving online discourse, they would jettison "fact checking" and censorship for additional content that focuses on the safety of the present moment, temporal perspective, breathing, visualization, humor & timeouts.

Every one of those interventions are proven to work in many cases, do no harm, allow the free flow of ideas and where effective open doors for bridge building.

Yeah, seems hokey... until you actually try these strategies and discover they provide tremendous relief.

Study abstract: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1963-05053-001

> Along these lines, if Facebook, Twitter, etc. were sincerely interested in improving online discourse, they would jettison "fact checking" and censorship for additional content that focuses on the safety of the present moment, temporal perspective, breathing, visualization, humor & timeouts.

Except those companies are in the business of emotional disregulation in the name of “engagement”.

Last thing I want is for them to have even more authority on the participants’ emotional states. When not riled up through manipulation of what they see, most people have a good sense of how to be good to each other.

The other problem is social media getting overrepresented in comparison to real world interactions in our lifetime of discourses. I want the full experience of the disagreeable other, ideally in a friend, so that we can hold the tension of disagreement with some love and beers. Textual/propositional discourse is a mere simulation of this, we’re all stranger brains in vats spitting out argumentation in a truncated form of existence. Perception of being right overcomes the actual need for being right and being held in positive regard. We’re here more to impress, and less to dialogue and cohere.

Is this paper exclusive to a certain website? I've had discussions with people of various political persuasions that are downright hostile on this website. If people on this website with engagement mostly removed can't control themselves, who can?

I've looked through some of these people's profiles before and I've been shocked to find that in non-political discussions they're pretty normal. They're not trolls per se, unless you threaten (using this loosely, such as believing in or having experiences counter to) something core to their identity or way of life.

My takeaway, thus far, has been that without you being physically sat in front of someone they can't observe how something so close and dear to them could possibly hurt someone. They can't imagine that something that seems "righteous" could alienate people or the wrong people if their purpose was to alienate. They only see that through the various signals we can't capture in a DOM or across HTTP.

any sources on the effects of

> content that focuses on the safety of the present moment, temporal perspective, breathing, visualization, humor & timeouts

The purpose of fact-checking isn't to improve online discourse. It's to reduce public health crises, like vaccination hesitancy, and extremism based on falsehoods (e.g. countless false claims of ballot irregularities), leading to political violence. But in terms of reducing toxicity, your idea of introducing self-care interventions is great.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com