Could you elaborate on the distinction you’re making between genuine conversations and records of reaction?
Specifically, did you imply that tone and recognition of the other party are factors?
In a lot of Internet conversation it's like you are correcting people who you disagree with and then expounding what you think is true. That isn't really what conversation is like, I don't think.
Is the question about the other party’s reasoning as in thought process or reasoning as in the argument they’ve written down? I think of arguments as public processes/entities, in that it doesn’t matter who/where critique comes from. But human beings have particular social psychology so there may be ‘effects’ from drive by critique.
> In a lot of Internet conversation it's like you are correcting people who you disagree with and then expounding what you think is true.
Often when I read something I don’t agree with, my mind immediately creates a caricature of the author and I get the impulse to crush/fix them.
Also the inputs to create a new conversation on your account from the main feed view at the top to be more inline with what users expect and not a button to open.