Forum Dynamics and personality clashes.

[AshtonBlack]

There is a statistical correlation (though with other factors, I'm sure) between intelligence (as a definition I'm including emotional intelligence too) and a lack of belief in god or gods. But like all things with reference to people, it's a shifted bell curve, so we can expect clever theists and stupid atheists as well. (I will dig out the study, if required.)

I've met enough clever theists and stupid atheists to know that what you're saying is right, my point was more that the atheists who find their way onto RDF are more than likely going to be intelligent because they wouldn't be there if they hadn't thought it through.

I accept your postulation. I, personally, think that a good education, with a little self reflection is the antithesis of theism and woo in general.
On the subject of personality clashes, I don't tend to get involved and no-one has called me on anything so I can't really speak from within a frame of reference.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Guys, cut the banter to a minimum maybe? 'Tis a "serious" forum.

Uups - I just read this.

No more, I'm sorry.

Actually, I think most of the wry comments have been good-humoured but pretty on-topic so far. just don't stray any further peeps.

I would be interested in hearing how Paco manages to resolve online conflicts in a single PM. It usually takes me 20 PM's each way to make things immeasurably worse!

I like the discussion about intelligence. I doubt that MONF needs to join Mensa - simply because he will find a similar level of erudition here but without the annual fee! I am not averse to saying that atheists tend to be more intelligent - it is of course a bell-curve but there is a definite skew towards the high IQ end - we are just conditioned to denying this publicly so as not to appear 'elitist'. it is OK to be revered as an elite footballer, artist or musician in our society but not as an elite 'brain' - fuck that! My IQ was measured at 153 and I find that nothing to be ashamed of.

However, that is here - an atheist forum - not everywhere on the web. And the problems with personality clashes tend to occur just as frequently on other, less cerebral forums - so I am not wholly convinced by that as an argument for the OP. I still think that the answer lies more with the points raised by myself and klr at the start of the thread.

[Trolldor]

People are people, the difference here is that with a forum you can close your browser.
You can't just turn off a person and wait until you're ready and then boot them up again.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

People are people, the difference here is that with a forum you can close your browser.
You can't just turn off a person and wait until you're ready and then boot them up again.

But really, that should make you more inclined to think things over before making a furious, inflamed, emotional response, shouldn't it? But the opposite appears to be the case. That is the point of the OP - or one of them.

[FBM]

I don't really put much effort into perceiving anything like a 'real' personality behind anyone's on-forum persona. More often than not, I assign an agreeable, albeit imaginary, personality to almost everyone. This kinda works IRL, too. There are a few who make that practically impossible, but not many. In my mind, you're all intelligent, witty, charming and attractive in a range of ways. Of course, there's the occasional meltdown to awaken me from my daydream...but they pass...

[irreligionist]

Very interesting thread. I think the point made about it being easier IRL to achieve space from people you don't like rather than online holds true, hence there are the melt downs that are seen online.

Also, the point made about "buttons" being pressed is a good one (that can draw an emotive response from others). Online, people aren't going to necessarily know (initially at least) what those "buttons" are for others. At the point a "button" is pressed, it is easy to draw adverse conclusions about the offending party, without any other information available as would be the case IRL to ameliorate the situation.

[CJ]

I feel there is another part to the mix as well. One can leave a forum and not come back. The flounce happens a lot, then Shakers law (Those who announce they are leaving invariably come back) kicks in for 99.9% of cases.

In addition if one gets a large enough group of diverse people in regular contact friendships and anti-friendships are bound to arise. If this is a realistic observation how do (should) forum members deal with anti-friendships? I don't like the word enemy in this context as I don't see any positive animosity in the situation. There are a couple of members here (no names, no pack drill) who have persona's I just detest. I am not going into details. I've tried being friendly and that sort of worked but it has become apparent that we are just too different to get along. I am not going to leave the forum, they aren't so we have to learn to exist along side each other in this new cyber environment with all it's inherent communication difficulties.

I also think that the cross cultural nature of forums is a contributory factor in some personality clashes. I have been brought up in a society where politeness is considered important, some others here take a positive delight in being impolite, they revel in it, and possibly more so than they would in RL as they don't get ostracised for their behaviour.

I also have a bad 'personal response curve' I'll ignore and ignore things that annoy me and then finally I'll 'go off on one' so I know I'm not perfect. But you know what really, really presses my button (probably shouldn't tell you this) is when a person behaves as if they are perfect and have no responsibility in their behaviour towards others. That to me is the ultimate arrogance and rudeness.

As I say I ain't perfect and I am attempting to adapt to forum life, but at what point would that adaption simply become a denial of myself and all I would become would be a reflection of what others want me to be? A mannequin dressed in other's desires?

[Trolldor]

People are people, the difference here is that with a forum you can close your browser.
You can't just turn off a person and wait until you're ready and then boot them up again.

But really, that should make you more inclined to think things over before making a furious, inflamed, emotional response, shouldn't it? But the opposite appears to be the case. That is the point of the OP - or one of them.

People don't feel obliged to adopt the basic rules of formality that are expected of them when placed on the internet, that doesn't make them any more - or less - invested than they are in real life. Being anonymous gives you great power and freedom, to the extent that you can fabricate a whole life and how is anybody to tell?

[The Curious Squid]

There is a statistical correlation (though with other factors, I'm sure) between intelligence (as a definition I'm including emotional intelligence too) and a lack of belief in god or gods. But like all things with reference to people, it's a shifted bell curve, so we can expect clever theists and stupid atheists as well. (I will dig out the study, if required.)

I've met enough clever theists and stupid atheists to know that what you're saying is right, my point was more that the atheists who find their way onto RDF are more than likely going to be intelligent because they wouldn't be there if they hadn't thought it through.

I accept your postulation. I, personally, think that a good education, with a little self reflection is the antithesis of theism and woo in general.
On the subject of personality clashes, I don't tend to get involved and no-one has called me on anything so I can't really speak from within a frame of reference.

I think you are trying to have a joke here (no offence if you aren't) but it's posts like that which stop me from contributing to RDF, it's full of words that are there to try and give the impression of intelligence but it isn't how intelligent people talk. I know for a fact that you are intelligent, Ashton, and what you're saying above is something I mostly agree with but I find your use of vocabulary quite pretentious and snooty

I would be interested in hearing how Paco manages to resolve online conflicts in a single PM. It usually takes me 20 PM's each way to make things immeasurably worse!

I wasn't talking about settling conflicts or arguments with a single PM, I was saying that most of the time if I'm holding some kind of grudge against someone I'll eventually take the incentive and purposefully PM them being quite forward about it and the response I get usually (not always) ends up making me feel more positive towards that person. I was thinking about this earlier today and there is actually only one person on here who I don't like, even after me disregarding the initial point of aggravation (which has probably skewed my opinion of him considerably regardless of how much I try and let it go) he consistently does things which I find to be tactless and moronic and seems to be here to boost his ego and make some money if he can. I've tried to keep that vague but I've probably been transparent

I like the discussion about intelligence. I doubt that MONF needs to join Mensa - simply because he will find a similar level of erudition here but without the annual fee! I am not averse to saying that atheists tend to be more intelligent - it is of course a bell-curve but there is a definite skew towards the high IQ end - we are just conditioned to denying this publicly so as not to appear 'elitist'. it is OK to be revered as an elite footballer, artist or musician in our society but not as an elite 'brain' - fuck that! My IQ was measured at 153 and I find that nothing to be ashamed of.

I do agree with what you've said there but there are too many intelligent people who hold religious beliefs simply because that's how they were raised to be able to say that intelligence breeds atheism, there's almost no point making the next comment because it's something that we're all too aware of but religion is fed to people in such a way as to circumnavigate their common sense and this is where the correlation becomes tenuous. Neil deGrasse Tyson raised a good point in the 2007 Beyond Belief conference when he stated, "We shouldn't be talking about why 93% of scientists in America are atheists but why the other 7% are theists!" (probably not the exact quote but it's close enough). The other thing that always comes to my mind when this particular debate arises is how people are fond of saying "Atheists are more intelligent!" as if a theists IQ would magically jump up 10 points as soon as they started to question their faith.

However, that is here - an atheist forum - not everywhere on the web. And the problems with personality clashes tend to occur just as frequently on other, less cerebral forums - so I am not wholly convinced by that as an argument for the OP. I still think that the answer lies more with the points raised by myself and klr at the start of the thread.

The arguments may arise in other forums but are they as final as the ones we've seen on here where people actually just leave because of them? I think that we have more than our fair share of head strong characters here which is why things get out of hand when nobody is willing to back down.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

However, that is here - an atheist forum - not everywhere on the web. And the problems with personality clashes tend to occur just as frequently on other, less cerebral forums - so I am not wholly convinced by that as an argument for the OP. I still think that the answer lies more with the points raised by myself and klr at the start of the thread.

The arguments may arise in other forums but are they as final as the ones we've seen on here where people actually just leave because of them? I think that we have more than our fair share of head strong characters here which is why things get out of hand when nobody is willing to back down.

I have been on forums where the vast majority of posters are far below what would be considered only mediocre intelligence here. There are still tantrums, schisms, walkouts and flame-war induced bannings. Strong personality is not a function of intelligence. In fact, there is nothing scarier than a bullying, aggressive personality with no brains to either back up its claims or for others to talk sense to.

[AshtonBlack]

I can only speak from personal experience, so it's only indicative rather than a "fact." I found we, a social animals, tend to group with those we see as our peers and get uncomfortable if the in-group veers wildly from our expectations. But even within our comfort zone, our natural instincts of comparison, feedback, adjustment etc. still apply.

People are strange.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

However, that is here - an atheist forum - not everywhere on the web. And the problems with personality clashes tend to occur just as frequently on other, less cerebral forums - so I am not wholly convinced by that as an argument for the OP. I still think that the answer lies more with the points raised by myself and klr at the start of the thread.

The arguments may arise in other forums but are they as final as the ones we've seen on here where people actually just leave because of them? I think that we have more than our fair share of head strong characters here which is why things get out of hand when nobody is willing to back down.

I have been on forums where the vast majority of posters are far below what would be considered only mediocre intelligence here. There are still tantrums, schisms, walkouts and flame-war induced bannings. Strong personality is not a function of intelligence. In fact, there is nothing scarier than a bullying, aggressive personality with no brains to either back up its claims or for others to talk sense to.

So basically all forum conflicts can boil down to:

a) Intelligence/unintelligence.

b) Buffoonery or obnoxiousness.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"The only people that can annoy you are those to whom you have given that power. Don't give it and they have an impossible job."

[Beelzebub2]

I see it as nothing but ego clashes, regardless of IQ, IMO.

It all depends on for what you use your intelligence - have you come here to learn something, make new friendships, or have you come only to do some post whoring and induce as many ego boosts as you can.

i have seen on RDF so many people who came only to show the world how extraordinary masterminds they are, acting no better than kids in kindergarten, or baboons in the zoo, waving with their alleged high IQs.

True intelligent talk points to reality other than oneself.

[klr]

I see it as nothing but ego clashes, regardless of IQ, IMO.

It all depends on for what you use your intelligence - have you come here to learn something, make new friendships, or have you come only to do some post whoring and induce as many ego boosts as you can.

i have seen on RDF so many people who came only to show the world how extraordinary masterminds they are, acting no better than kids in kindergarten, or baboons in the zoo, waving with their alleged high IQs.

True intelligent talk points to reality other than oneself.

The Philosophy section on RDF was notorious for the size of some of the egos on show, and sometimes Politics and Current Affairs wasn't (isn't?) much better. There were people there who seemed to regard it as fate worse than death to actually lose an argument.