Most fights have a rather clear winner and loser. But why should they? Arguments and disagreements have taken on a new form with the means of technological communication available today. No longer do people have to take the time to confront their discrepancies, but they even have the ability to gain supporters for their side of the argument.
It is not necessary for two people to get together and talk through a situation. Rather, there are Facebook walls, texts, and emails to keep a comfortable distance between people. This form of communication allows for a convenience that requires very little time commitment. However, it doesn’t provide the same intimacy as a face to face argument. In my opinion, a disagreement provides a wonderful opportunity to gain insight or even strengthen a relationship by working through a problem. Arguments are something that shouldn’t be looked at from a distance. Communication through texting, Twitter, or other online profiles doesn’t allow individuals to create closeness and possibly build the relationships necessary to work through a situation.
When individuals distance themselves they have the ability to hid behind their phone or computer. They aren’t just missing out on building a relationship with someone, but will likely use the technological separation as a opportunity to say something they wouldn’t say face to face. If individuals think something would be harmful to say to someone’s face, chances are they shouldn’t say it over Facebook or through a text either. In my experience it seems as though arguments over Facebook or Twitter are based around insults rather than stating honest, progressive insight.
Not only do online, technologically advanced fights not allow for personal connections, but they also allow for others in the online community to get involved. This is not as easily the case with texts or emails, but anytime something is put on the internet there is a chance that it will start circulating. Involving more and more people in an argument not only makes it more complex, but it also begins to eliminate the opportunity for a compromise or an understanding between the two original individuals. Through my years in high school I witnessed many conversations in the classroom and hallways about fights that had taken place on Facebook the night before. Peers would give advice to the individual that they supported and alliances were made. Teams were formed. Now rather than two individuals looking for an opportunity to find an understanding to whatever they may be disagreeing about, there are ‘teams’ fighting to come out on top. Neither individual will risk surrendering and letting their ‘team’ down.
Forming teams and basing argument on insult is the future of resolving discrepancies via technology. It seems to me that there is an easier, way to solve disagreements. Not every argument has to have a winner or loser. And technology should not make us feel as though there should be.
I think you’re completely right that now we can selectively take part in arguments when it is convenient for us to. We are now able to sit at a distance (just as I am now, behind a computer screen) and invest less time and effort into our arguments, debates, and tactics. This “privilege” does, I think, increase the temptation to say something we would normally not say face-to-face. It seems as though, virtually, the things we say are less risky. Even now, in merely writing a comment on your blog post, I would feel more comfortable writing something negative (if indeed I had something negative to say) than I would feel telling you face-to-face.
I think this reality is horrible. In most examples, like the example of the people at your high school, people are still held responsible for the things they say. This is obviously because the people who are writing things on the internet are the same people you will see in the hallway not but twelve hours later. It becomes more of an issue when (as Calacanis wrote) people will not come into face-to-face contact with the person, or at least not for an extensive amount of time.
I do think that debate and intellectual argument can really strengthen a relationship. The future you describe is frightening and sad, but I often do see a lot more insulting and a lot less getting to the point in agruments. This has always been the case, but I think it’s much easier to see with things like Facebook and Twitter..
I definitely agree that technology, the internet in particular, is changing the way we argue. It is something that we hide behind when arguing. Like Laura said, often times people respond to others in a way that they would not when arguing face-to-face. This creates a lot of tension between individuals or groups of people arguing against each other, and I agree that arguments should eventually be settled or a compromise must be found. On the other hand, the response time through technology that cannot be found when arguing face-to-face allows for a more complex and educated argument. This allows people to gain insight on the opposing argument, providing a better understanding of the topic at hand.
Although arguing through technology allows for a more informed response, I think the skills we develop when arguing in person a important. In person, we learn the skills to be able to hold a conversation with others and come to an understanding. I personally think these people-skills are important for our character, and they teach us things we may not know about ourselves.
I agree with your post. Arguments over the internet never seem to end. Like you said it is too easy to take sides and get supports. You aren’t forced to come up with a solution because you can always walk away and come back to the argument later when you have more ways to defend your side. I would also like to add to what you said by saying that arguing over the internet takes away the emotional aspect as well. You can’t see how the other person is reacting to what you say. You can’t tell if they are angry, upset, calm, or sad. I have unfortunatly had arguments with friends via text and most of the time the argument escalates because one person read a text out of context and became upset because they couldn’t see or hear in the persons voice how they were saying what they texted.
Laura,
I think you did a great job of analyzing the way the Internet and Social Networking Websites have changed the way people argue. You are so right in saying that people are much more mean and rude over the Internet than they would ever be in real life. I believe this is because the Internet dehumanizes people. It makes everyone two-dimensional, leaving behind feelings and touch. As you stated, this can be a large threat, especially with Junior High and High School students who are less likely to think about the consequences of how they act over the Internet towards people they would never speak with in real life.
Your post makes me think of FormSpring and HonestyBox. I feel as though these are like the examples you gave except for even more dangerous because they dehumanize a person even farther. Oh the joys of being able to say awful things without having anyone know it you (sarcasm).
I have one thought about your blog post. While I agree that the Internet changes the way people argue, I wonder if there is also another dynamic. The Internet allows people to be more stubborn. With the Internet, people can search for the type of documents and arguments they want to observe, usually the ones that comply with the ideas they already believe in. I believe that the Internet causes people to become narrow in their views because they have so many options. Ten to twenty years ago, someone interested in politics would have gone to the Newspaper or TV news for information, and while I understand that these can be skewed as well, they were more likely to encounter both sides of arguments. Today, however, people can pick and choose, causing possible problems.
I also agree with your post. I feel that technology, especially facebook and texting, also have a ridiculous amount of influence on personal relationships. Everyday conversations through texting can become mundane and meaningless. Having a fight with someone through texting is very ineffective. Since it’s difficult to portray emotions, neither person truly knows how the other is responding. This leads to miscommunications that can be detrimental to a relationship. Solving arguments brings people together, but I feel this is much more difficult via text.
Most times, people say things through texting they normally wouldn’t say out loud. However, I feel this works both ways. For example, when someone brings up a touchy subject, one person may not know how to put their thoughts into words, or may feel that texting won’t do their words justice. In this case, the person doesn’t say anything because they’d rather speak in person. So instead of throwing out insults because they’re hiding behind their phone, they use it as a way to avoid the situation completely. It’s just sad to see how many relationships nowadays are dependent on texting when it can be such a poor channel of communication, (granted, there are many positives to being able to keep in contact) especially when involving fights or arguments.
This article brings up some interesting points about resolving conflict through social media. In general I would be inclined to agree with the idea that using social media to publicly attempt to resolve a personal dispute is generally not useful (remember Josh Harris and his girlfriend from “We Live in Public”). Making an argument public does turn a productive discussion into a battle to simply score points, look good and gain supporters.
However there is a deeper issue at the root of these petty social media based fights. The problem is not the medium in which individuals (particularly teens) resolve their differences. The problem is fundamentally rooted in the way these individuals think about and treat each other. If those involved in these types of disputes had the integrity and the common decency to respect and listen to each other, their petty arguments would be easily resolved. The problem is the way in which some people think about and treat others. The fact that some people do not know what is and is not acceptable to say or do to another human being is the problem, social media is not.
Laura,
You raise a very interesting argument. I absolutely agree that technological communication has the potential to lessen the integrity of modern debating skills. It seems likely that, as you said, what used to be legitimate attempts at resolving disagreements will degrade into simple insults and popularity scrambles. It seems as though it’s already upon us if you take into consideration such things as the movie “We Live in Public,” as well as the conversations that we’ve had in class about people being harsh and unempathetic towards each other online.
Your points mesh nicely with some of the arguments made by researchers in “Antisocial Networking?” in that several of them also claim that technology interferes with interpersonal relationships. It is interesting that you pointed out how a lack of face-to-face interactions has the potential to prevent people from forming close, genuine bonds. As you said, arguing and working through disagreements not only brings people closer together and develops their social skills and ability to interact appropriately with other people, it also develops cognitive, comprehensive, and verbal skills. Several of the articles’s researchers agreed completely with you, even going so far as to say that without interpersonal situations, people will begin losing their ability to recognize facial cues.
This appears to be the sad diminishment period of skills that some would agree are crucial to human happiness. As social animals, how are we going to react to the loss of unifying and enriching personal interactions?
I like and agree with most of the comments in your post. However, I disagree that the future of arguments is one filled with insults and stubborn results. Really, I think it comes down to who you talk to and how you decide to present yourself. A few days ago I had a fairly lengthy debate on a number of potentially volatile topics with another indiviudal on Facebook, and it never resulted in ad hominem attacks or insults, and it ended on a reasonably tacit note, even if our opinions hadn’t changed all that much.
That said, that might be the exception to the rule. I certainly see plenty of insults hurled all over the place on the internet. Either way, I’m interested to see if the lack of “personal” connection really does change the way we interact.