Alicorn comments on A Suite of Pragmatic Considerations in Favor of Niceness - Less Wrong

82 Post author: Alicorn 05 January 2010 09:32PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (183)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Alicorn 07 January 2010 02:10:27AM 11 points [-]

It may not be too weak. In the ancestral environment, everybody you could consider being mean to was probably in the room with you at the time. They could hurt you, and if you were frequently mean, the other people in the vicinity would back them up. All we need to explain why people are mean, on the Internet and in civilized societies where assault is fairly uncommon, is a mechanism that ties the disposition to be nice to the power of the other person to do you harm.

Comment author: orthonormal 07 January 2010 03:16:38AM *  4 points [-]

This hypothesis makes good predictions in general, although I think it's a subconscious phenomenon and therefore subject to cues and priming as well as the other's actual power to retaliate.

I can't find it now, but I read a study where some form of antisocial behavior (perhaps it was keeping everything in a one-shot trustee game) became less common when the victims could see the perpetrator, even when no retaliation was in fact possible (and the perp knew it). So joining a faceless and pseudonymous community should be a perfect recipe for disregard of niceness and other cooperative instincts.

Like I said, the hypothesis makes good predictions.

Comment author: MBlume 08 February 2010 08:33:47PM 3 points [-]

I can't find it now, but I read a study where some form of antisocial behavior [...] became less common when the victims could see the perpetrator [...]. So joining a faceless and pseudonymous community should be a perfect recipe for disregard of niceness and other cooperative instincts.

So should we add avatars to LW?

Comment author: Alicorn 08 February 2010 08:50:07PM 8 points [-]

I think they'd be visually distracting; LW isn't otherwise full of pictures. Additionally, a lot of people using avatars on the internet apart from Facebook do not use their own faces, or even real faces that don't belong to them; if I attached a little picture of a unicorn to my name, would that have the same effect?

Comment author: komponisto 08 February 2010 08:44:05PM 4 points [-]

So should we add avatars to LW?

Please, please, no!

Comment author: Benedict 10 August 2014 04:23:07PM 1 point [-]

I imagine they'd be visually distracting and take up page space, but if it's considered that the civility benefits of having available faces attached to names are significant, there's ways to mitigate that- have a user's avatar or profile picture appear when rolling over a user's name, for example, instead of being displayed on every comment whether you want to see it or not. Or some similar solution for making them immediately available but unobtrusive.

Comment author: thomblake 08 February 2010 08:46:36PM 0 points [-]

So should we add avatars to LW?

Absolutely. At least support Gravatar.

Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 07 January 2010 04:21:52AM 3 points [-]

Indeed, and is hardly a novel observation. For instance, a well-regarded--though slightly more informal--presentation of the hypothesis was published here (Holkins & Krahulik, 2004).

Comment author: ciphergoth 07 January 2010 10:32:40AM 1 point [-]

I think to be complete we need a more detailed exposition of the payoffs of meanness.

Comment author: Alicorn 07 January 2010 02:24:44PM 8 points [-]

It's a signal that you aren't scared of being retaliated against. Which can be a pretty powerful signal. It means you're too valuable to lose and don't think you'll be attacked, or that you're very good at defending yourself and can afford to get into an altercation.