And now a little e-navel gazing
The George Mason University Center for Climate Chance Communication recently released a study on the impact of abusive online comments on public understanding of science. The study didn’t look at the public debate on climate change. Instead, it focussed on the issue of nanotechnology and the potential risks to health and the environment associated with the use of engineered materials.
All of the participants read the same article about that issue, but different comments were used. Some were given “civil” comments that avoided name-calling. Others were given the article along with negative comments in which readers called each other idiots, etc.
An article by Mother Jones on the study reports:
The researchers were trying to find out what effect exposure to such rudeness had on public perceptions of nanotech risks. They found that it wasn’t a good one. Rather, it polarized the audience: Those who already thought nanorisks were low tended to become more sure of themselves when exposed to name-calling, while those who thought nanorisks are high were more likely to move in their own favored direction. In other words, it appeared that pushing people’s emotional buttons, through derogatory comments, made them double down on their preexisting beliefs.
The article goes on to talk about this finding in the context of the psychological theory of motivated reasoning. In other words, emotional reactions are faster than intellectual ones. Although both reactions may be present, the emotional reaction to what someone reads may influence how he or she thinks about the topic. Reading insults may cause a reader to become defensive about their preexisting beliefs.
The polarizing effects of online comments on nanotechnology are likely to be far less so than those in the debate over climate change.
As our readers know, we moderate this blog to keep the comments more or less civil. We do allow criticism of an individual’s reasoning. We discourage posts that mock an individual’s intellectual capacity. We sometimes allow not-so-nice comments to get through, perhaps more so when we are trying to moderate from our smart phones at the Y or Kroger.
I’m interested in your thoughts about this topic. Do you think moderation, as imperfect as your humble moderators may be, helps the discussions on the RoundTable? If not, what would you suggest? That doesn’t mean we’re going to stop moderating, by the way, but I am interested in feedback. Thanks!
February 12, 2013 - 2:38 PM
Moderation as opposed to what?
I’m not trying to be flip, but someone does have to correct me when I cross the line of propriety.
It would be nice if you’d join in that effort.
2 – that’s a fair shot. I will try to be a better poster.
My bigger point, though, was that I think you mods do a fine job, and have a necessary one. I know it’s not easy.
Since just today I had replies rejected as “escalating” the “snark”, this is timely.
To be honest, the several different moderators are crippling this blog IMO. One may see little wrong and lets most anything go, another sees too much wrong and limits relatively free discussion. It is difficult to remain consistent on your end and hard for us to gauge on this one.
I freely grant that some of us “regulars” do not like each other and spend more time trying to “catch” each other in an error, or posting a zinger than substantive debate, but it is still pretty schizophrenic on what gives some days due to the moderator’s tolerance, whether the moderator has paid attention to a running “peeve” or whether the piling on is good or bad for the discussion.
Frankly, I admit my own culpability. I am sick to death of anonymous bloggers. Sicker still of false “facts” and parroted partisan talking points passing as someone’s opinion. My tolerance is beyond low and I am taking no prisoners of late.
Having said all of that, I acknowledge that you see it as you see it and whether I agree or disagree, it is your blog and your decision in the end. Even to the point of who stays and who goes.
Since we are on the subject of this blog, what I have noticed is that the “Search the Round Table” does not search users comments, only the articles. Also when you do conduct a search using that tool, you might get several articles but they are listed with the *time* at which the story was posted, but not the *date*. Both of these are kind of weak.
Regarding moderation, I had a bit of fun with Del. Linghamfelter’s name and I’m actually kind of pleased to see that wasn’t tolerated.
It would be nice to have “ego search” feature so I could more easily what I have posted, and people who have responded.