So much here... It's nice that despite all the nonsense to be found on Internet posts, there can be some quality thought if you patiently wade through the junk first.
I know what you mean about how best to share your work. I am sitting on a bunch of AI research that others might be interested in and I am not sure how best to document and share, especially while not working in academia. A book, video, or web site maybe? I have no good ideas on that, only sympathy.
I think your experimental data is fantastic, but I have different hypotheses on the mechanism and motivation of the players.
We are creatures of reason which is great, but we still are susceptible to errors in judgement. These are small and mostly manifest as solidifying a conclusion prematurely.
But we are also social animals that have an inherent drive to find and defend our place in the pecking order. We display dominance to those beneath us and submission to those above.
The strategies of online conflict are varied and mirror those of offline conflict, but the core social desire is the same: to win the favor of our masters and weaken our lessers, unless we are forced to think for ourselves and become aware of the folly of it all.
Again, after mulling it over, I think both our models have significant merit, and they are incomplete.
Errors mostly have no personal reinforcement. They get corrected mostly over time. Agreed.
What I was getting at is a more deliberate error, or a forced one. The deliberate error is something like seeking affirmation for a character issue. Racist seeks reinforcement for racism rather than enlightenment to get past racism. The forced error could be something like an authoritarian childhood elevating dogma to fact, seriously impacting that person and their ability to grow and be objective.
Dominance / submission does drive a lot. And I do see a very clear connection between that and online dialog in that people who maybe are subs in most of their life get online and are free to be that dom they dream about being...
I tend to disagree about "the core social desire", but I do agree about it being "a social desire", among many other ones.
This thread is blowing my mind. Please continue to share.
I really like the idea that models are often formed prematurely and the reference to pokemon cards. One metaphor I use allot is that our values are like a deck of cards, some values are ranked higher then others. The ranking is determined in part by a recursive function (shuffling or playing a game of go fish) but also by functional requirements to justify the current mode of survival. A person tends to perceive their values in a way that justifies their actions (and vice versa). When modelling different Christian denominations you could consider each verse and interpretation as a card. The card game in play ensures that a church group ends up with a large chunks of each hand looking similar. The attraction of individuals to a particular church has allot to due with how well those cards advocate that person's life.
Doesn't that just work? What? You hit me with a baby killer +2? Here's a fuck the poor +5, how do you like them apples?
lol It really seems that way so often to me.
And yes! Bible verses. That is where the Pokemon thing in me came from. Was on a thread, and one of 'em dropped a verse, and soon, it was just like a game.
So I dropped Marley 4:20, you all fuck off and left. Not the best form, I know. But gratifying because that did blow up the little game and it was a total dodge in the form of massive subject change to pot.
Justification and affirmation drive huge amounts of the dialog.
Here's something from my own life you might find interesting, and this is the root of some of what I write here.
Coming out of school, and out of a hate church, I was left with some homophobia and some angst over biracial marriage of all things.
Met a good friend at work. She and I clicked, and eventually the running conversation bumped into both of those and she nailed me big.
Right there is a moment of character of sorts. For me, I could see it wrong, and I could see I really should improve, so I did. Took that stuff on the drive home and questioned all of it. Eventually resolved it for my own reason, which was just to be of better character, and it was done.
But, people can choose to defend, and if they do, they head down that path of justification and affirmation and part of their self-definition gets linked to specific issues policy vision kinds of things.
In my case, the debate mattered. I valued the other person, and they me, and so there was no real shame sorting it out. I was from a small town, and honestly, that kind of thing can just happen.
But, I could have taken another path then, and I could imagine myself today crippled in the debate because I would have a very deep, personal investment in making sure some specifics I need to feel good about who I am stay in place.
I know what you mean about how best to share your work. I am sitting on a bunch of AI research that others might be interested in and I am not sure how best to document and share, especially while not working in academia. A book, video, or web site maybe? I have no good ideas on that, only sympathy.
I think your experimental data is fantastic, but I have different hypotheses on the mechanism and motivation of the players.
We are creatures of reason which is great, but we still are susceptible to errors in judgement. These are small and mostly manifest as solidifying a conclusion prematurely.
But we are also social animals that have an inherent drive to find and defend our place in the pecking order. We display dominance to those beneath us and submission to those above.
The strategies of online conflict are varied and mirror those of offline conflict, but the core social desire is the same: to win the favor of our masters and weaken our lessers, unless we are forced to think for ourselves and become aware of the folly of it all.