Preferences And Reinforcements: Libel, Slander And Rage In The Internet Age

After publishing Friday’s editorial on the upsides of cultivating a flexible mind on issues in engineering and bigger-picture life, I remembered another recent story I wanted to share. Three weeks ago, I mentioned that as a means of exploring alternative distribution (i.e. Internet-only) and compensation (i.e. advertising-supported) schemes for movie content, I’d downloaded Michael Moore’s latest documentary, Slacker Uprising. I intentionally took great care (and still take great care) to not reveal if I had an opinion on the controversial director and his work, and if so what that opinion might be. Almost immediately, however, I was taken to task both publicly and privately by a number of readers in the ‘Moore detractor’ camp (one of whom later apologized for going off-topic and politicizing a tech blog…thank you again for that, Bill).

What I quickly realized (obvious in retrospect but not the time) is that whether the topic is Michael Moore or anything else for that matter, folks who disagree with the message or messenger (or both) are inclined to completely discard it, absent any examination whatsoever. Curiously, this lack of exposure to the supposedly offensive information doesn’t seem to preclude folks from still criticizing that which they haven’t seen or heard, but I digress…For these folks, simply by mentioning Michael Moore’s name, I was implying support for him and his political perspectives.

That’s really too bad. How can you avoid clinging to fixed views (on technology or any other topic) unless you intentionally and regularly expose yourself to perspectives that aren’t aligned with your own? I make a conscious effort to regularly ‘make myself uncomfortable’ by exploring ideas (and the individuals spouting them) that aren’t aligned with my own. Sometimes, I walk away afterwards more convinced than ever that ‘I’m right’. And sometimes, healthy doubt enters my consciousness, either that my perspective is "on base" in the general sense or that I can apply it equally to all situations.

Speaking of politics, I suspect that it (along with the fiscal crisis gripping not only the United States but also now spreading to the rest of the world) is behind the conspicuously increasing amount of bile being tossed my way of late in private emails and voicemails, along with public comments left on blog posts and online articles. Folks are angry and frustrated at big-picture issues of which they have little personal influence, so they anonymously redirect the negative energy elsewhere. It’s gotten so bad that YouTube now offers an optional (at least for now) audio preview of comments you’re about to post, so that you can listen to (and reconsider before it’s too late) what you’re about to state to the world. Google’s Mail Goggles serves an analogous function for email.

Nearly twelve years in this job has encouraged me to grow a fairly thick layer of skin, so most of the time I can handle the heat. I just ‘don my asbestos underwear’, endure the flames, and move on. But one particular category of commenter and comment, I confess, continues to raise my ire. These are the folks who, if they disagree with a stance I’ve taken on a particular topic, knee-jerk accuse me of editorial bias. I at least hope that if they were to ever meet me face-to-face (versus the incognito aspect of ‘On The Internet, Nobody Knows You’re A Dog‘), they’d have the clarity (or perhaps timidity) to not repeat the same allegations.

But I also hope that they’ve under-estimated just how important (and increasingly rare) impartiality is in my line of work, how much time and effort I’ve spent (and continue to spend) cultivating a reputation for objectivity, and how easily one’s repute in this regard can be tarnished by false allegations. And I hope that if they see this writeup, they’ll reconsider their behaviour going forward. I certainly wouldn’t (anonymously or not) stroll into a reader’s engineering workplace and accuse him or her of incompetence, unethical behavior or some other falsehood, just because he or she and I didn’t see eye-to-eye on an issue. And I aspire for you all to act in a similarly mature, non-self-centered manner.

I’ve been collecting various RSS feed tidbits for a while now, in a folder labeled ‘Psychology’. They elaborate on the topics I’ve touched on in this and last Friday’s posts, and I encourage you to peruse the following chronologically ordered list if, like me, you’re interested in the overall subject manner:

• How the Brain Makes People Partisan
• Oh, the (Lack of) Humanity
• Hype leads to disappointment
• Does Success Spoil Inventors?
• Neuroeconomics: sub-prime mortgages exploit a bug in our brains (published over a year ago, but oh so timely…)
• Why Myths Persist
• Meat substitutes taste as good as the real thing
• Political Viewpoints Linked To Fear
• Does ideology trump facts? Studies say it often does (also covered by Slashdot)
• Scientists discover why we overbid for old junk on eBay
• Cyberbullying: new phenomenon or the playground gone online?
• The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy online
• Researchers Claim To Be Able To Determine Political Leaning By How Messy You Are

Chill out and have a good week, everyone.