Arguing on the Internet

I recently wrote an article criticising the popular Mambo and Joomla! online content management systems for Designorati:Web Design. The responses to that article are an amazing illustration of the types of responses common to Internet discussions. Whether you care about Mambo or Joomla!, you should read the article and then the reader discussion following it. That discussion is a study in human debating habits.

In any Internet debate to which anyone attaches importance, one can be assured of the participation of two types of respondants:

Critical Thinkers

Whether they agree or disagree, critical thinkers are the people who consider the discussion, debate facts, and actually advance the debate toward a conclusion that educates one or more participants (and occasionally leads to a change in the actual subject of the debate, as is the case with the discussion surrounding the Mambo CMS). Also included in this group are those who consider the facts and form an opinion based upon them, but who do not necessarily have any unique information or perspective to add to the discussion.

In the debate surrounding that article, I, as the initiator, as well as Ricofan, AMC, Colin Wills, and Samuel John Klein are the critical thinkers group. Ricofan, a member of the team responsible for effecting change relative to the points raised about the Mambo CMS, agreed with my article and the pro respondants, and has actually begun working toward fixing the concerns raised.

Knee-Jerk Defensives

The other group that can be counted on to participate are Knee-Jerk Defensives. These are the people who have–or elect to create–an emotional investment in the subject under debate. Whether their emotional investment is warranted or not, they respond emotionally and without critical thought to defend or attack a subject they (reasonably or otherwise) feel is under attack. Because they approach the subject emotionally, they nearly always believe that all other participants are also emotionally vested in it.

Because they are so emotional, they are unable to consider the discussion or the facts raised logically and critically (according to Jung’s Transactional Analysis). As a result of that handicap and their belief that all participants in the debate as emotional as they, Knee-Jerk Defensives tend to speak in a juvenile manner regardless of their actual age. Indeed, respondants even tend to feed off one another.

Whether as a group or as individuals, their statements and responses relative to the debate always escalate through four stages:

1. The Nuh-Uh defense claiming one side of the debate “just doesn’t get it” or is simply wrong, although they cannot provide logical arguments backing up the accusation of error. Because of the common iteration that debate opponents “just don’t get it,” this type of response is often referred to as the “blind faith” or “cultist” arguing stance.

2. Deflection and Disinformation. The is the stage displaying the closest approximation to critical thought without actually being so. As demonstrated impeccably in the Joomla/Mambo article by the people identifying themselves as Hackwar and Iain Shaw, this stage of Knee-jerk Defensives’ discussion does typically mention or allude to the points of the debate, but does so as part of a deception designed to convince the casual observer that the points and discussion are about something else. Invariably, words and phrases are taken out of context and twisted to present an alternate meaning intended to divert or deflect from the actual meaning. Then, the points, with their crafted alternate meanings, are addressed by the individual. The result is answers to questions that were never asked or disproving points never raised. This is the disinformation characteristic of the stage.

Also common to the Deflection and Disinformation stage of Knee-Jerk Defensives’ arguments is the fixation on irrelevant subjects, such as typos or errors in syntax or facts unrelated to the discussion. Oddly, despite the fact that nearly everyone creates typos or language errors as a matter of course in using the various communication mediums of the Internet (e-mail, newsgroups, forums, blogs, instant messengers/chat, and so on), attacking others’ typing mistakes is by far the most common form of the Deflection and Disinformation defense.

3. Personal attacks against the opposing side of the debate. This is the “yo’ mamma” defense. There is no substance and little actual intelligence involved in this stage. Often the writer attacks another debate participant, his Web site (if at all related to the discussion, such as in the case of design or coding debates), his profession or professional experience, his personal appearance, and often even his name. Personal attacks can take any imaginable form. Anything the writer knows, suspects, or imagines about the target are fair game for personal attacks. Amy Stephen represents this stage of the Knee-jerk Defensives responses in the Joomla/Mambo article discussion.

4. The final stage is Personal Threat against those on the opposing side(s) of the debate. Threats are always sincere (at the time), and may be specific or nebulous threats against a career (e.g. “I’ll tell everyone I know not to read your site” or “I’m a big person in [some industry], and I’ll make sure no one ever does business with you again”); against an professional or personal indirect interest (e.g. “you’ll never get help on [some] forum again”), and/or; a direct or implied threat of harrassment or physical harm (e.g. “I know where you live” or “you’d better look over your shoulder walking down the street”). Threats take many forms, and the details vary according the subject under debate, the target of the threat, and its author.

It does invariably come, however, in the escalation of responses from the Knee-jerk Defensives group. Sometimes, when such a respondant is particularly flustered, he will skip one or more preceding steps in the escalation and go straight for the threat, demonstrating both an emotional unbalance and a lack of imagination. Indeed, the more frustrated a member of the Knee-jerk Defensives group, the faster he will escalate to the Personal Threat stage, and the more passionately he will threaten–he will direct his (often self-inspired) frustration into anger, which inspires and fuels personal threats.

In a strange sort of dynamic the more vehemently one threatens, and the more fright the threat is intended to inspire, the less power the threatener has to actually carry out the threat. Thus, the more one threatens, the more impotent he declares himself.

A potential fifth stage, which appears on rare occasion, is the Fillabuster. Like the political manuever of the same name, someone in this stage simply stuffs the conversation with nonsense in hopes that other participants will not be able to continue. Part of the reason the Fillabuster is not employed more often on the Internet may be because of the ease with which such people can be banned from accessing a given Website (and how easily their Fillabuster comments can be removed).

Debate and discussion on the Internet, like any other forum, can lead to genuine education and change. But, it can only do so for, and with the participation of, the Critical Thinkers group. The Knee-Jerk Defensives are, by definition, incapable of contributing to logical discussion based upon facts or points of contention. Ultimately, the Knee-Jerk Defensives become nothing more than noise that is better left ignored.

The difference between the two group is simple: Critical Thinkers think, and they address the discussion. Knee-Jerk Defensives don’t think, they react emotionally, and they focus on the people involved in the discussion, not the discussion itself.

Next time you’re facing a Website or blog comment form, ask yourself: Which classification will my response fall under? Will my comments address and advance the facts of the discussion, or are they more about one of the prior participants? Ask whether your response would be classified by an objective individual as Critical Thinker or Knee-Jerk Defensive.

Choose wisely, because your comments will be held in the public view for a long, long time. Thus, a quick Google search can make you look like a jackass to people you have yet to meet for years to come.