Eva, Would you accept the idea that the medium is the problem? I pendulum between two views. Sometimes I feel persuaded by the thought that this medium really is different - the lack of visual (and most other non-verbal) cues fosters misinterpretation, poisonous projection, malignant mirroring and all the other dysfucntional facets of group dynamics. If you're ready to feel threatened, slighted, ignored, it's the perfect medium to get that experience confirmed. And across the 'net, you're sufficiently distant from the others communicating to feel safe in retaliating. Road rage is similar, you feel protected with a sort of barrier between you and the other. Other times I see lists much as any other (large) group. After all, thoughtless reaction isn't confined to electronic media. As I wake this morning in London I hear on the news that Catholic schoolgirls are being attacked again in Belfast on their way to school by the mob, while Protestants feel that their rights to secure boundaries after years of republican military action are being trampled on. It's easy to get polarised in any group, and the only difference in Internet large groups is that we are less familiar in 'reading between the lines' of communications. But that will change as Internet fora become as second nature as the phone now is. Or television. This second set of ideas I developed in a paper in group analysis reproduced here: www.bendavidson.co.uk/professional_pages/publications/articles/lrgegrp.htm I'd be interested in yout thoughts. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eva Ekeblad" <eva.ekeblad@goteborg.utfors.se> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Flame Wars
Why flame?