I occassionally listen to a podcast called "conversations with people who hate me". Essentially, they find a toxic interaction online, and have both participants on to talk it out, moderated by someone who's thoughtful and kind without all the negative incentives that online discourse provides. I love the concept, and even when the follow through doesn't live up, I appreciate the attempt.
But there's something I noticed about myself while listening to it today. One of the guests was talking about how the experience of hearing a real voice not only humanized the faceless profile on the screen by taking away the anonymity aspect, but how we as humans communicate better with, you know... voice inflection and facial expressions and all the rest.
And I don't think I do. When I write back and forth with people, I've got time to consider. Not just to consider what I'm going to say or what a better argument is, but what they're saying as well. I've got a chance to formulate stuff in my head before responding, compared to in-person where there's pressure to start talking just a few seconds after the other person's finished their sentence.
I actually think I'm more understanding and kind online than off. I mean... sure, I'll give forceful opinions that are opposed to someone else's beliefs, and I'll make my case... but that's true of me irl as well. I'm much less likely to get frustrated or angry... I can think about a good response long enough to not be rash or merely ignore a comment and move on in a way that seems easier than it would be in person.
But nearly everyone I talk to seems to feel the opposite. That people like them better irl because of the nonverbal stuff and their intended meaning is more clear in that environment and that all parties are less likely to get angry irl. Is my experience an aberration?
