For me, a simultaneously fascinating and distracting element of list-life is the flame thread. You know what these are: someone writes something that seems objectionable to one or more people diverting the topic of discussion away from whatever it was to the poster's real or imagined character flaws and political sins.
Of course, sometimes this isn't flaming at all but a proper response to some stupidity (for example, the occasional miscreant who decides to inject his addled thoughts into the stream). Most often though, it's not a case of someone *actually* asserting a horrid POV but being *perceived* as having done so.
You can watch this happen - almost in real time - when, to highlight a prominent example, a Wojtek post sets off a predictable series of (often unwarranted, in my view) responses.
Nicholas Epley of U. Chicago and Justin Kruger of NYU have a theory to explain how this works.
...
The Secret Cause of Flame Wars
By Stephen Leahy
"Don't work too hard," wrote a colleague in an e-mail today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know (sarcastic), but I'm probably wrong.
According to recent research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I've only a 50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail message. The study also shows that people think they've correctly interpreted the tone of e-mails they receive 90 percent of the time.
"That's how flame wars get started," says psychologist Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago, who conducted the research with Justin Kruger of New York University. "People in our study were convinced they've accurately understood the tone of an e-mail message when in fact their odds are no better than chance," says Epley.
[...]
full at --
<http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=wn_index_2>
.d.
---------
<<<<<>>>>>
I knew one thing: as soon as anyone said you didn't need a gun, you'd better take one along that worked. --- R. Chandler