Jump to content

Why do Science Labs threads become so controversial?


WestAir

Recommended Posts

Why do Science labs threads become so controversial?

A question for another thread I think.

This is that thread! Why do most debates and discussions in the science labs turn into a flame war or "I'm right you're wrong" back and forth? Why are non-aggressive conversations, in the Science Labs and by definition in human interaction, so hard to uphold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put; humans don't get along with one another very well, especially when the matter comes to events or topics to which the people discussing said events/topics have an interest in or claim to be knowledgeable about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big problem is when somebody thinks they know something when they actually don't. And then they get into an argument with someone who's the same way but with a different opinion. And then somebody tries to correct both of them and is hit with a baseball bat, then the two original fighters go back to arguing. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all Science Lab threads become heated, only some.

From what I see, it's from science topics that adjoin areas that people have strong, emotional and personal views. Views and opinions based on values. These adjoining areas are things like politics, ideologies, economics, culture, sociology and so forth.

Prime example here would be Climate Science. It is impossible for that topic to be separated from the political and ideological dimensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threads that go on purely scientific and engineering topics are fine.

Then a thread pops up on Mars colonization, and we have people saying its possible by 2050, people saying we could do it now, and a whole group of pessimists saying we aren't going to do it in our lifetimes. Simply, any thread that makes discussion if future space travel that invokes the slightest bit of politics is very vulnerable to descending into the chaos of a flame war or a argument. From what I see, people are very strong in their opinions in terms of monetary cost and the future, with clearly defined optimists who feel a urge and a rush to explore space, and the clearly defined pessimists who take a more laid back and slower approach to the space exploration effort. This causes a lot of issues with space colonization and other threads dealing with the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also the shield of anonymity. People are much more likely to say nasty things to you online then to your face, not because they are cowards, but because they have a harder time recognizing the respectable human being on the other end. The lack of connection people have without seeing a face, hearing a voice, etc-substantially impacts how they interact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also the shield of anonymity. People are much more likely to say nasty things to you online then to your face, not because they are cowards, but because they have a harder time recognizing the respectable human being on the other end. The lack of connection people have without seeing a face, hearing a voice, etc-substantially impacts how they interact.

The unnatural flow of conversation may be a factor here too. The incredible range of examples often cited must have some sort of adverse affect on how we process information.

Even if all the debaters were in completely remote locations, unable to see each other, logged into some kind of teleconferencing call, the debate would STILL look nothing like it does on the internet. There's got to be more to it than depersonalization. People simply do not talk that way in real-time.

What amazes me is that IRL arguments don't often get MORE aggressive, when people have the capacity to "out-yell" and interrupt one another whenever they want.

Edited by vger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree, Raven,

People in real life are certainly just as cruel, rude, and disrespectful in person as on the internet. I've had the rudest most unbelievable things said to me without prompt over the past few years - though in my defense I also work in an environment that introduces me to slightly more than 50-75,000 people / day, so I get to meet a large chunk of the population on the daily. Most people are very, very quick to jump on the "I'm offended" bandwagon for any perceived unfairness, confusion or insult. Mot people are prone not to believe you (and I'm going to cite you here, because chances are you don't believe more than 75% of the things I've typed here.) irregardless of truthfulness of your statements, and most people are quick to say "no" when put into a situation that confuses them.

I will add that this is also a cultural phenomenon. Other cultures, I'm talking primarily Asian ones like Japan, are perhaps the exact opposite. I've recently had the opportunity to spend the last three weeks in Japan and I can safely say that the "normal" personality is the direct opposite of the one found in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, WestAir, this may be relevant to the discussion. I hardly heard a peep about this since that "Googlezon" flash video from years ago. Amazingly, Yahoo actually wrote it.

http://news.yahoo.com/don-t-blame-college-kids-for-intolerance--blame-us-085916423.html?bcmt=1400810022977-a0f54dda-98d3-46e7-ac64-8aa72b5d61b4&bcmt_s=e#mediacommentsugc_container

Algorithms are constantly analyzing our behavior, looking for that which is most likely to catch our attention. The end result is we get constantly bombarded with information that we already agree with. Counter-arguments are automatically discarded, leaving us with a super-polarized outlook on the world.

Edited by vger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will add that this is also a cultural phenomenon. Other cultures, I'm talking primarily Asian ones like Japan, are perhaps the exact opposite. I've recently had the opportunity to spend the last three weeks in Japan and I can safely say that the "normal" personality is the direct opposite of the one found in America.

It's definitely a cultural problem. Most issues eventually boil down to standards in culture (ex. gun restriction laws, which are very impractical in the gun culture of much of the united states)

It's really unfortunate that in many places, kindness is viewed as a sign of weakness and disagreement in opinion is viewed as a direct insult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a question we moderators ask each other ALL. THE. TIME. :D

My theory: people who play KSP are used to being smarter and more informed about space science than the people around us in the outside world, and tend to voice our opinions as if they're fact. Then we come here and find ourselves conversing with some actual experts, and it can be hard to be reminded that we're not the always the smartest person in the room, and we don't know everything. Notice that I am including myself when I say this. Yes, a couple of times I have gotten all high-and-mighty and tried to insist that I was right, only to be smacked in the face with sound numbers presented by a true expert. If you're lucky, the guy proving you wrong is nice about it, but they aren't always, and it can be pretty unpleasant even if they are. And that, I think, is why discussions in the Science Lab tend to turn nasty.

The trick is to try to be open to the idea that you yourself can be wrong, and admit it. On that subject: Kasuha, you were right, and putting control surfaces of a heavy rocket did not stop it from tumbling end-over-end, as I was sure it would. And Temster and RoboRay, aerobraking is not as hazardous as I was convinced it would be, though that may still change when atmoshperic heating s added to the game. As for everybody else I have argued with, I am still right and you are still wrong! (Just a joke. Please don't get mad. :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a question we moderators ask each other ALL. THE. TIME. :D

My theory: people who play KSP are used to being smarter and more informed about space science than the people around us in the outside world, and tend to voice our opinions as if they're fact. Then we come here and find ourselves conversing with some actual experts, and it can be hard to be reminded that we're not the always the smartest person in the room, and we don't know everything. Notice that I am including myself when I say this. Yes, a couple of times I have gotten all high-and-mighty and tried to insist that I was right, only to be smacked in the face with sound numbers presented by a true expert. If you're lucky, the guy proving you wrong is nice about it, but they aren't always, and it can be pretty unpleasant even if they are. And that, I think, is why discussions in the Science Lab tend to turn nasty.

The trick is to try to be open to the idea that you yourself can be wrong, and admit it. On that subject: Kasuha, you were right, and putting control surfaces of a heavy rocket did not stop it from tumbling end-over-end, as I was sure it would. And Temster and RoboRay, aerobraking is not as hazardous as I was convinced it would be, though that may still change when atmoshperic heating s added to the game. As for everybody else I have argued with, I am still right and you are still wrong! (Just a joke. Please don't get mad. :D )

That was very very good, I couldn't find ONE point that could be disagreed with, well spoken friend, well spoken indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people just don't like being wrong period. I often find that its easier to convince somebody of my argument by asking them simple questions in the least offending tone possible, and giving them as much time as they need to work the answer out for themselves. This works largely because people do not continue to hold two contradictory beliefs once they realize it, but this assumes the person doesn't just shut down as they often do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people just don't like being wrong period. I often find that its easier to convince somebody of my argument by asking them simple questions in the least offending tone possible, and giving them as much time as they need to work the answer out for themselves. This works largely because people do not continue to hold two contradictory beliefs once they realize it, but this assumes the person doesn't just shut down as they often do.

Huh. You know, I was just thinking the other day how much I miss being able to learn things for myself. Childhood is a world of discovery, where you can learn something fascinating and new every day. And I don't mean by reading it in a book, I mean going out and finding it.

Now it somehow feels like everything has already been learned for me. Even kids today don't get that same kind of experience, because the data is already there at their fingertips.

And if I want to 'discover' anything else on my own? Even if it's something that's already been done, I'd need a lab worth millions of dollars and five different degrees.

Edited by vger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. You know, I was just thinking the other day how much I miss being able to learn things for myself. Childhood is a world of discovery, where you can learn something fascinating and new every day.

Now it somehow feels like everything has already been learned for me. Even kids today don't get that same kind of experience, because the data is already there at their fingertips.

And if I want to 'discover' anything else on my own? Even if it's something that's already been done, I'd need a lab worth millions of dollars and five different degrees.

I don't think there's really a limit to how much you can learn when you look at the whole wide world. It doesn't really have to be some fact of the universe, there are things to learn at any level. On a wider case, I recently learned that the maximum extent of the Mongol empire is comparable to the surface area of the moon. On a local case, I learned there's a turtle in the seasonal pond a little ways to the west of me, which I will be investigating in the near future. There's always something new out there.

I dunno if that counts for what you mean, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno if that counts for what you mean, though.

Yeah, I'm mostly talking about learning things through observation. I can learn countless things by reading about them, but it just doesn't have the same satisfaction as gathering the data for oneself, for the first time (even if it's just in my own head). I can't imagine what it must have felt like for someone like Darwin to visit the Galapagos and then get this incredible idea.

Though even in my own time, I did have my own little discovery that at least based on knowledge I had access to, was a new thing. My encyclopedia stated that dragonflies were incapable of walking. I was fascinated with them and spent hours observing them. At some point I saw one of them walk, and an unbelievable chill of excitement went up my spine. That moment in the my preteen years is probably the only time I will ever get to experience such a thing.

Edited by vger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. You know, I was just thinking the other day how much I miss being able to learn things for myself. Childhood is a world of discovery, where you can learn something fascinating and new every day. And I don't mean by reading it in a book, I mean going out and finding it.

Now it somehow feels like everything has already been learned for me. Even kids today don't get that same kind of experience, because the data is already there at their fingertips.

And if I want to 'discover' anything else on my own? Even if it's something that's already been done, I'd need a lab worth millions of dollars and five different degrees.

Well if you ever want to engage in this method and destroy a few of your existing beliefs sometime just PM me. You pick the topic, I'll ask the questions. Its a really effective method actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you ever want to engage in this method and destroy a few of your existing beliefs sometime just PM me. You pick the topic, I'll ask the questions. Its a really effective method actually.

Yeah, I think I saw you mention that in the other thread. I have noticed that in situations where people can learn something through their own reasoning, rather than just having it dictated to them, the knowledge seems to root itself far more effectively. That's probably one of the reasons that science labs stick out in my mind more than anything else that went on in school. We're naturally curious creatures, and curiosity doesn't get many opportunities to come out anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...