Ask HN: Why are people in real life so different?

For in-person discussions, we should probably factor in the nature and depth of the relationship.

For example, if I'm just chatting with someone at the park, I don't expect them to welcome a serious critique of views they espouse.

But if I've known that person for a long time, and we're invested in each other, then I'm more likely to challenge or at least discuss touchy matters.

Internet discussions, depending on the forum, tend to be somewhere in the middle. Being in a particular forum signals that people want to discuss certain topics. And anonymity allows a certain boldness, but it also means greater risk of being misunderstood or being treated uncharitably.

There's also the fact that when you're online there's a zero risk of being punched in the face when you say something the other person is likely to find unpleasant.

I was going to say it's mostly about the threat of physical violence (or lack thereof.)

- I think people are more likely to be polite in person (perhaps it is more obvious that retaliation might happen or perhaps it is just being socialised to different norms).

- In person, I think people are more likely to ‘fill the space’ in small groups and so the average thing that is said is low-entropy and polite whereas online (at least here) there is more of an attitude of only contributing when you have something to say and I think on average it is easier to have something to say that is critical than positive (and often there may be many unique seeming criticisms and fewer positive things even if the latter should carry more weight). In large groups where it is more likely that critical opinions may exist, I think people are just less likely to speak up in the real world.

- there may be more criticism online but that doesn’t mean the feedback is good online or in the real world. I think it’s very hard to tell apart the useful (ie good) feedback from the useless.

HN is a strongly self-selected group of people, with rules against bad-faith arguments. But you can find groups like that in real life too.

The special thing about online is that when an obscure topic comes up, someone from the 0.0001% of people with deep knowledge of that subject can chime in. That dynamic basically never happens IRL, because you need a million eyeballs.

Like, outside of NASA, where would you encounter such a cluster of people with specific knowledge as in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31136285 ?

The only bad faith argument I've ever seen on HN is calling any argument you disagree with and can't refute a "bad-faith argument".

> HN is a strongly self-selected group of people, with rules against bad-faith arguments

I'd love to see those rules enforced someday. There are plenty of examples of such arguments to be found here.

I meant for real, Dan - like bring down the ban hammer more forcefully. Let's get serious about cleaning up this place.

I think dang is already doing an inhuman amount of work. He's easily the most active and most thoughtful moderator I've ever seen. He's a machine. Hard to imagine how things can be better than it's now unless we overhaul then entire moderation model and make it more distributed, like Slashdot (not saying that Slashdot specifically is better; it isn't) .

You seem to be assuming that we don't enforce HN's rules. We do enforce the rules, but only on the posts we see. We don't see every post—there are too many.

You, or anyone, can help by flagging posts that break the site guidelines, and in egregious cases by emailing [email protected].

It's a bit of a balancing act. If you're too ban-happy you'll get an echo chamber (some would say that HN already is one) and if anything goes the trolls drive out serious participants. I think it's remarkable that the discussion here is as good as it is, compared to e.g. reddit or other forums.

There has to be a little room for jokes and sarcasm and "devil's advocacy," as that's part of how real people talk about things.

Agressivenes in moderation (hah) can be counterproductive. Also, everyone has a bad day once in a while.

I very rarely see a bad faith argument gain any traction and not get immediately shot down here. Not to say it doesn't happen, but IME it's more common that a bad faith argument gets called out and flagged than it is that the bad faith argument gets support and stands.

People don't feel guilt online, generally, because they either forget the person they are talking to is a vulnerable human, or they just imagine them as someone deserving of their vitriol.

However, as soon as they are sat in front of someone and are picking up on the visual clues in facial expressions and body language which make it clear that what they are saying is actually affecting a real person with feelings, almost everyone has a profound sense of empathy or guilt.

I agree with that assessment. Which means it should come as no surprise to anyone, if people are harsher online to people they literally do not know. It's not nice, but the alternative is also not very pleasant, which is real life and the constant misuse of status and lack of anonymity. Although it kind of creeped up to the internet as well.

In other words, our mirror neurons and empathy aren't made for online communication. On the Internet, we're all psychopaths.

> On the Internet, we're all psychopaths.

That might be the best one-line summary of the problems with social media I've ever seen.

Yes, in my experience. But the difference is somewhat diminished because even though you (mostly) don't see the people in person, you do get the benefits of a long term relationship. E.g., you get a better sense of what's safe to discuss candidly with each person, and in some cases you're invested in each other's welfare.

Yeah, I can see that. What I usually used to do when working remotely is to try to at least meet each coworkers once. Ideally, once a month to have lunch if they’re not too far away.

But, I feel like the in-person advantages far outweigh anything remote work has to offer. It’s so much better to build relationships with real physically close humans. It’s the best part of being alive I feel. Obviously YMMV, but we should acknowledge that hiding facial expressions with masks or behind internet tubes is not ideal and has major subsconcious implications for communication between humans.

One of the reasons why I love visiting Asian cities like Hanoi and Jakarta is that people are less allergic to being close to each other. Complete opposite of Sweden and some parts of US.

It could, but you don’t get a paycheck from online forums. Remembering that someone is paying you will sometimes work to curb excessive misbehavior.

On social media, thousands see your post but only a few react. They're the ones that found your post much more interesting than the average person who saw it.

In real life, only a few people hear what you say but they feel socially obligated to react in some way. So you get bland, polite reactions. They're the people that, if they'd seen your post on social media, wouldn't have replied at all.

In a nutshell: on social media, you broadcast to a huge potential audience, and your actual audience chooses you. In real life, your ideas only get to a small number of people who may not have chosen to listen to you. The interest levels of these two audiences are naturally very different.

Uncritical of what? I avoid talking about religion and politics with everyone (family, co-workers, acquaintance) for obvious reasons.

Ignoring those hot button issues, I still need to be careful not to be critical of people.

- At work I've had a co-worker nearly get fired for telling another she "doesn't know what she's talking about". He got "written up" but ended up finding a better job a short time later. - At work I need to avoid certain words that might be viewed as a "micro aggression". - I need to avoid offending certain family members or they'll start yelling or storm out. Some family members get super offended if you make any kind of suggestion on how they can fix a given problem. - Around strangers I need to avoid anything that might piss someone off and have them retaliate with force. I once honked at a car for not moving during an advance green and he followed me for miles. (The guy was flashing his lights and flipping me off the whole time).

— Some family members get super offended if you make any kind of suggestion on how they can fix a given problem.

Some members of the species aren’t really looking for a fix when they are complaining about something but just need to vent. Life is much simpler if you simply nod and say “oh, that’s horrible”.

> Some family members get super offended if you make any kind of suggestion on how they can fix a given problem

Unsolicited advice is generally offensive. If they wanted your advice on how to fix their problems they would ask you. If they don't and you go ahead anyway then you imply that you are superior to them and just come off as obnoxious.

>Unsolicited advice is generally offensive. If they wanted your advice on how to fix their problems they would ask you.

It is not generally offensive to offer a suggestion about how to solve a problem, what's offensive is abusing people time by rehearsing the same complaints over and over again while ignoring any kind of solution. If they whine constantly about a problem but never seek any way to solve it, it is just attention-seeking behavior.

>If they don't and you go ahead anyway then you imply that you are superior to them and just come off as obnoxious.

No. It implies that the person has already had the problem and solved it successfully or they have the knowledge to solve it successfully or they are trying to brainstorm what they would do.

The simple answer: online lacks all the visual and aural feedback mechanisms that are automatic in face-to-face interaction. That radically changes how people act.

All the social norms that have 100,000 years of biological and sociological development that are kept in-check by visual feedback from others around us are taken away online.

This also applies to things like sales - face-to-face direct sales is far more efficient and effective than doing the same by phone or online. You can close deals far higher $$ amounts face-to-face because people can "read" each other. Online works just fine for simple, low $, low risk transaction - that's Amazon's sweet spot, for instance.

I've been in high tech sales for 30 years - with early experience at HP selling test equipment with average selling price (ASP) of $20K-$1M. I'm still in that general market. The sales training you get at Fortune 20 companies addresses most of this difference both directly and indirectly. The latter in includes noticing how direct sales works and what can be sold that way vs. what can not with telephone and online sales (the risk level of $1M piece of equipment even for the largest corporations absolutely requires a lengthy face-to-face process).

Any big lessons learned throughout this time? Or books / practices you would suggest? I'm trying to sell some cheap software to primarily people in one industry (ecommerce) would you suggest getting in a video call being the most effective strategy?

I do recall being at a dinner back in the '80s, where someone starting going on about how evil a MUG player was because he killed so many personae (particularly his own) and what he'd do if he ever met said person in RL.

At which point, someone else said "That's him sitting over there" pointing to a player on the opposite side of the table. Next thing it was "Wow, really pleased to meet you!".

It was a lasting lesson to me about what people say online and how they actually behave in RL (and taught me to ignore people saying they would firebomb my house if they didn't get their points back).

Unfortunately there are unstable people who get really confused between RL and what goes on in their head; the media have a field day with them.

The main reason is that almost all content online comes from people who are mentally ill. Commenting or creating anything online is really weird. Normal people don't do this, so you're interacting with a very different group of people on your computer than in real life.

> people in real life seem so much more complacent and uncritical compared to people online

This is just to avoid conflict. I'm sure they feel the same way internally

>The main reason is that almost all content online comes from people who are mentally ill.

I wasn’t brave enough to say this, but since you have, I want to agree. Gaming, Discord, forums, etc - filled to the brink with mentally ill individuals.

We have a word for people who live life read-only, consuming their surroundings - NPCs. Not sure who's really mentally ill in this situation.

In my case, I'm able to express my opinions better while writing than talking. I had vocal and speech defects in childhood that made me a hesitant talker. Though they improved over the years, the mental inhibitions have persisted.

Another (more recent) reason for my multiple personae is that I hold some unwelcome views about politics, society, religion etc. They can result in actual physical harm or state intimidation where I live.

So not only do I have different personae in real life and virtual, but I have multiple virtual personae too for different interest areas. The anonymous ones are where I'm most open and honest.

To quote a great pugilist who recently laid his hands on someone outside of the ring (and not for the first time), I think the answer is really simple:

"Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it."

A similar quote I love from Conan the Cimmerian: "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

#1 skin in the game.

In person interactions can have greater immediate consequences than online actions. If someone is in your social group, you might see them again and have to deal with the consequences of actions/behavior. Positive impressions can reward you in the future.

#2 Reputation and anonymity

You can't easily reboot your IRL identity and reputation, but usually can on forums like HN

> skin in the game

Literally. If people acted IRL the way they do online, there'd be a major uptick in face punches.

Which means the internet is the better place to be for any person. The problem is usually if one side is not anonymous, then it's different, otherwise anything is fair game in regards to discussions I think, but maybe you find a good counter example.

It's impossible to convince most people of even the most obvious truths. The wisest path is to fake agreement, keep your thoughts for yourself and move away ASAP.

Online it seems you can get away with more honest talk without consequences. Or at least it used to. Now it's getting more like offline.

> It's impossible to convince most people of even the most obvious truths.

You should maybe ask yourself why you need to convince them.

> The wisest path is to fake agreement, keep your thoughts for yourself and move away ASAP.

That's not wise, that's dishonest to the other person and to yourself. The last part (avoiding the other person) is obviously a completely valid option, but only one of several.

That's not wise, that's dishonest to the other person and to yourself.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Befriending someone makes it easier to convince them of something.

Not sure why you think I want to convince anybody. The original poster asked why people seems so conformist IRL, as oppossed to online. I just explained that most people learned that being Don Quixote is dangerous.

Loud minorities. You only notice the bad parts.

Hiding behind a pseudonym/anonymity allows people to hold back less.

You probably don't talk much to teens/children irl. You do online.

Less / no social repercussions to being a cunt.

People who are bitter and angry and troll on forums may not go outside much irl, so you don't meet them.

If you are outside the US, you get to experience the exported political polarization from the US which you may not have where you live.

Because people don’t want physical violence and - tbh - have you ever been in a heated discussion before? Sometimes it does result in physical violence.

There’s also an aspect to online discussion where there’s a naturally slower cadence. Things can escalate very quickly offline because you’re physically there and engaged. You’re incentivized to not escalate it cause pain/damage. People escalate very quickly for no reason all the time. I’ve experienced the result of this first hand plenty - again, people are horrible at managing their emotions. Most people are not really any smarter than a three year old when it comes to managing their emotions - they just put up a big barrier to make it seem like they’re better at it. When violence is a subtext - like a dog that might bite you - you’re cautious about your approach and try to build trust before you do shit that could get you bit. Online - people face no repercussions and will escalate because no consequences.

Tbh - if there were consequences then people wouldn’t say shit as much. Some people here will point out FB/Twitter comments but I really want you to think about that - are there really any significant consequences except for celebs? For most people - their shit isn’t read and no one is going to read what they said in the past. If you change that dynamic - people will change their behavior online. If it becomes clear how many times Jim said the n-word negatively towards some folks online - he’d be socially outcasted and a loner for life. But most people just don’t know… thus Jim does not suffer and does whatever he pleases without issue.

I’ve seen this in forums with many real names attached. If you’re not going to see or be affected by someone - you just don’t give af because why should you? Being nice to your common man that you don’t know? What am I, a good person? No! Also - niceness isn’t rewarded on the Internet very often due to the prolific amount of trolls living in BFE with nothing better to do. (Know many of these people. People forget how boring most of the US is. We don’t all live in major cities with great attractions)

Introduce different scenarios to get unpredictable results from people whom you may easily have prejudged as mature, critical, or patient (to use some of your own words) such as:

road rage

committee membership

sports parenting

online activity

> What's your experience with people online vs in real life?

I've seen my fair share of 'Keyboard Warriors'[0] over the years. For some reason people feel more empowered once there's a keyboard there, because hey, computers are cool, let's ride that wave.

[0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Keyboard%20W...

It’s not just keyboards. People feel empowered to behave more aggressively when they are in anonymous (or perceived-to-be anonymous) situations. You see it in driving, people behave very differently behind the wheel, and their aggressiveness goes up when they’re alone in the car vs being observed by people they know.

In the limit I think this probably comes down to primate dynamics regarding in vs out-groups.

You think people feel empowered because computers are cool? I think it's more likely because of the (pseudo-)anonymity. When people are unafraid of the consequences, as there would be if you acted like a jerk in person, they're more likely to be nasty. A similar phenomenon can be observed on the road - people feel safe in their cars - hence "road rage".

Online, you only see people with strong opinions, that actively decide to take part in the discussion. You don’t see the people silently scrolling by the comments. In real life (in Most Social situations), people are physically near and feel obliged to talk to others, even if they don’t really want to.

I don't understand why comments so far are talking about people online being inconsiderate. I'm talking about the opposite. Was my post unclear?

If not unclear then by far unrepresentative of the internet as a whole. People on the internet are way more likely to be garbage variety drive by haters that seem to cling to mildly controversial topics like it's their sole outlet for aggression.

The only reason that civility could be retained is when there's strong representational or economic incentives to do so.

If you're on Facebook? (Wouldn't know since I've been off their stuff for years), one irrationally bad comment could have a lasting stain on your future representation. People defriend/mute you, and though it may not mean anything to you, it's definitely a negative incentive for a lot of people who attribute much too much emphasis of a snap decision a peer did out of boredom/indifference.

Secondly, economics. If you're a person accumulating weath as a function of influencer/content creator in all its many forms, you're usually a "nice" or an ass-hole persona. If you're the nice person attracting an audience around optimism, showing up to dump drama on your people will start to polarize your communities. Think of the notable people on the internet and think of those that skirt the line. There probably aren't many you can point to that are equal parts positive/pot stir.

It's the same root cause, I think: offline, you have much more context, plus intonation and body language, which lead to the expectation that you will be better understood. Online, it's hard to forget this is absent if you are not careful. The results can go either way.

Your post was clear, however I think most people disagree with your observation.

Maybe you preceive things differently than others...

The experience of communicating online is a very impersonal one: I type what I want to say in a square box and off it goes. I can’t hurt the feelings of my audience if I can’t even comprehend who that audience will be.

There’s also the anonymity aspect in some venues, which further removes behavioral barriers. If I can’t be blamed/identified in real life then the consequences of my online speech are null and there’s no incentive to not troll or “talk my real feelings out”.

Basically we all have a “dark” side: opinions, prejudices, and ideas that are deeply repressed by our need to conform in society. Online there’s no need to conform to anything.

In real life you see a real human's body language and can see if you are upsetting them by being critical, which may make you uncomfortable and cause you to hold back.

On the Internet I can bash anyone on any topic without obvious indicators that there is a real human being on the other end of the conversation that I may be hurting.

Also this community tends to attract contrarians who believe they know better that the majority of people on many topics, for better or worse.

People who comment or make content online represent a very small minority - maybe a few percentage depending on the platform. That is decidedly not a representative sample.

Being anonymous make it easier for people to express their "true self", and there's more empathy when you actually see people you're talking with.

While this is sometimes true, I like to think the nastier elements are an emergent side effect of the medium, and not some "true self". Maybe it's an aspect that's suppressed in polite society, but not the whole personality.

I might be naive.

You're anonymous on the streets in a big city too, but people don't become their "true selves" just because of that. On the other hand, swathes of the internet are not anonymous, and that doesn't stop immaturity.

I'm not convinced by this argument.

It is not easy to see the humanity of someone over the internet. In real life, we realize that 'others' are just like us and that the differences are minuscule.

Firstly, online communities are usually less comparable to all of your IRL social surroundings, and more comparable to special-interest conferences, festivals, or other places where many somewhat more like-minded people with a shared context meet. There's definitely a lot of self-selection going on here.

Secondly, I believe there's a flipside to many of the things that can go wrong when interacting online. Maybe if you read something without knowing the other person, and without having a ten-year history with them, and you can re-read and take time to ponder your answer, it also allows you to be more thoughtful and not let all the baggage people have with each other in the way?

To answer this scientifically, you would need to observe the same sample of people both offline and online. If you compare conversations with people you work with or chose to socialize with to conversations between random strangers on the internet, you have a pretty clear difference between your experimental and control groups.

People communicating in person to tend to be more likely to avoid conflict and insults. (I think this is because it's easier to walk away from an online conversation, while you're stuck with someone in physical space). But in my experience, a jerk is a jerk. Online or offline.

I think overly confrontational people gets isolated sooner or later. There are certain times and places to talk more serious or pungent themes… like parties or sharing a beers or whatever, but not every single time you meet.

I think it's because of an ill-perception about what online forums are. They are not meant to be like real life, they are places for debate. When people debate they take stances that don't necessarily match their beliefs, and that's normal. Every online conversation is derailed because people let their emotions take over instead of remaining detached and treating it as a game. And while people can disagree impolitely, once they stand up from the table they are not going to kill each other.

Anonymity allows you to be freed from your inhibitions. If statements in real life were made as callously then people might fear for their employment, housing situation, family issue, schools, etc., being impacted in some manners. Those enforce boundaries that your inhibitions generally restrain you from breaking. As you get older then you are less restrained due to lack of boundaries. 2 cents.

I think many things but I'd say speed of conversation is a big one. On the internet, I think we give people more time to respond than in person. An email, a few days. A HN post, a few minutes to hours. A text message, a few minutes to a few hours. In person? Often a few seconds at most. (Maybe on phone or video call as well)

I think the immediacy can make it scarier for many of us to respond.

It's because the disincentives aren't the same. This is a stupid question, but I'd never say that to your face :)

HN is the only community in the world where you will receive positive reinforcement for being disagreeable and contrarian. That's partly because we have a high diversity here, and a norm again downvoting to express disagreement - which means there will almost always be someone around to upvote a well-researched comment.

I think there's definitely self-selection, the anonymity effect, and the fact that when people say things online they're usually in a safe place and have time to ruminate.

Mostly you just need to catch certain people at the right time to have those kinds of discussions.

Do you actually feel that there is more "real listening" happening online?

On line anonymity allows every one to act like that one dad on the sideline of his kids game cursing out the refs.

I read somewhere that “give people a mask and they would reveal their true self” and seems to answer my most of the questions when I find some online forum very toxic.

Topics of conversation are usually different in real life. They are mundane and rarely controversial.

Online conversation topics frequently lead to heated opinions.

It isn't about the threat of physical violence, I think it has to do with replying to a broader sense that exists out there while in person you first have to build up that sense with the person you're talking to and this takes more effort and time and so necessitates different behaviours. Text is imo the main factor, if we switch to audio people behave more like in real life.

The people in my real life are not like you describe and they're much more intelligent than most HN goers. I use HN and other sources for volume on-demand, not quality. i.e. I get a higher quality of discussion out of my friends, but I can't drop-in to one of those 3 minutes before my next meeting (or, like now, while I'm waiting for my parents in the Whole Foods parking lot).

This is actually my biggest reason why I like cities: friends like these are all close by.

“Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it,” Mike Tyson.

The "punch" here is metaphorical and could be any stakes that the person would be at risk of losing: social etc.

It's not quite true in my observation. Many RL people are much more aggressive. Many are less.

I think people portray themselves differently in different contexts. Everyone is a caricature, but which side they emphasize depends on who's watching. Someone might be a skirt chaser among college friends, a board game freak on Instagram, and a virtue signaler on LinkedIn. It's still the same person, with the same opinions.

The other side of the coin is algorithms. I like chess memes and basically the internet will highlight all of my friends who are into chess memes. When I'm angry at anti-vaxxers, suddenly everyone else is. Whenever I complain about the drop in KFC quality, I find that everyone I know is just furious about KFC.

It's why I stopped using FB and Twitter; it's basically a warped mirror. Plus the algorithms encourage being a caricature. It's the PewDiePie effect - the difference between a gamer and a millionaire celebrity gamer is that the celebrity is always hyperactive and screaming at stuff. There's also a kind of tribal effect in play.

it's not strange at all. We are different when we are in different environments.

It is obviously online is different from offline. Usually, online brings our inner character out.

If you learn Buddhist, this is very easy to understand.

See this: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theo...

> The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (GIFT) is a postulate which asserts that normal, well-adjusted people may display psychopathic or antisocial behaviors when given both anonymity and a captive audience on the Internet

Also there is spell-check and programs that correct your grammar, so people seem well read and articulate but it's things like Grammarly that are making them seem 'Highbrow'.

Worth noting that most communication is done asynchronously meaning people have loads of time to articulate their feelings and post perfect replies, whereas in real life we have a short real-time window to articulate our thoughts.

the incentives are different online vs. irl.

very few folks are comfortable being the [nerd, asshole, dweeb, etc] in real life. being labeled as not nice, will exclude you from social activity.

when people go out, they just want to relax and being critical is hard work, plus many of them know they are bad, so they shy away from it.

online your words is all you have, so you have to rep yourself harder to stand out.

in the real world, your looks can get you far in both directions.

Real time vs taking the time to think and form an argument perhaps has an effect?

In real life you fear offending people you already know. For example I personally hate [insert company here] for multiple reasons, but I'm not going to express that in person in front of a friend or acquaintance I know who works there because it's likely irrelevant to the context under which I made a connection with that person.

There are routinely two groups of people I can speak total truth to, and those are (a) total strangers, and (b) very close friends. Online forums fall in the former category, as do random people who chat me up on trains that I know I will never see again.

Anything in-between requires some tiptoeing here and there.

In real life you have to work with what you've got and act friendly with everyone. On the internet, I can let my real self go and find people I actually like and see a future with.

The way I see it: You are different people on different media. The environment and participants might also change you like day an night.

There is a real world consequence if people in person act like how they act online. Anonymity makes people act like monkeys since there is no consequence. There are still people who use their real names online and act like morons but they are a minority and have low IQ.

In the real world, there is always a low level threat of violence that keeps people in check. People get bolder as the threat of violence approaches zero.

In the civilized world, men will not be so quick to argue fiercely with other men as the probability of a violent outcome is higher. Contrast with women, who will often verbally assault without limit, simply because they enjoy the benefits of the fact that it is not as socially acceptable for a man to pound their face in, and because other women are not as likely to resort to violence.

It is ironic that the threat of violence is necessary to keep society peaceful and civilized in a scalable way.

I don't see it as particularly ironic. It's more recognizing that violence is fundamentally part of being alive. We can look to nature and history for plentiful examples. Violence, human or otherwise, can't ever be eliminated, so the only alternative is to harness it. Various civilizations have been more or less successful at this. Without the threat of violence, the law itself is nothing more than a set of polite suggestions.

In real life, there are things we are told not to talk about in polite company - money, religion and politics. Besides that, “over sharing” makes people uncomfortable.