| 5 Nov 2021 |
 Irenes | you're asking if I can see reasons why people who are opposed to the RFC would not express that? | 02:34:24 |
 tomberek | Yes. | 02:34:34 |
| Irenes | I can. For example, fear of becoming a target, whether justified or not, is very prevalent in the world right now. | 02:34:56 |
| Irenes | but anyway, my point is that negativity dominates these discussions by default | 02:35:44 |
| Irenes | so the fact that so many people took the time to speak out positively | 02:35:55 |
| Irenes | is a very strong signal to me | 02:35:59 |
| Irenes | the bias towards not speaking out to say negative things is far outweighed by the advantage that negative things have, once said | 02:36:26 |
| Irenes | again, just look at the world around us right now, at everybody constantly criticizing everybody else (a state of affairs which I find terrifying) | 02:36:52 |
| Irenes | it transcends partisan lines | 02:37:08 |
| Irenes | when people say critical things about people or ideas, that gets traction in a way that praise doesn't | 02:37:34 |
| Irenes | and that's true regardless of what the ideas are | 02:37:47 |
| tomberek | I'll provide a thought here. Negativity and fear have similarities. "Fight or flight". I'd suggest that much of the behavior and reactions that we have seen follow that pattern. | 02:39:24 |
| Irenes | I am in full agreement | 02:39:46 |
| Irenes | please note that this happens no matter how much work I put in to showing good faith, because it's too easy to conceive of me as a partisan stereotype | 02:40:17 |
| tomberek | And that many of the rants and bans have been a "fight" response, and due to the invisibility of online communication, we will tend not to notice those who "flight". | 02:40:51 |
| Irenes | sure. | 02:40:59 |
| Irenes | and normally, it's the "flight" response which creates the strong bias towards negativity | 02:41:24 |
| Irenes | which, again, is why I found the amount of positivity on the RFC to be such a strong signal | 02:41:37 |
| tomberek | Would that tend to under-represent the rational opinions that are opposing the RFC? | 02:41:39 |
| Irenes | rational or not, that isn't the point | 02:41:49 |
| tomberek | okay, bad word.... but that it would lead to under-representation in general? | 02:42:12 |
| Irenes | I believe I already answered that, but to say it again, the bias towards not speaking out to say negative things is far outweighed by the advantage that negative things have, once said | 02:42:25 |
| tomberek | Ah... one sec.... parsing...... | 02:42:54 |
| Irenes | sorry about that, I wasn't trying to be obscure | 02:43:19 |
| tomberek | I'm not following the: advantage that negative things have, once said. Or how that outweighs the bias towards not speaking. | 02:44:02 |
| Irenes | right, so I didn't get to quite finish one of my thoughts, above, so I'll do so now | 02:44:21 |
| Irenes | negativity forms stronger memories for people | 02:44:30 |
| Irenes | therefore, when a person decides how they feel about a conversation, their feelings about the negativity will dominate | 02:44:47 |
| Irenes | this is unpleasant | 02:44:53 |
| Irenes | and leads to that "flight" response you mentioned | 02:44:59 |
