Online disinhibition effect

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think the question is not properly put. People always want to compare things, that one is better or worse than the other, or more this or that. It's an attempt to pin the difference between two things to one salient property, and explaining the difference in terms of that one quality. It's a form of reasoning, simplifying your understanding of a phenomenon down to one dependent variable, and tracing all effects to that one underlying variable; it's a form of modeling — creating a simplified version of the phenomena such that it appears clear how that one factor gives rise to the differences. For simple phenomena, like in physics, if the behavior of the systems that give rise to the phenomena is reasonably simple, a simplified model can result in an accurate understanding of the phenomena. For really complex phenomena, like social interaction, minds, economies, and political systems, the simplifications tend not to work, many times leading to false constructs — conceptual packagings of behavior — that are as much wrong as they are right. In comparing real life interactions to interactions on the internet, you can't make a meaningful straight up comparison between the two on one criteria without greatly distorting the truth. I'm different here than I am on irc / chat, I'm different there than I am with my sisters, and I'm different there than when I'm alone with only one of them, and I'm different then than with them and my brother-in-law; I'm different in a group than I am with a single person; I'm different with my scholarly philosophy group than I am with Julie & Gina at atheist events, and again different than I am at my poetry group (I make a lot of jokes both times, but the type of humor is different). Am I different on the internet than I am in real life? Yes. Can that difference be stated and explained in terms of one factor, disinhibition? No. If anything, I'm more inhibited here in some ways because there's more permanence and accountability to my behavior here.

I will also point out that I don't put any stock in the concept of there being a "real me." Different aspects of my personality and abilities emerge and converge dependent on the occasion. There is no "core" personality that you will get at by peeling back the layers of inhibition. Daniel Dennett has likened consciousness to a "bag of tricks." I would say personality and social interaction is similar; who I am simply depends on which specific combination of tricks I pull from my bag full of tricks, in response to my feelings, needs, and the circumstance. Note that along this metaphor, someone like Ivy who is more successful at social interactions than I am simply has a different bag of tricks, and is able to employ her bag of tricks to effects that I am not able to do so. On the other hand, my ability to make impromptu graphics expressing how I feel, and my ability with words, are tricks that another member can't as readily draw upon in forum interactions. Does that make Ivy less inhibited than me, and me less than that third person? No, of course not.

I recognize the impulse to create simplified models of social interaction, it's part of what makes humans unique; but there comes a time when you realize you are oversimplifying, and losing key aspects of the phenomena in the process.

Some people have more difficulty with integrity than others.