Cyberdisinhibition

I wonder, from time to time, why negative emotions seem to dominate exchanges on blogs and in email. I have a relative who I see once or twice a month – we talk nice and are friendly. But he sends me this awful right wing stuff that makes the rounds, and I respond in a negative fashion. It’s as if we are Jekkyl & Hyde, and it makes me feel weird.

Take this exchange over at mtpolitics.net. Craig was making the point that racism comes in many colors – what followed was negative energy – I try to imagine how the exchange would have happened had each participant been sitting on a dais with a microphone, a moderator presiding.

Anyway, here’s an article from the book “What’s Your Most Dangerous Idea”, edited by John Brockman. It’s a collection of essays solicited from scientists of all stripes.

Cyberdisinhibition
by: Daniel Goldeman, psychologist

The Internet undermines the quality of human interaction, allowing destructive emotional impulses freer rein under specific circumstances. The reason is a neural flake that results in cyberdisinhibition of brain systems that keep our more unruly urges in check. The tech problem: a major disconnect between the way our brains are wired to connect and the interface offered in online interactions.

Communication via the Internet can mislead the brain’s social systems. The key mechanisms are in the prefrontal cortex. These circuits instantaneously monitor you and the other person during a live interaction, automatically guiding your responses so that they are appropriate and smooth and ordinarily inhibiting impulse for actions that would be rude or simply inappropriate – or outright dangerous.

In order for this regulatory mechanism to operate well, you depend on real-time, ongoing feedback from the other person. The Internet has no means of allowing such real-time feedback (other than rarely used two-way audio/video streams). That puts our inhibition circuitry at a loss; there is no signal to monitor from the other person. This results in disinhibition: impulse unleashed.

Such disinhibition seems state specific and typically occurs rarely while people are in positive or neutral emotional states. That’s why the Internet works admirably for the vast majority of communication. Rather, this disinhibition becomes far more likely when people feel strong negative emotions. What fails to be inhibited are the impulses those emotions generate.

(snip)

As with any new technology, the Internet is an experiment in progress. It’s time we considered what other such downsides of cyberdisinhibition may be emerging – and time we looked for a technological fix, if possible.

The dangerous thought: The Internet may harbor social perils that our inhibitory circuitry was not evolutionarily designed to handle.