CONFLICT IN CYBERSPACE

How to Resolve Conflict Online
Have you ever noticed how conflict can get blown out of proportion online? What may begin as a small difference of opinion, or misunderstanding, becomes a major issue very quickly. Conflict can be difficult at the best of times, but what is it about online communication that seems to ignite “flaming” and make conflicts more difficult to resolve?

There are a number of reasons to explain why conflict may be heightened online. One is the absence of visual and auditory cues. When we talk to someone in person, we see their facial expressions, their body language, and hear their tone of voice. Someone can say the exact same thing in a number of different ways, and that usually effects how we respond.

For example, someone could shout and shake their finger at you, or they could speak gently and with kindness. They could stand up and tower over you, or they could sit down beside you. How you feel, interpret, and respond to someone’s message often depends on how they speak to you, even when it’s a difficult message to hear.

In online communications, we have no visual or auditory cues to help us to decipher the intent, meaning, and tone of the messenger. All we have are the words on a computer screen, and how we hear those words in our head. While people who know each other have a better chance at accurately understanding each others’ meaning and intentions, even they can have arguments online that they would not have in-person.

Projections and Transference
While many people are convinced that how they read an email is the only way it can be read, the truth is, how we read a text, or view a work of art, often says more about ourselves than it does about the message or the messenger.

All of our communications, online and in real-time, are filled with projections. We perceive the world through our expectations, needs, desires, fantasies, and feelings, and we project those onto other people. For example, if we expect people to be critical of us, we perceive other people’s communication as being critical - it sounds critical to us even though it may not be. We do the same thing online; in fact we are more likely to project when we are online precisely because we don’t have the visual or auditory cues to guide us in our interpretations. How we “hear” an email or post is how we hear it in our own heads, which may or may not reflect the tone or attitude of the sender.

We usually can’t know from an email or post alone whether someone is shouting, using a criticizing tone, or speaking kindly. Unless the tone is clearly and carefully communicated by the messenger, and/or we are very skilled at understanding text and human communication, we most likely hear the voice we hear, or create in our head and react to that. This is one of the reasons why controversial or potentially conflictual issues are best dealt with by using great care and explicit expressions of our tone, meaning, and intent.

Where do projections come from? They come from our life experiences - how we’ve been treated, how important figures in our lives have behaved, how we felt growing up, how we responded and coped, etc. All of us project or transfer our feelings and views of important figures in our lives onto other people.

To take a look at your own projections or transference with people online, think back to the last time you felt angry at someone online. What was it about them or their email that made you so angry? What did you believe that they were doing to you or someone else? How did you react internally and externally? Was your reaction to this person (whether spoken or not) influenced by someone or something from your past? While it certainly happens that people are treated with disrespect and anger online, if there are any parallels between this experience and any of your past experiences, it’s likely that how you felt and responded was coloured by your past. When our past is involved, particularly when we are unaware of it happening, we invariably project and transfer old feelings onto the present situation.


Disinhibition Effect
Conflict can be heightened online by what is known as the "disinhibition effect", a phenomenon that psychologist, Dr. John Suler, has written extensively about. Suler (2002) writes,

"It's well known that people say and do things in cyberspace that they wouldn't ordinarily say or do in the face-to-face world. They loosen up, feel more uninhibited, express themselves more openly. Researchers call this the "disinhibition effect." It's a double-edged sword. Sometimes people share very personal things about themselves. They reveal secret emotions, fears, wishes. Or they show unusual acts of kindness and generosity. On the other hand, the disinhibition effect may not be so benign. Out spills rude language and harsh criticisms, anger, hatred, even threats." (Suler, 2002)

Suler (2002) explains that the disinihibition effect is caused by or heightened by the following features of online communication:

a) anonymity - no one knows who you are on the net, and so you are free to say whatever you want without anyone knowing it's you who said it.

b) invisibility - you don't have to worry about how you physically look or sound to other people when you say something. You don't have to worry about how others look or sound when you say something to them. "Seeing a frown, a shaking head, a sigh, a bored expression, and many other subtle and not so subtle signs of disapproval or indifference can slam the breaks on what people are willing to express." (Suler, 2002)

c) delayed reactions - you can say anything you think and feel without censorship at any time, including in the middle of the night when you're most tired and upset, leave immediately without waiting for a response, and possibly never return - in the extreme this can feel to someone like an emotional "hit and run".

d) the perception that the interaction is happening in your head - with the absence of visual and auditory cues you may feel as though the interaction is occurring in your head. Everyone thinks all kinds of things about other people in their minds that they would never say to someone's face - online, you can say things you'd otherwise only think.

e) neutralizing of status - in face-to-face interactions, you may be intimidated to say something to someone because of their job, authority, gender, or race. Because this is not visible to you online, you feel freer to say what ever you want to anyone.

f) your own personality style may be heightened online - for example, if your communication style tends to be reactive or angry, you may be more reactive or angry online.

Tips for Resolving Conflict Online
What can be done to prevent unnecessary conflict in cyberspace? The following are tips for handling conflict online with respect, sensitivity, and care:

Don’t respond right away

When you feel hurt or angry about an email or post, it’s best not to respond right away. You may want to write a response immediately, to get it off your chest, but don't hit send! Suler recommends waiting 24 hours before responding - sleep on it and then reread and rewrite your response the next day.

Read the post again later
Sometimes, your first reaction to a post is a lot about how you're feeling at the time. Reading it later, and sometimes a few times, can bring a new perspective. You might even experiment by reading it with different tones (matter-of-fact, gentle, non-critical) to see if it could have been written with a different tone in mind than the one you initially heard.

Discuss the situation with someone who knows you
Ask them what they think about the post and the response you plan to send. Having input from others who are hopefully more objective can help you to step back from the situation and look at it differently. Suler recommends getting out of the medium in which the conflict occurred - in this case talking to someone in person - to gain a better perspective.

Choose whether or not you want to respond
You do have a choice, and you don’t have to respond. You may be too upset to respond in the way that you would like, or it may not be worthy of a response. If the post is accusatory or inflammatory and the person’s style tends to be aggressive or bullying, the best strategy is to ignore them.

Assume that people mean well, unless they have a history or pattern of aggression
Everyone has their bad days, gets triggered, reacts insensitively, and writes an email without thinking it through completely. It doesn’t mean that they don’t have good intentions.

On the other hand, some people pick fights no matter how kind and patient you are with them. They distort what you say, quote you out of context, and make all sorts of accusations all to vilify and antagonize you. Don't take the “bait” by engaging in a struggle with them - they'll never stop. Sometimes, the best strategy is to have nothing more to do with someone.

Clarify what was meant
We all misinterpret what we hear and read, particularly when we feel hurt or upset. It’s a good idea to check out that you understood them correctly. For example, you could ask, “When you said...did you mean...or, what did you mean by...?” Or, “when you said...I heard...is that what you meant?” Often times, what we think someone said is not even close to what they meant to say. Give them the benefit of the doubt and the chance to be clear about what they meant.

Think about what you want to accomplish by your communication
Are you trying to connect with this person? Are you trying to understand them and be understood? What is the message you hope to convey? What is the tone you want to communicate? Consider how you can convey that.

Verbalize what you want to accomplish
Here are some examples, “I want to understand what you’re saying.” “I feel hurt by some stuff that you said. I want to talk about it in a way that we both feel heard and understood.” “I want to find a way to work this out. I know we don’t agree about everything and that’s okay. I’d like to talk with you about how I felt reading your post.” “I hope we can talk this through because I really like you. I don’t want to be argumentative or blaming.’


Use “I” statements when sharing your feelings or thoughts
For example, “I feel...” versus “You made me feel...”

Use strictly feeling statements
Feeling statements include saying you felt hurt, sad, scared, angry, happy, guilty, remorseful, etc. In everyday conversations, we describe our feelings differently than this. For example, we say that we felt “attacked”, “threatened”, “unsafe”, or “punched in the stomach”. When the person we’re upset with is not present, or able to read our words, this is an understandable way to express the full depth of our feelings and experience. Generally though, these statements are not simply feeling statements because they contain within them unexpressed beliefs. For example, you believe that you were attacked by the person, not that it just felt that way. If you want to communicate with the person involved (or they can read your words), it is best to stick to simple feeling statements otherwise they will hear you as accusing them of attacking them and be angry or upset with you. Some people get confused why other people get upset with them when they think they are only expressing their feelings; usually in these cases there were unstated beliefs expressed which the person reacted to.

Choose your words carefully and thoughtfully, particularly when you’re upset
Do your best to keep in mind that the person will read your post alone. You are not physically or virtually present with them to clarify what you meant, and they can’t see the kindness in your eyes. They must rely entirely on your words to interpret your meaning, intent, and tone. This is why it’s important to choose your words carefully and thoughtfully. You can still be real and honest while being selective.

Place yourself in the other person’s shoes
How might they hear your message? To avoid unnecessary conflict or a lot of hurt feelings, it helps to take into account who you’re writing to. One person might be able to hear you say it exactly how you think it, and another person would be threatened by that style of communication. Think about the other person when writing your email or post. Do your best to communicate in a way that is respectful, sensitive, and clear to them. People often say, to do that feels like they’re being controlled and why shouldn’t they just write it the way they want to. Of course you can write it any way you want, especially online, but if you want to communicate with this person and have them hear and understand what you’re saying, it helps to think about how they will hear it.

Use emoticons to express your tone
In online communication, visual and auditory cues are replaced by emoticons, for example, smiles, winks, and laughter. It helps to use emoticons to convey your tone. Additionally, if you like the person, tell them! Having a conflict or misunderstanding doesn’t mean you don’t like the person any more, but people often forget that reality, or don’t think to say it. It may be most needed during a tense interaction.

Start and end your post with positive, affirming, and validating statements
Say what you agree with, what you understand about how they feel, and any other positive statements at the beginning of your email. This helps set a positive tone. End on a positive note as well.

The Paradox of Online Communication
Handling conflict constructively is hard at the best times, and it can be even harder online. It can take a great deal of effort, care, and thoughtfulness to address differences, tensions, and conflicts online. Paradoxically, some of the same things that contribute to heightened conflict online can contribute to peaceful resolutions as well. The internet is an ideal place to practice communication and conflict resolution skills. Just as the absence of visual and auditory cues, the anonymity, invisibility, delayed reactions, and neutralizing of status free us to say what ever negative thing we want, they can also free us to try new, and more positive communication styles and to take all the time we need to do that. As with any new technology, the internet can be used to enhance our personal growth and relationships, or to alienate us from each other. It’s our choice.


References:

Suler, J. (2002). The Online Disinhibition Effect. In The Psychology of Cyberspace (orig. pub. 1996), (article orig. pub. 1996)(Note from EOPC: REPORT REPORT REPORT anyone who stalks, flames, posts personal information and so on. Though it may be blown off - do NOT give up. Report in writing to:

- to site owner where the flame/ information was posted. Request removal.
- to the IP of the person who posted it (if known)
- to the owner of the platform where it is posted
- to the police precinct closest to the person who posted it
- to the FBI closest to the person who posted it
- file on IC3.gov (they currently have a 8-9 YEAR backlog)
- have people who know you write these places as well.

ONLINE TARGETING & HARASSMENT

by Aidan Maconachy

(excerpts)

Most internet harassment goes on in chat rooms, messageboards and newsgroups, also via email. Internet law has tightened up since the early free wheeling days when there were very few controls in place. For example it's become a federal crime in the US to anonymously "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person" via internet or other telecommunication systems. So it's on the books, if people choose to go after the bullies.

If you do become a target of harassment or defamation, stay cool. Don't react or get into a flame war with the people doing the harassing. Make a point though of keeping a record - emails, posted comments etc, along with dates, times and any identifying information that may come in handy at a later date.

Depending on the stealth method used, you might be able to acquire additional info about the source of the attack. Legitimate services such as "nslookup" and "tracert" enable users to track hosts, IP addresses and MAC addresses. There are also professional services you can enlist that use the information you provide to dig for additional info. Make sure they operate within the law, as some are little more than hackers-for-hire.

As in any ordinary case of harassment, it's important to build the case and gather the evidence. Don't release any of this material to the person you suspect is behind the abuse, until and if you are prepared to go the distance.

If you are concerned about your privacy and reputation, it may be advisable lower your profile. Often disengagement and non-reaction stops harassment because most cyber trolls and bullies get their jollies from the belief that they are ruining your life.

If there is no hidden history or baggage you are anxious to keep confidential i.e. criminal record or criminal activities, then continue to put your best foot forward.

It really comes down to the individual in the end. If you've nothing to hide - you have nothing to fear except fear itself.

This entire article can be read by clicking here

OUR VICTIMS WHO HAVE POSTED THEIR EVIDENCE
(all long but WELL WORTH A READ)
(because they have nothing to hide! their Cyberpaths do!)

Lissa Daly is a Cyberpath

Doug Beckstead: Predator

Masks of Sanity

Jason Capozello

(NOTE: What is really sad is that the Cyberpaths REFUSE to read these sites, or only come to EOPC to 'gather evidence' against their victims or apologize & own their behavior. They refuse because it conflicts with the twisted, whitewashed version of things they want to present to the world.

A blog by an exposed harasser:
CLICK HERE

Wonder who is telling the truth? Ask yourself -- what do the Victims above have to gain by admitting they got sucked in & used? Who tells the SAME story over & over - and WHO keeps rewriting, repositioning and revising their "versions of history?" And what do the Cyberpaths have to lose if the truth is out there?)

WHY PEOPLE ARE SUCH JERKS ONLINE

The concept of the flame war online is certainly nothing new. It's been around since before most people were even aware the internet existed. However, more people are starting to look into the issue of why people tend to be such incredible jerks online when they might be perfectly nice in person. It seems that there are few different things contributing to the effect.

First is that people somehow feel "disinhibited" when sitting behind a keyboard and monitor -- whether it's because of the supposed anonymity, the fact that you're effectively "invisible" or even the fact that there's a time lag between being a jerk and any response to it. The fact that you're somewhat separate from the response just makes it that much easier to be a jerk.

Some feel that it has even more to do with the lack of direct human contact in terms of either seeing hurt feelings or hearing someone's voice. There's just less empathy involved in seeing black and white text then seeing a physical reaction to being mean. Some of the latest research on this actually looked at how brains process messages during a conversation, and noted that in a normal conversation the person is tracking a variety of different cues in terms of how the other person is responding, and those cues help moderate what we say. Without any such cues when sitting behind a keyboard, you don't get any of the warning lights to moderate what you're saying, and the natural tendency is just to go right to the extreme edge without ever cooling off.

( EOPC has been dealing with a individuals - one on another discussion board where we occassionally posted; who have strung together a bunch of unrelated facts to try and indict us for our anonymity. Most of the facts revolve around victims we helped who they are trying to 'prove' is us. These victims went on to do a lot of work with DV victims like themselves. Unfortunately DV advocated attract just as many disordered naysayers who are desperate to place blame as we do. We are hanging in there.

If things like this are happening to you - take a breath and step back before you react to accusations or disordered or negative individuals (such as your cyberpath) who string together unrelated things in attempts to construct a 'gotcha' moment for you. If you try to defend yourself? These 'jerks' will take it as your 'admission of guilt' thereby setting up a no win situation for you. Stay in what you know to be truth and distance yourself from these types of people. We are.)

Of course, so far, it doesn't seem like the research is coming up with many good solutions to get people to moderate what they say online -- other than suggesting that using video communications might help. Other than that, perhaps just being more conscious of the fact that it really is a human being at the other end might help -- but so far that kind of "self awareness" hasn't caught on. And, even if it has, as long as one person in the group is unable to moderate his or her speech, it tends to set off many others as well.

INTERNET LURING

(While the original article deals with warning for children - we have amended it to read for adults, as well. A link to the original article is below - EOPC)

For generations it has been ingrained in us, time-honoured rule: "Don't talk to strangers."

But that rule has a new meaning now that people can talk to strangers all over the world via the internet.

Talking in chat groups and through e-mail isn't anything like talking over the telephone or meeting someone in person. There is no eye contact and there is no chance to pick up meaning from the cadence and rhythm of the human voice. People on the internet can log on using fake names, they can create whole new identities that are tough to challenge.

The scary thing is that many people who talk and chat on the Internet think it's perfectly safe.

But it's not.

An underage Canadian girl, who can't be named, received this e-mail from her "cyberpal."

I thought about you and what I would do if we were together and this happened when we had our baby... You are my inspiration and my soul! I can hardly wait til you're with me.
Love, your man Jason

Jason turned out to be 28-year-old Jason Wright from Washington state. He arrived at the girl's home in Victoria, B.C., and drove away with her.

Police caught up with them and charged Wright with abduction and sexual assault. Police say Wright had spent a night in a hotel with the girl.

They also found a notebook containing the names and e-mail addresses of other young girls in Canada and the U.S.

Wright was found not guilty of both charges.

In 2001, Ottawa proposed a new law that would mean a maximum five-year prison sentence for people caught using the internet to lure children. The law came into effect in July 2002 as part of an omnibus amendment to the Criminal Code.

But Bruce Headridge, a former detective with the Organized Crime Agency of B.C., says there's still a long way to go as the legal system tries to keep up with the quickly-evolving technology. (Needs to provide recourse and safety for lured adults as well!!)

Online safety rules

* Don't respond to flaming (provocation)

* Choose a genderless screen name

* Don't flirt online, unless you're prepared for the consequences. This is just like real life. Yes, you have the right to flirt. And you have the right to a sexy nickname. Sometimes it's better just to back off a bit and not exercise all your rights all the time.

* Save offending messages and report them to your service provider (and theirs)

* Don't give out any personal information about yourself or anyone else.

* Get out of a situation online that has become hostile, log off or surf elsewhere.

CyberBreach.com, set up by Headridge also suggests similar guidelines for online chats and e-mails.

(edited from the original)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Being 'Anonymous' Online Changes People's Behavior

Faceless communication online or over phone often turns nice people nasty
By Diane Mapes


(excerpts)
One minute, they’re nice, normal people. The next, they’re frothing at the mouse.

“It’s mind-boggling the things people will say and even the things I will say,” says Catherine McIntyre, a 38-year-old medical billing specialist from Houston. “People who’d never say something horrible in real life will do it again and again and again online. It’s like the behavior of crowds, or those mass beatings where no one gets blamed because everyone’s at fault.”

Sheri Pineda, a 59-year-old customer service representative at the Daily Breeze in Torrance, Calif., encounters the same bad behavior in the after-hours messages left by her newspaper’s subscribers.

“It’s appalling the way people talk,” Pineda says. “They’ll rant and rave and cuss at us with extremely foul language. And I think a lot them specifically wait until we close the phones. They’re looking to let it all out and then get on with their day. And then they’re surprised when I get back to them. They’re like, ‘You actually heard that?’ and will be embarrassed.”

Hello. You have reached the split personality zone. Press 1 to melt down. Press 2 to hang up and act like a normal person again.

I, anonymous
Between out-of-control customers, vituperative online posters and road-raging drivers, it’s hard to find an individual who hasn’t succumbed to the siren song of faceless, consequence-free communication. Online boards are clogged with insults hurled by readers hiding behind deceptively mild screen names — (“I hope you rot in hell!” signed Kittyface) — and customer service reps endure blistering tirades from disembodied voices week in and week out.

These days there are a dozen ways to communicate without actually having to look somebody in the eye. As a result, not only have we developed an abrupt, abbreviated way to chat (IMHO), but our technological advances have spawned new psychological terms such as “online disinhibition effect” to explain our tendency to open up — in both good ways and bad — when we’re sitting in front of a screen.

In a February 2008 study published in the journal Psychological Reports, researchers found that out of four groups of participants, only those in the anonymous group took part in antisocial behavior — in this case defined as violating rules to obtain a reward.

“I definitely believe that anonymity affects the frequency of antisocial behavior among individuals to some extent, even when these individuals have a reasonable sense of morality — so-called ‘ordinary people,’” says study author Tatsuya Nogami of Nagoya University in Japan.

“In my personal opinion, people generally try to comply with social norms in everyday life, even when such compliance with norms and rules conflicts with their personal self-interests. However, if you can get what you want without receiving any punishment or negative evaluations from others, are you still 100 percent sure that you’ll always refrain from engaging in that kind of undesirable behavior?”

Rage against the machine
...
McIntyre, the billing specialist from Houston, says the online news forums she’s participated in over the years have led her down many a dark and dysfunctional corridor.

“People get sucked in,” she says. “You can be whoever you want, you can put out there whatever you want, and there are no consequences. I even got sucked in and was mean to people. I consider myself better than that, but I did it too, and that bothers me. I guess it’s just the dynamic.”

Rider University psychology professor John Suler wrote about this dynamic in his 2004 paper “The Online Disinhibition Effect.” In it, he describes both toxic disinhibition — angry, threatening behavior such as that seen in flame wars or cyberbullying — and benign disinhibition, in which people make overly personal revelations due to the intimate nature of the medium. (Think online daters who “fall in love” without ever meeting.)

A lot of this effect has to do with feedback — or lack thereof, says Wallace.

“The environment affects how you behave,” she says. “Any time you go to places where you’re not known — even if it’s a hotel in another city — you might be more aggressive. So when you construct an environment like the Internet or long-distance call centers with a help desk worker in Bangalore, you’re creating an environment that facilitates uncharacteristic behavior.

You’re not getting those nonverbal cues that calibrate your behavior and give you feedback if you’re going off track. Those people who do customer service for Comcast probably need double doses of Zoloft.”

Cherise Oleksak, a 35-year-old cable TV customer service representative from Fife, Wash., says dealing with people’s disinhibited side can definitely be a challenge. Some scream and rage; others get a little more, uh, personal.

“You’ll get people who will turn into perverts,” she says. ”They’ll ask you out or ask you to do (FREE) phone sex. They’ll be like, ‘Can you read those pay-per-view adult movie titles out loud to me again?’”

Robin Taylor, 42, a customer care representative from Nashville, Tenn., says she’s seen this split, as well.
...

“I guess they feel they can say whatever they want because they’re anonymous, but the funny thing is we have all their information: their name, their address, their phone number, even part of their Social Security number.

Not that I would ever retaliate, but if we ended up with some psycho (employee), it could happen.”

Going public
Interestingly enough, some folks are starting to retaliate.

Surreptitious tape recordings of outrageously bad customer behavior have started to pop up on YouTube in all their profanity-laced glory.

In 2004, comedienne Margaret Cho posted dozens of hateful e-mail messages she’d received in response to a monologue on her Web site, along with each sender’s full name and e-mail address. Shamed — and deluged with their own hate mail from Cho’s fans — some posters sent in abject letters of apology.

In the online world, abusive users hiding behind anonymous screen names are being outed, sometimes to huge public embarrassment as when Whole Foods chief executive John Mackey was unmasked as the sock puppet responsible for posting numerous attacks against competitors on a Yahoo! financial message board.

And media sites from Sacramento to Soho are stepping up their moderation of anonymous comments in an attempt to keep the incivility down to a low roar.

“When we first started with online blogs and that sort of thing, people weren’t aware of how much the environment could affect their behavior, but now people are getting much more savvy about it,” Wallace says. “But the issue that needs to be considered now is there’s no privacy. People need to recognize that they just can’t send out these blogging responses and e-mails and expect their anonymity to be preserved. It probably won’t be.

Recording devices are everywhere and Web 2.0, with its user-generated content, greatly amplifies the Net’s power to expose and publicize.

“It also archives forever.”

(full article found here)

(please see our far right column for a few of the VICTIMS of Exposed Predators and how they fought back against smear and lies from the Exposed Predators)