Online Negativity and How to Deal With It

It seems that on many of the networks and lists on which I participate, there’s been an issue with “negativity” lately. Many have had members leave because of the negativity that they perceive.

You know, I would never be one to come out “in defense” of negativity. It frustrates me as much as it does anyone here, and those of you who have been around a while know that I’ve dealt with more than my share of it as a moderator (going on four years as a network leader).

On the one hand, I can understand why people wouldn’t voluntarily choose to be in a place where negativity prevails.

On the other hand, I also recognize that these communities are a microcosm of the rest of the business world. Here, you can learn to deal with difficult people in a low-risk environment. In small doses, it’s almost like a training ring for dealing with difficult people face-to-face. And if you can’t deal with them here — ignore them or confront them, as appropriate — how can you expect to be able to deal with them in the real world?

As much as I am “shocked and dismayed” at some of the negativity I’ve seen, I’m equally “shocked and dismayed” at how quickly and easily some people take things personally that aren’t personal, or stop participating because one or two people are being difficult. You don’t have to invest a lot of time to speak your truth — you just have to stand up and be counted. I think there’d be a lot less of all that negativity if a lot more people would let their voice be heard, even once.

I have been told by some that I am tolerant and forgiving to a fault — I’ve put up with difficult people on my networks longer than other moderators might, and longer perhaps than some of the other members might like. But I believe that *I* grow through that process of forgiving and trying to understand and communicate effectively with some of those difficult people.

I’ve certainly seen people cross the limits of acceptable behavior, both in public and many messages I’ve been forwarded in private. When people do clearly cross that line, there have to be consequences, and at some point that includes ejecting them from a network and eventually from Ryze.

What I’ve also seen, though, is people who I believe, based on private conversation, are sincerely trying to get at “the truth” — by sharing what they know and perhaps by learning something new. Their style can seem abrasive at first glance (OK, even at second glance), but if you react to the abrasiveness with more of the same, the conversation devolves into the kind of situations we’re talking about. I also know from first-hand experience that if you agree with them on the common goal — the discovery of truth, and focus on that, the entire tone of the conversation changes.

It takes two (or more) people for a conversation to degrade into a downward spiral. Who is responsible when a conversation does that? The person who bumped up against “the line” several times? The person who finally crossed it? Or each and every person who takes a step down the spiral instead of back up?

It doesn’t relieve the other person of their responsibility for us to look at the situation and ask, “What part did *I* play in that? What can I do differently to change this situation?”

So this is not “in defense” of negativity. Nor am I suggesting that other group leaders should adhere to the standards I have chosen.

But what I DO recommend is to not just merely shy away from or avoid that negativity when you see it. Confront it, challenge it, challenge yourself to speak your truth even in the face of negativity. Challenge yourself to be at your best even when others are at their worst.

Stand up and speak your truth, rather than blaming others when the conversation deteriorates into negativity. Rather than expecting moderators to take care of it — think about what YOU can do about it.

I was watching that great Larry King show yesterday on “Beyond Positive Thinking” with Bob Proctor, Michael Beckwith, John Assaraf, et al., and I was reminded again…

WE decide how we react to what happens around us. Why avoid negativity? It only brings you down IF YOU LET IT!

Look at it another way…

Negativity is also an opportunity for you to be a peacemaker.
Negativity is also an opportunity for you to be compassionate.
Negativity is an opportunity for you to work on your own communication skills.

Running away from negativity is one way to deal with it, but then you just end up leaving other people to deal with it, and eventually a string of abandoned spaces.

The other way to deal with it is to confront it, head-on — NOT with superior firepower, but to disarm it.

Nobody can hurt you with anything they say on a discussion board unless you let them. Why would you give up your peace to ANYONE? Why would you give up a space that works for you to anyone?

I say, stop expecting site owners and forum moderators to just make it all go away and instead take a stand. It’s not that hard to do — just have to start with the decision to do so.

“Opposition is a natural part of life. Just as we develop our physical muscles through overcoming opposition – such as lifting weights – we develop our character muscles by overcoming challenges and adversity.”
- Stephen R. Covey

“He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper. This amicable conflict with difficulty helps us to an intimate acquaintance with our object, and compels us to consider it in all its relations. It will not suffer us to be superficial.”
- Edmund Burke

“There is no education like adversity.”
- Benjamin Disraeli

“Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheeplike passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving.”
- John Dewey

share
subscribe

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

thanks for sharing

"...Running away from negativity is one way to deal with it, but then you just end up leaving other people to deal with it, and eventually a string of abandoned spaces..." Although quite sometime, I may say this is very true. We should face reality, our problems with chin-up. Through this, we can easily recover from our heartaches.

Bottom line, the advice to always use an excerpt and a link should be safe anywhere

As always, it was nice running into you at Kennedy...we must do this again. Here's the problem with being blindingly committed to being nice to everyone, particularly online (a single comment can become "fact" rather quickly in this space): since there really ARE people who post incredibly inane, inaccurate and downright ludicrous information tolerating these people creates the same kind of environment that children are being subjected to in school (e.g., holistic education). "Bobby put forth such a nice effort at his multiplication tables; although time and again he said the seven times seven equals forty-two, he really tried hard. So I think it's best to pass him..." There are a few folks in the online recruiting circles I run in whose posting presence cause comments to drop or cease or worse yet, the discussions become hijacked to a place that enables the people to incessantly talk about themselves. With a percentage that approaches one ppm, no one says anything. This is being nice. At this point - and this has happened time and again - the people are told that they have moved far off point...now let the indignant repercussions begin! Over time, online participants "expect" these people to chime in and take over. Without someone to guide them - gentle doesn't work (when will you realize this?) when someone has a personal agenda of pontification and self-promotion - these people become more brazen and outrageous to the point where no one wants to ever confront them for fear of the negativity that invariable arises. Then there is being realistic (what some might refer to as not being nice). Even when you call a spade a spade and this assessment is based upon real facts and intelligent analysis, the seven-times-seven-equals-forty-two-crowd responds by saying "why are you being so harsh on these people?" Dave, I too an tolerant to a fault...until that fault line is crossed by people whose goal is to take over and not SHARE as others in the community do. This is the true litmus test - sharing versus pontification and self-promotion (which are signs of an ego kicking in). As you noted, let the truth speak for itself. But don't be afraid to take a stand. The leadership instinct you are born with is the backbone. You develop the funny bone and the wishbone that go with it. ~ Elaine Agather

Many say (research, too), that our culture is moving ever more rapidly and increasingly toward the extreme of incivility and meanness. Folks say things are turning bad in terms of overall social mood and are going to get a lot worse before improving and darker times lie ahead of us with increased tension and negativity. Scott Allen asks for comments about this vis-a-vis blogging: my thoughts and apologies for some overlap. Comment (1): The same type statistics/research also point to projected increases in the number of heart attacks, cancer incidents, obesity rates, diabetes, suicides, spousal abuse incidents, etc. However, that does not mean that I have to engage in self-destructive behaviors that result in my experiencing and hastening these events in my life. I can choose what behaviors support me to live a healthy lifestyle and which don't. The same is true for whether I choose to be civil or uncivil, respectful or disrespectful, hurtful and harmful or compassionate and understanding in my relationships and interactions, on blogs, in relationship, how I show up in the world. The bottom line here, for me, is the degree to which one is "conscious". Whether I am consciously aware of how I am and who I am or just being completely unconscious, reactive, with no conscious awareness. (see my posts, above.) In a climate and culture where most are obsessed with, and driven by, their ego need for control, recognition and security, it's no wonder that most folks' thoughts are "killing thoughts" as opposed to "healing thoughts." It's all about me! Out of my way! In a culture where many folks gain their sense of identity ("who I am") from a direct association with their "information" (the database in their brain), it's no wonder that there is such incivility and reactivity on blogs, and elsewhere, as the mantra of so many is, "When you disagree with my information, well, you disagree with me", and that's just too much of a hit to many folks' egos...so they sense the need to react (fight, as opposed to flee or freeze). Agreeing to disagree is fast becoming a lost art form in Western cukture. When folks are "unconscious" of how they are and who they are (refusing to self-reflect) from the inside out, the tendency is to associate and behave with a herd mentality....witness the vitriol, the high-pitch ever-escalating disrespect, sarcasm (in the guise of "humor"), mocking, bullying, that is taking the place of so-called conversation and dialogue....thus the statistics of why it's going to get worse....the herd and herd-like behaviors enlarge(s). So, the research is what it is...that does not mean I cannot choose how I want to be and who I want to be in relationship, is dialogue, in conversation. Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see." Rumi said, "Out beyond right-doing and wrong-doing, there is a field, I'll meet you there." Life, after all, is choices. Do I choose to be conscious, and respectfully responsive or reactive, demeaning, defensive,... How have I been so far today with my thoughts, my words....? Conscious, thoughtful, self-reflective "healing"?....or reactive, defensive, demeaning, destructive, "killing"? ....Why? Comment (2) I've followed the "negativity of blog discussions” mainly from the perspective of being curious about the nature of the interactions of some of the participants. For me in such circumstances, the behaviors are as interesting, if not more so, than the content. The quality of passion is often offered as an element that may drive some to behave in a disrespectful and, perhaps, uncivil manner. Passion, in my view, is never a "reason" to treat another disrespectfully or in an uncivil manner. An, "excuse" perhaps, but a poor one at that. So, how do I view much of this exchange which has smatterings of disrespect, vitriol, invective and disrespect? My take on much of the negative and disrespectful go-between and interactions in blog (and just about every other type of interaction these days) has to do with how one relates to another human being. For me, life is all about relationship, and the manner in which one chooses to, consciously or unconsciously, relate to, "meet", "see" and accept another person. What I experience in the seeming "conflict" in many of the exchanges around the " negativity issue" is a failure to relate to another individual in an accepting, compassionate, allowing manner that transcends simple "information." So, what I experience is the manner in which some individuals are driven to look at another person from the perspective of (1) "It's not about the content." and (2) "It's all about the content." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (1) It's not about the content ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In this perspective, what I perceive is a need for some individuals to resort to a verbally abusive and bullying approach in an effort to "connect" with another person. For others there seems to be a need to first engage, and then disengage, engage and disengage, as in a "love-hate" relationship, in order to stay in the game. In the arena of psychodynamics or ego psychology, this type of behavior is referred to as "negative merging." In some relationships, in this dynamic, the only way two people can "merge" (or feel merged) is by fighting; arguing is what allows them to "connect"; otherwise there would be no connection at all, no real relationship. Thus, the need to bully, argue, and fight...here, verbally. It keeps some engaged and merged. It's really has nothing to do with the "information." It's about connecting and needing to feel "seen" and "heard". To be someone. Else, some of these folks feel that have no value or worth. The only downside is that it comes from a place of anger, fear and negativity. In such relationships, acceptance, approval, and satisfaction is lacking from a mutual loving and caring and compassionate perspective; so, the only way the two can have any connection at all is from this place of negative merging and, as in some cases I read here, it's in the form of poking, being disrespectful, being uncivil, nit-picking, fault-finding, etc. In negative-merged relationships, such back-and-forth behavior, and emotional acting out, is the sole source of contact between the two parties and in negative-merged relationships, negative contact is better than no contact. So content aside, two such "discussants" are no different than a couple who argue and fight over how to stack the dishes in the dishwasher, fold the laundry, or vacuum the car. or slice the turkey. However, it's never really about the "content" per se. It's about the need to be "seen" and connect when there's no true feeling of connectedness, albeit online. Until and unless the partners in the negative-merged relationship expand their awareness and explore what's truly "underneath" the surface that drive one to be so immersed in fault-finding (e.g., by exploring one's self-images, beliefs, preconceptions, "wiring" about how one comes to view oneself vis-à-vis the world and others), there's probably never going to be a resolution. So, they'll fight, lick their wounds, go away and come back to fight another day (i.e., the next "discussion"). The famous radio show "The Bickersons" comes to mind. Always at one another's throat. Always argumentative, bickering, poking, criticizing.... For some, it's the only way they know how to "connect." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (2) Content is everything. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The ego-personality is driven by one's inner judge and critic, the inner voice that continually creates drama and upset in everything we do, that never allows us to truly feel at peace with ourselves. This inner judge and critic is driven by three major ego needs: control, security and recognition. So, driven consistently and relentlessly by these three needs, many of us derive our identity, that is, "who I am", and "who I take myself to be" from "things", from externals, as opposed to experiencing ourselves with a true integrity and authenticity that comes from being in touch with our Inner Nature, True and Real Self, from "Inside". In experiencing this discussion, what I sense is some folks who define themselves by their "information." For some, the mantra is, "I am my information." In other words, my identity, who I am, is defined on what I have in my brain, my database. So, what I experience here is that sometimes when one individual disagrees with another, rather than simply see the other's information as a "perspective", or just "different information," (it's only information, words), it seems to become absolutely critical for one to view the other's information as a "position" and, as a result, one needs to view the other's position as a direct "attack on me." In our culture of right-wrong, good-bad, win-lose, me-you, there's seems to be less and less room for acceptance of "different information" and more of a need to engage in some type of escalating personal attack to survive. Some people's lives seem to depend on "I'm right" in some way, shape or form. And so when these few feel they are attacked, because someone has "different information", these few feel out control, insecure, and unrecognized. "My God, I have no identity if my information is "wrong'." And in this state of conscious or unconscious, anger, fear, worry and in this state of feeling "small", unseen, invisible, unrecognized, unappreciated, and being resistant, defensive and agitated, and feeling a loss of control, recognition or emotional security, (all in order to "survive" and be somebody), some need to act out in a manner that they feel will allow them to see themselves as big, large, to be somebody, to have an identity. It might be interesting to explore how I'm reacting, acting out, and projecting, etc., and why I feel I need to attack, defend and counter-attack. Why I am so caught up in identifying with "my information." What I experience here is no different from what I experience in my experience coaching individuals and couples every day, at work, at home and at play. What I experience here are the same behaviors that manifest when folks allow their ego-personalities and " comparative-judgmental minds" to get in the way of a healthy relationship, a healthy dialogue, a healthy interaction. What I sometimes experience here is the type of reactivity that occurs when one is driven by one's need for control, recognition and security as opposed to coming from one's Inner Plane where when one is perfectly comfortable with who one is and where one is, right here, right now. For me, the poking, the disrespect, the vitriol and incivility is all about resistance, denial and projecting. It's all about not being "consciously conscious of "Who I am" and "How I am" in relationship; rather the negativity comes from one's locking on to cruise control, being "unconscious" and simply reacting to everything happening "outside". It's about needing to look "outside" for what's lacking "inside." While some may see (conscious or unconscious) ad hominem attacks, rudeness, disrespect, poking, bullying and the like as "common" in discussions and relationships, they are not, for children or for adults, and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Reactive elements create mental, emotional and even perhaps physical pain, and discomfort and suffering for the actual and "ringside" participants and observers, even though they may not even be aware of it. This discord does take a toll...one way or another. Where I think some would like to honestly and sincerely offer their perspectives in a safe environment, they may be wary of doing so as they "lurk" in an environment where others have a conscious, and more likely unconscious, need to "take it personally" and react to "different" takes and information in a negative, poking, rejecting manner; they have a conscious, and more likely unconscious, need to "take it personally" and so render basically informative and worthy discussions as so much "noise" and argumentation in the process, thus making the group or forum seem unsafe for so many others. Honesty and safety also allow vulnerability and my sense is few would want to disclose and feel vulnerable in a setting such as this. Unfortunate. So, Perhaps I can envision and then act to create an environment where I can notice, accept and appreciate the uniqueness of another's perspective without automatically jumping on the "me-you", "right-wrong", "good-bad" "expert-novice" continuum. Perhaps I can take some time to move out of my intellectual zip code of what I know, and explore the perhaps, more foreign, landscape of "crucial conversations" and "non-violent communication" (books by these same names) to enhance the quality of some of my interactions and dialogue here. Approaching the discussion with the curiosity of a “beginner’s mind”, a neutral mind. Perhaps I can take a deep breath, sense my self, sense into my body and sense my emotions, before responding to a post and consciously ask my self why I would choose to be disrespectful, uncivil and harm another person simply because their "information" is different from my "information." To paraphrase Pogo, ("We have met the enemy; and he is us.); I have met the "problem" and it is me. As Rumi says, "Out beyond right doing and wrong doing, there is a field; I'll meet you there." I can choose to play in that field with my colleagues; or I can choose to create and fight in a battlefield of words, of ego and lost identity. One brings happiness, collegiality, contentment and well-being, the other brings pain and suffering, mentally, emotionally, physically, socially, and spiritually. So, what's happening here is no different from what happens among partners and couples every day at home, at work and at play. Especially when individuals allow their ego-personalities and "judgmental minds" to get in the way of a healthy relationship, first to one's self, and then to other. It's all about "resistance", denial and projecting. It's all about not being "consciously conscious" of how we "are" in relationships but rather lock on to cruise control and simply react to everything happening "outside" us. It's all about the need for control, recognition and security that one is most often lacking "inside" and needs to go "outside" to find. What I see is a desperate need for control, recognition and security that manifests itself in the old bromide, "I'd rather be right than happy." Or, "I have to be somebody at the expense of being seen as a nobody." And, "to have this sense of my self, it has to be at your expense." For what end? To what end? Peace, Peter Vajda, Ph.D., C.P.C. SpiritHeart Integrated Coaching & Practices for Essential Well-BE-ing Values-Based Coaching, Counseling and Training Mind-Body-Emotion-Spirit Integration Atlanta, GA, USA; 770-804-9125; mailto:pvajda@spiritheart.net "What makes you think work and meditation are two different things?" ­ Buddha at Work