Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_ixqd833 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

trashguitarist t1_ixqikg3 wrote

I mean, when I see a comment pre-hidden I get excited

49

DaveinOakland t1_ixqjmit wrote

Not sure why a study is needed for something people have known about human nature for thousands of years.

I think Caesar had some quotes about people being willing to fight against things they hate more than they are willing to fight for things they love.

22

Frequent-Pear8260 t1_ixqkx8g wrote

True words spoken here…some people are negativity oriented that Positivity is foreign to them….how about a study on how people can be ok without hurting themselves because of how they feel about themselves!!!

0

kirby1 t1_ixqlg9d wrote

Idiotic stupid garbage this sucks.

8

ClaptonBug t1_ixqmivh wrote

YOU SUCK...at nothing, you are a gem and you deserve the best in life. Hugs and kisses

0

Strangelet1 t1_ixqmx64 wrote

Replying to HydrogenSun (#667,595)

That is lovely and good, but we shouldn’t forget there is a ton of worthless research out there, driven by the promotion and graduation schemes with which we incentivize scientific research. There is only so much grant money available.

−5

zirklutes t1_ixqmzwn wrote

I can tell you that by my own research. Writr something positive in reddit and you get no responses. But if it's something contraversial or bad just wait. :)

2

sourpussmcgee t1_ixqo7u7 wrote

That’s because people are looking for a fight when on social media.

1

randomdude315 t1_ixqo9mg wrote

Thank you so much for posting this Op. You are truly an inspiration.

2

sasquatch50 t1_ixqod7v wrote

No surprise. Our brains are wired to respond to negative stimuli more than positive to increase survival (avoiding danger, bad food, etc).

1

hopkins-notakpopper t1_ixqr9ri wrote

Study finds that receiving a shot on the head hurts more than not receiving.

1

comatose1981 t1_ixqrce3 wrote

It took a "study" to confirm this? Who gives money to this crap?

0

Commie_EntSniper t1_ixquwv1 wrote

I'm getting the impression we're genetically wired for negativity and I hate that.

1

Muscadine76 t1_ixqvc3z wrote

Replying to RLDSXD (#667,996)

Even “redundant” research can at least sometimes have value. Certainly at some point there are diminishing returns, but currently we undervalue reproducing findings.

8

TheLinden t1_ixr2d65 wrote

I appreciate the study but twitter employees already knew that.

9

f1-freak t1_ixr2nsw wrote

Didnt the same rule apply for newspapers?

1

CurtG79 t1_ixr67xi wrote

Social media companies have know this for years. It's why the constantly promote posts that will garner negative attention.

1

MightyWhiteSoddomite t1_ixr7a6r wrote

The stuff science is showing us now is the exact kind stuff that is leveraged by social media to keep engagement on the disinformation and outrage that is currently a cancer to our society.

1

funkme1ster t1_ixra0ol wrote

While this is consistent with other research on the matter, it seems to focus on emotional processing.

I wonder to what extent this effect is in part a simple byproduct of the brain performing information triage and flagging things as "for follow-up" or "resolved". It stands to reason there's a strong overlap between "everyone is happy" and "nothing here needs your attention", as well as "there's a problem" and "action needs to be taken".

Music theory has explored how note progressions that feel "unresolved" are attention grabbing whereas chord progressions that resolve to the root feel plain and complete.

1

DaymanFOTNM28 t1_ixrefqn wrote

I know that for myself I have a bias in that I assume negative comments are more genuine than positive comments

1

amadeus2490 t1_ixrht01 wrote

Replying to TheLinden (#669,791)

Founding members of Facebook held public lectures on it, saying that they noted people wanted to argue in the comments so they wound up rigging the whole site to rile people up.... and indirectly manipulated news websites to make more inflammatory headlines and op-ed pieces, too.

8

RRoyale57 t1_ixrlv8l wrote

A lie will travel the globe 6 times before the truth gets it shoes on

1

Takeonlyone t1_ixrs1v5 wrote

We live for the angertainment society feeds us.

1

RLDSXD t1_ixrt3b0 wrote

Replying to Muscadine76 (#668,871)

It’s hard to be accurate within an amount of text that most people will find digestible, at least for me. Replicating positive results is a good thing and I wouldn’t consider that redundant. But if it’s something like “We’ve poured chicken broth on dryer lint and it didn’t produce gold”, we only need a couple studies (again, as long as the data and methods used were solid) before more start becoming redundant.

If we do something and nothing happens, it’s good to try a couple times and be sure that technique doesn’t do anything. More than that is redundant. If we try something and it does work, then I’ll welcome far more trials confirming it does work before I start tossing around the word “redundant”, especially if those trials are by other people in other places.

Semantics get annoying, as well. But I see what you’re saying.

2

DarthDregan t1_ixruao4 wrote

Why do they keep doing this study? It's like seven of these things are posted every year with the same result.

1

SoldMySoulForHairDye t1_ixrw7uf wrote

I mean. Yeah. I'd also notice it more if someone threw a full dog poop bag at my face vs someone casually saying hello in my apartment car park.

1

Asleep_Tank_5992 t1_ixrx5o6 wrote

I believe that, coutry is full of miserable gits now

0

BMLortz t1_ixs1ze7 wrote

On tech forums, if nobody is answering a question, responding incorrectly will usually draw out an expert to correct you and thus provide the OP with the answer.
People will correct an idiot with much more vigor than they will help a noob.

Is there a scientific term for this behavior?

1

TheLinden t1_ixsclov wrote

Replying to amadeus2490 (#671,608)

Yeah it is worrying.

I remember news about japanese twitter getting more chill after twitter employees got fired by elon.

It went from toxic politics arguments to idols, anime and other entertainment stuff.

3

geemoly t1_ixsdb32 wrote

I think people focus on critiques because it's the best way to improve yourself. You see where you're going wrong and you can take steps to correct it. The problem is most criticism isn't constructive but insulting to the reader.

1

DawnOfTheTruth t1_ixssf2l wrote

People see a need to defend against the negative and either like, thumb up, or up-vote whatever positive things that don’t require further input. So they are going to read and probably reply a defense to the negative I’d think.

1

deletedtothevoid t1_ixte7bw wrote

We all know it and do practically nothing to solve it. Youtube did a somewhat good move with the dislikes. They really should have kept them for educational content though so we can check if the channel source is credible or not.

Polarization is so much worse than it was 10 years ago. I could agree to disagree then. It is getting hard to find people like that today. We need to learn to co-exist.

1

grosstonsils t1_ixtelaj wrote

Do positive comments include humourous comments, or just purely complimentary in nature?

1

deletedtothevoid t1_ixterb4 wrote

Replying to Somehow-Still-Living (#668,064)

I'm gonna shoot myself in the foot here. I have done put a comment out trying to show support while also preaching to co exist and work together. I worded it terribly and got bombarded for it.

Not all are bad takes. Some are just people who really can't get the point across clearly. I honestly need a translator with how bad I can be at times.

3

Th3_Dom t1_ixts630 wrote

Not surprising; it's similar to Cunningham's Law. Negativity is more likely to elicit a response.

1

LessHorn t1_ixu31hq wrote

Replying to deletedtothevoid (#679,844)

I relate. It’s difficult to preach co-existence. It requires effort to avoid oversimplifying and to argue for both sides in a nuanced way. It’s quite scary. Binary thinking is prevalent on both sides.

2

-Coffee-Owl- t1_ixu7j2t wrote

This is simply why social media don't really fight with toxicity. It's profitable.

1

LoveThieves t1_ixu7rpy wrote

Um....this is old news, historians figured that out thousands of years ago when ancient Greeks (and Christians) used to throw live plays/theater in their sandals and tunics and everyone wanted to watch all the evil and negative plays about Hell and Fire cause it grabbed everyone's attention ... the ones about heaven and positivity were boring AF.

1

LoveThieves t1_ixu7zzi wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#667,897)

also history, people were more fascinated in live Greek plays thousands of years ago about stories of hell and violence than watching live plays about heaven and positivity.

not much has changed except it's on your phone instead of some ancient organized play you have to go to a giant Greek/Roman colosseum in your tunic and sandals.

1