Why the sarcasm in AskMe?

June 24, 2005 2:46 AM

Has anyone ever noted an odd behavior regarding the first comments on some AskMetafilter questions? I've noticed the more than occasional instance of snarky, snide or oddball comments by the first person there. It's almost as if these people are marking their territory by pooping on the thread. Are there other sociological parallels or is there an name for this behavior?
posted by quadog to etiquette/policy at 2:46 AM (36 comments total)

And before anyone "unexpectedly" puts a snide comment here, I will happily rob you of the pleasure.
posted by quadog at 2:48 AM on June 24, 2005

do you have any examples?
posted by the cuban at 3:21 AM on June 24, 2005

I'd say it happens on MetaFilter, not really on Ask MetaFilter.
posted by mathowie at 3:22 AM on June 24, 2005

Names in fresh cement.
posted by mischief at 3:44 AM on June 24, 2005

one can suppose that an acoustic signal system, which possesses discrete units for variable use, might be very ancient and might exist independent and prior to a more advanced language state. In the natural setting, acoustic territorial marking behaviour is exposed to selection pressure to elaborate sign systems built up from discrete, variable units. In addition to the well-known territorial bird songs, some monkey species and all species of lesser apes have territorial songs fitting these criteria. The analyses of the so-called long calls in chimpanzees and bonobos make it likely that the group-living great apes preserved the ability to create syntactically different calls, which would be developed by requirements of social life. A call repertoire emerged in these species, which contained a large number of call variants at group level available for each group member via social learning. This type of animal call is different from ordinary animal communication; it shows some features of human language. It can represent an intermediate stage between animal communication and language, and communication systems similar to this one can be considered as a starting point or first stage of language evolution.

Ujhelyi, M. 1996. Is there any intermediate stage between animal communication and language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 180(1): 71-76.
posted by TimothyMason at 4:58 AM on June 24, 2005

Well, snarky comments don't take long to write. It seems possible that #2-5 started composing theirs at the same time as #1; #1 just finished first.
posted by argybarg at 9:24 AM on June 24, 2005

Ujhelyi, M. 1996. Is there any intermediate stage between animal communication and language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 180(1): 71-76.

I think that was a snark, if a bit late. My irony meter is overstimulated these days.
posted by Rothko at 9:26 AM on June 24, 2005

Considering the way I get bitchslapped here when I comment or, Heaven forfend, dare to inquire about deleted threads, I'd say snarky comments are pretty much par for the course.
posted by alumshubby at 9:35 AM on June 24, 2005

Rothko, are you trying to be ironic? TimothyMason's answer is brilliant! That is exactly why people have the instinct to 'snark'.
posted by Chuckles at 9:39 AM on June 24, 2005

I posted a link a few days ago about Apple and Osborne, a pretty common connection being made in the press since their Intel announcement, and got called a twit several times without much cause from people who made various assumptions about what I did or did not know.

I don't know what it is about being in front of a computer, but people really don't have good impulse control. It's just the way it is.
posted by Rothko at 9:40 AM on June 24, 2005

Rothko, are you trying to be ironic? TimothyMason's answer is brilliant! That is exactly why people have the instinct to 'snark'.

Is the link about marking territory with a protolanguage, or is it about the snark being made by people not smart enough to make the leap from grunts to intelligent conversation, and therefore is a snark itself about snarkers?

I'll stop now...
posted by Rothko at 9:42 AM on June 24, 2005

Good observation, quadog!

Sometimes there's a monkey-see-monkey-do follow-up phenomenon that ensues as well, in which a pile-on occurs until someone finally a) posts a positive comment or b) points out the rude and unnecessary nature of the pile-on. a) or b) may or may not stop the pile-on, however, or may stop it only for it to re-animate, like a brain-sucking zombie, once again.

We should have quirky, odd-sounding sociological terms condemning all of these phenomena.

Any ideas?
posted by Shane at 9:59 AM on June 24, 2005

I grunt quite a lot myself.
/scratches head, armpit, crutch, chomps down lice/
Aah - lovely!
posted by TimothyMason at 9:59 AM on June 24, 2005

We should have quirky, odd-sounding sociological terms condemning all of these phenomena.

At first, I thought this was a good idea, but now I think it would end up being a snark in and of itself, and would add to the snarky snarkness.

But maybe I'm saying this because I can't come up with anything clever enough.
posted by Specklet at 10:15 AM on June 24, 2005

This is a good question. I must confess I've been guilty of it on other boards as well as here.

It's a matter of posting without thinking. My mind works VERY fast. I'll read something, immediately think of some funny (in my mind) or snarky thing to say, and post it really quickly. If I took a few seconds to think about what I was posting I might realize how stupid/mean/useless my comment was. They're very often the first posts simply because there's no time wasted thinking about it.

Also, I think once there's a few good posts in a thread people are less reluctant to derail it with their snark.

I've done the same thing in real life for as long as I can remember. I'd imagine the other snark-artists have too. We're the guys in school who always had a smart remark for the teacher. The David Lightmans who respond with "your wife?" when the teacher asks who first suggested the idea of reproduction without sex.

Lately I've been catching myself. Before I hit that post button I think "is this really going to contribute anything or is it just for my amusement?"

I think the name for the behavior is "being a smartass."
posted by bondcliff at 10:15 AM on June 24, 2005

The metacomment phenomenon I most notice/enjoy is when someone posts in the blue a thread with any particular point of view. Let's use, for example, the Ketchup thread, however any similar thread will likely share this behavior. In the Ketchup thread, the p.o.v. is, in summary "smart receptionist, evil cheap boss." ("is this guy just a scrooge or a workplace psychopath?") Initial posts will either strongly affirm or strongly deny, one after the other, but all grouped, so that you get two or three or ten "yeah!" or "how true!" posts before one lone voice of dissent speaks up with a "actually, I believe the opposite of what has been put forth as conventional wisdom in this case" and then you get a ton of "yeah!!" "what that guy said!" and "immigants! I knew it was them all along!!"
posted by jonson at 10:23 AM on June 24, 2005

It seems pretty simple to me. Substantive answers usually take a few minutes to articulate. The interim silence is filled by idiots whose short attention spans soon take them elsewhere (unless or until a crowd gathers).
posted by cribcage at 10:24 AM on June 24, 2005

is there an name for this behavior?

FrOsT PIst!
posted by quonsar at 10:53 AM on June 24, 2005

Man Rothko, those people were being incredible jerks.
posted by grouse at 12:23 PM on June 24, 2005

Is the link about marking territory with a protolanguage, or is it about the snark being made by people not smart enough to make the leap from grunts to intelligent conversation

I think the point is that if language emerged from a pre-linguistic sign system used for territory-marking, then language use is quite likely to still show properties of such a system. Humans, even though they have developed language, haven't lost the ability/desire/need to mark territory. There is an additional implication that anyone doing so is showing behavior on par with a large class of lower primates and other pre-linguistic animals. I don't see how, if this particular theory of language evolution (and it's only one of many) is right, marking territory or not would correlate with intelligence - any human would have the inclination to do so, though if they are aware of the inclination, they might choose not to.
posted by advil at 2:26 PM on June 24, 2005

regarding the first comments on some AskMetafilter questions? I've noticed the more than occasional instance of snarky, snide or oddball comments by the first person there.

In high school some teachers often tagged "the peanut gallery" to a group verbally commenting the above. Though the tag references The Howdy Dowdy Show’s participating audience, I still like it minus any “howdy dowdy” connections to today’s redheaded stepchild labeling.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:50 PM on June 24, 2005

is there an name for this behavior?

quonsar, the day that you are banned MetaFilter will rise like a drowning submariner.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 5:34 PM on June 24, 2005

It's an old Farkism, but I think what argybarg says makes sense in terms of how it happens so often.
posted by dreamsign at 5:37 PM on June 24, 2005

quonsar, the day that you are banned MetaFilter will rise like a drowning submariner.

The day quonsar is banned, we all be the less for it. Many times, in a dozen or less words, he will say more truth than many of the bloviating ego-maniacs that populate this little corner of the internet.
posted by marxchivist at 6:39 PM on June 24, 2005

I believe you mean the NEXT day that quonsar is banned...
posted by jonson at 9:04 PM on June 24, 2005

quonsar is my koan.
posted by VulcanMike at 9:37 PM on June 24, 2005

You are correct, jonson, thank you.
posted by marxchivist at 10:13 PM on June 24, 2005

Besides which how will the newbies know they truely belong if they haven't attracted the notice of quonsar?
posted by Mitheral at 10:31 PM on June 24, 2005

It's called Scatalogical Parallels.
posted by Balisong at 10:50 PM on June 24, 2005

Is the link about marking territory with a protolanguage

Metafilter: Marking Territory with a Protolanguage
posted by weston at 11:33 PM on June 24, 2005

Metafilter: Metafilter: ...
posted by troybob at 12:24 AM on June 25, 2005

When this thread was first posted, I was going to answer with this: (But I got stuck in Jrun traffic)

The first post is where a sarcastic comment is going to be the strongest. Sarcasm is highly dependent on timing and placement, and even if it's thought, won't be voiced if it's going to be noticed more for the mockery than the humor.

I just looked up sarcasm, and found that Oscar Wilde called it the "lowest form of wit". Exactly what I was thinking, a device which can be cute when successful, and embarassingly crude when inefficacious.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 2:17 AM on June 25, 2005

Are we honestly discussing banning quonsar again?

Didn't the sun threaten to go out last time?

If we don't let him run amok here, we're abandoning our civic duties in the war on terror. Imagine the carnage of a quonsar unleashed and undiverted. Why do you hate America?
posted by loquacious at 2:50 AM on June 25, 2005

Actually, I'd say that what you're referring to is a form of phatic communication. Malinowski coined the term to refer to conversational tokens that, while having very low or zero informational content, made social interaction run smoothly. He was thinking of things like 'Isn't the weather gorgeous', or "How are you today". Conversational maintenance devices are also part of this.

In a place like Mefi, signaling that you are there, that you have taken some notice - any notice - of what is happening - can be seen as aiding in the collective maintenance of the conversation. They signal to the poster that s/he has been tagged - whether positively or negatively - and place markers for further conversation. Even a negative comment or a snark is better than nothing at all.

They also signal some form of ownership - a Mefite lollops from one thread to another, leaving jets of urine in each. Woof woof, he goes as he makes his way, ears flopping in the breeze, hey guys, I'm here, I'm here.

In reality, most conversation is phatic. Hence the lice I referred to earlier. Apes maintain friendships through grooming - picking each others' lice. Human beings, argues Robin Dunbar, live in groups that are so large that grooming would take up far too much time, so language developed as a substitute. Think of that the next time you start up a conversation. Oh, and Malinowski reported that Trobriand lovers declared their interest by picking each others' lice. "I love you". Crunch.
posted by TimothyMason at 10:13 AM on June 25, 2005

Apes maintain friendships through grooming - picking each others' lice. Human beings, argues Robin Dunbar, live in groups that are so large that grooming would take up far too much time, so language developed as a substitute.

And among humans, Mefites live in a group that is so small that language takes up far too much time - so nitpicking has developed as a communication substitute.
posted by taz at 10:54 AM on June 25, 2005

*worships Pope Taz I*
posted by languagehat at 11:40 AM on June 25, 2005