I've been online since the mid 90's – hanging out in chat rooms, message boards, forums. The dynamics of group interactions are intriguing, for someone who loves to watch people. Much of the psychology is universal among divergent communities, whether they are sports teams, church groups, online communities, or any group of people. Whenever you put a group of people together, they act – and react – in predictable ways.

Online communities have certain dynamics all their own. In an online group there are varying levels of interaction. There are people who know each other off line, from other communities, or, perhaps, not at all. One of the most powerful dynamics in any group is familiarity and trust. The two go hand-in-hand.

In any group situation many different personalities and styles must interact. We find it easier to interact when we have some knowledge and expectations of others - familiarity and trust. In RL (real life, or face-to-face) we have a myriad of non-verbal clues to help us process someone's meanings, beyond the words they say. We learn a lot about their personality, their attitudes, their true feelings, not as much from what they say, but how they say it. This gives us the familiarity and trust we need to be comfortable.

In an online chat, forum, or message board – even in emails – we are stripped of some of our social tools. We see only words, possibly out of context. We make assumptions and judgments on very little information. We see a post and we think we understand the poster's point-of-view and motivations. Sometimes we are wrong.

As I said earlier, there are different levels of interactions - connections. This complicates things even more. If two people are posting derogatory remarks back and forth you could assume they don't like each other. Yet they may be the best of friends, and their banter playful. You can't see the smile and wink, they assume it because they have developed familiarity and trust.

Now let's say you weigh in on one side of the debate and the person from the apposing view slams you... Now you are angry. But perhaps that person thought you were joining the playful banter and included you. Suppose you flame back and the other person is hurt by your comments. Now it's no longer playful. Like mom always said, “it's only fun until someone gets hurt.”

There are myriad situations where the lack of non-verbal clues, and simple misunderstandings, can erupt into flame wars. At this point the two friends we were talking about are going to stick together and double team the interloper. His friends will come to his aid, and that brings out the classic “us v/s them” dynamic. Now we have schism in the community and attacks occur simply because someone is in the other camp.

When someone is caught up in the “us v/s them” mentality it skews everything. They think they “know” the other people's meanings and motivations all too well – they have lost any chance at genuine familiarity and trust. Stripped of any non-verbal clues - every post “they” make, every word – takes on hateful and hurtful meanings.

As human beings much of our understanding of communication requires a level of presupposition. We look at things in an assumed context to find meaning. If our presupposition is “that person is a friend” we assume lighthearted banter. If our presupposition is “that person is an enemy” we assume a attack. The words can be the same, they are irrelevant.

Flame wars are often hard to put out. Those who feel hurt and abused lash out, hurting and abusing others. No one wants to “give in” and just let it die. Even if they do, the presuppositions remains and any post by “them” can reignite the fire. Often the flame war ends in massive use of the “ignore” function and a split in the community.

Healing can only come when both sides strip away the presuppositions and start fresh. One must assume that everyone is inherently “a nice person” and forget the “us” and “them” attitude. This is rare indeed. Often the best we can hope for is coexistence.