Seems more a survey of members of Mechanical Turk. And if you got your money that way, what would you be like?
A group of Canadian researchers has given the imprimatur of social-science recognition to a fact that many of us who spend time in internet comment forums have suspected: there's a strong correlation between online trolling and sadism. "Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to …
There's tons upon tons of people with offensive views (racists, nazis, animal rights activists, man's rights activists, libertarians, 50-centers, furries, religious nuts...) but as far as I can tell they're nearly all 100% genuine and say the darnedest things not because they want to annoy, but because they want to "get their message out".
A troll to me (and to this study) is someone who, say, posts a recipe for barbecued chihuahua to a pet owner's site for shits & giggles, and that kind of trolling seems to be rare.
I've long thought of most of those on your list as people who feel inferior and are overcompensating, looking for easy targets because it's all they can handle, or minorities because they know others like them will back them up, ultimately because the ones they're trying to fool are themselves. Hatred is the response to fear of the poorly-educated. Homophobes are afraid they themselves are gay, so by being anti-gay 'prove' themselves hetero; racists believe themselves inadequate and try to deflect recognition of their pathetic insufficiency by pointing at minority groups in an attempt to come over as 'disadvantaged' because of them. And so on.
Some are brainwashed, of course; doesn't invalidate it, but not sure if you can prove the emptiness at the pit of their being, in which case, personally-speaking, I'd lock them up somewhere like Broadmoor before they can hurt anyone, or anyone else.
I don't think it's exactly a new idea that the average internet troll is someone who feels insignificant and powerless. I suppose it has parallels with online gaming, except the game is a largely text-based fantasy in which our wimp strides about the virtual stage, a hand on their faces, left and right pushing people - not orcs, not aliens, not psychopaths - to the ground by virtue of his superior and fearless intellect.
I actually feel sorry for them, thinking of them as individuals rather than personality-types.
I don't think it's exactly a new idea that the average internet troll is someone who feels insignificant and powerless.
But it is only an idea along with the "money cannot buy happiness"-quip. People spouting it are hoping in vain that there is some Karma working somewhere in the universe.
Well, there isn't:
People hate other races, genders, religions, professions, social classes e.t.c. *because they feel better than them*, the homophobes e.t.c really do see themselves as superior human beings especially compared to homos. By being such good people they feel that they *have actually earned the right* to punish, hurt and ridicule the lesser, worthless persons and it makes them happy to do "gods work".
These people are not "pathetic" or "insufficient" - in other words - weaklings that can be safely ignored by us civilised and sophisticated folks because they will never amount to much. They do mean exactly what they say and they will do exactly what they threaten to do, should they ever assume any authority! They will not feel sorry for you in return, they will feel happy with you getting what you deserve!
>>"I've long thought of most of those on your list as people who feel inferior and are overcompensating, looking for easy targets because it's all they can handle, or minorities because they know others like them will back them up, ultimately because the ones they're trying to fool are themselves. Hatred is the response to fear of the poorly-educated. Homophobes are afraid they themselves are gay, so by being anti-gay 'prove' themselves hetero; racists believe themselves inadequate and try to deflect recognition of their pathetic insufficiency by pointing at minority groups in an attempt to come over as 'disadvantaged' because of them. And so on."
That's an old idea that's never really correlated well with reality, ime. It's obvious why the idea has appeal - "ha ha! You're homophobic because secretly you're afraid you're gay", but save for the odd case of someone in denial or over-compensating because they are suspected of being whatever the target is, I don't think it's true.
Now they may very well often be directing their anger at an available target as a general channel for their anger or outlet for their problems. That's very common. But the whole "homophobes are secretly gay" doesn't hold up, ime.
There are lot of IBM trolls for sure. They enjoy when HP or Oracle has problems, and FUD a lot. Just for fun. In fact, IBM was the first company to start using FUD on a wide and systematic scale, so it is no big surprise that IBM supporters troll and FUD a lot.
What does this make me when I start trolling the trolls (sometimes done to expose them or call them out) and when doing so actually take pleasure in the fact that some goofball buries himself completely in his own lies; right up to a point where he's caught in his own web?
More sadistic than the sadists or a rightful "hero" who's using proportional "virtual violence"?
I guess in the end I'm the cynic when it comes to studies such as these ;)
Just remember the old joke about the Sadist and Masohist:
M: Hit me, hit me please...
S (with glee): Nooo, nooo I will not.
On a more serious note - this research is from the department of bleeding obvious. True trolls (of the kind you will find on F***book and Tw*tter have a personality which overlaps very nicely with the definition of Sadism.
In any case. Most of it has been covered 10+ years ago: http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/index.php
I think anyone who's been around forums, chat rooms, BBS's (old school), etc. for any period time knew this already. I won't insult real boffins by calling these folks boffins but to think.. they got paid for this. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
> The participants ... 5.6 per cent said that trolling was their favorite
I don't think the surveyors realised they had been trolled by those responses.
As it is, they had a mere 418 participants, of whom a trifling 5.6% or 23.4 individuals (point 4 - huh???). So they based their whole conclusion on the unverified responses of less than two dozen people in a highly specialised group in one particular country.
The online summary does not reveal if the test had other "telltales" embedded in their questionnaire for different traits. Without knowing that, it's impossible to say if the test was intended to look for this particular trait. That in itself is enough to cast doubt on the conclusions they drew. It would be interesting to know if they tested for different traits or conditions (e.g. drunkenness), whether they found any sorts of correlations with those, too.
File under: worthless.
I understand your position. As with most things in life, there is no "black or white" answer, but a range to responses all along the line. At the one end we might have gentle teasing (or humour that the recipient simply did not understand and misinterpreted). At the other we have out-and-out hate and loathing. Somewhere in the middle we have the sort of activity seen in some children who haven't been taught to behave: simple meanness.
Depending on the reaction of the people who see a post, they could classify it as trolling - or not. Jjust as some people are too easily offended by racial comments, bare skin, irreligious remarks or "bad" language, whereas others are more tolerant and easy-going and would let it pass.
So for the study to say Trolling == sadism fails in both its definition of what trolling actually is (no objective test) and in the graduation of behaviours and their underlying causes. Some trolling may be due to sadism, for sure. However the study, as reported, is a blunt instrument and without any means of quantifying or identifying cause or effect (or even false answers) has little to offer - except, as you say, in stating the self-evident.
Also interesting was the finding that the more time that the respondents spent in comment forums, the higher their scores for each Dark Tetrad trait except narcissism.
Checks: 2523 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...
Although, speaking as a confirmed sadist, I do find it rather annoying that in order to post on here, I have to press the submit button...
>>"the higher their scores for each Dark Tetrad trait except narcissism."
Ah, but are such people simply more prone to post online a lot, or does spending a lot of time engaging in discussions online increase those traits.
I think the latter. I believe I've become more vicious and Machiavellian from spending a lot of time online last year. Hopefully reversible now I'm on the Internet less again.
"Antisocial individuals have greater opportunities to connect with similar others, and to pursue their personal brand of 'self expression' than they did before the advent of the Internet."
Is there any other kind having any other kind doing any other kind with any other kind being kind of kind like that, like?
As I understand the academic world, these days;
1.) Academics have to publish a sufficient number of papers to keep their jobs
2.) The quality of the publication is not relevant to that aim, as long as they can get into a journal.
3.) The journals they publish in are operating in a commercial world so tend to accept articles that are likely to attract attention, and......
4.) Research grants are given by bodies who have their own axes to grind, fashion and political support being two key ones
I wonder what kind of different troll types there are.
Up to now I identified 3 types:
- The foam in the mouth "my system is best" type
- The offensive re-poster of the same sentence, depending on the headline (usually AC)
- The accuser (everyone with another opinion is a corporate shill)
I suppose there must be much more. Any suggestions?
I tend to think that the definition of "troll" has changed a bit since the 90s. A troll used to be a skilled manipulator of a forum's emotional hot buttons. They could come in feigning ignorance and drop an obvious loaded question: "So, why hasn't Google ever made an iPad? Is it because they can't do it as well as Apple so they don't bother?" Then they just sit back and wait for the flames to start rolling in. A good troll knew exactly what got a particular newsgroup or forum riled up, and would start arguments by using ignorance to suggest the local sacred cow was anything but.
These days, it seems anyone with an obnoxious attitude or an unpopular opinion is considered a troll. I've even seen posters labeled "troll" simply for stating a perfectly defensible, mainstream opinion that just wasn't shared by the next obnoxious internet loudmouth posting directly afterward.
A troll used to be a skilled manipulator of a forum's emotional hot buttons.
The speed with which many Newsgroup discussions back in the mid-90s could get hijacked and descend into transatlantic slanging matches astonished me. Usually over why the US turned up so late for WWII vs. you'd all be speaking German without us.
Weirdly I've not seen that particular argument break out for years. Perhaps I hang out in a better class of forum now? Nah, this is El Reg. Can't be...
Trolling the old-school way is not as much fun anymore. It used to be a Devil's Advocate kind of deal. Instead of juicy bites and an apparent debate these days you just get Call Of Duty level illiterate responses.
People who are referred to as trolls these days just seem to be those who are being generally offensive and taking cheap shots. No skill at all, and without appreciation of the skill, where's the fun?
Upvote for you, Sir. I logged in with the express intention of saying something similar, but you beat me to it.
I think it's sort of sad that the true meaning of a 'troll' in its online context has been lost. Terms seem to get re-purposed to accommodate those that don't understand them, instead of the emphasis being on making those persons *learn* what they mean - hacker / cracker for example (boring example but there it is).
I do get mildly flustered when some Reg-er has obviously read the full thing but - probably for wishy washy journalist-brotherhood reasons? - decides not to provide all of the pertinent information in the write up.
Now, what I need to know is, what percentage of people ticked "debating issues that are not important to you" when asked "What do you enjoy doing most on these comment sites?"; and to which of the Dark Tetrad trait(s) did those people most closely correlate?
You are from Barcelona.
For future reference (and nothing to do with trolling) one NEVAH ever, EVAH! goes to a link without the post it come in also having a discussion of said link's content. Consider the Danish version of the above for example:
Not many people appreciate the difference. (Of course as with foreign language translators, a lot of the humour is lost.)
"Also interesting was the finding that the more time that the respondents spent in comment forums, the higher their scores for each Dark Tetrad trait except narcissism" - well what else would you expect people to stick around for, once they've been around long enough to realize that a) nobody ever managed to change anyone's mind about anything via forum debate, and b) nobody ever goes to a forum to listen to anybody's opinion but rather to have his own expressed (mainly about how everyone else's is totally wrong). Where's the surprise...?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022