CDZ The Psychology of Trolling

[Coyote]

This link looks at it from a psychological point of view: Internet Trolls-An Overview of the Internet Troll Profile

Unlike the cybercriminal, online sexual predator, cyberstalker and cyberbully, the Internet Troll stands alone regarding their modus operandi and personality construct. These two areas will be addressed in Part II & Part III of this Internet Troll educational series. Needless to say, the Internet Troll is a unique creature to say the least. In essence, the Internet Troll is what this writer calls Cyber Environment Dependent.

Cyber Environment Dependent simply means that an Internet Troll requires access to cyberspace in order to engage in their nonsensical passive aggression. Without having what this writer calls the “veil of anonymity” available to all online users, Internet Trolls would be non-existent. If anything, and without going into a long diatribe, if they could not hide behind their technology, “they would quickly have their ass kicked for their incessant provocations.” Prior to the internet, Internet Trolls were men, women and children who kept their subconscious fantasies for power, control & dominance between their ears hoping to one day ascend to a position in life whereby they could feel psychologically superior. Now with the internet and a cyber environment to interact with others without being in the physical presence of others to communicate, the Internet Troll flourishes.

Because Internet Trolls are Cyber Environment Dependent, tend to be weak and fragile, both physically and/or psychologically, Internet Trolls practice passive aggressive forms of online victimization. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, passive aggressive is defines as “being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by the expression of negative feelings, resentment and aggression in an unassertive passive way.” Cyberspace is the optimal environment to engage in passive aggressive interpersonal exchanges and Internet Trolls take full advantage of cyberspace. Internet trolls are a subset of online users who engage in Cyber Harassment. Cyber Harassment is one of the iPredator typologies with it’s definition as follows...​

 

[320 Years of History]

banned said poster for lying for one week (from that subforum, not from the forum as a whole, not all subforums are that strict) Since those rules were imposed, that subforum is nearly dead, most posters simply do not want to be held to those standards.

It's strange that folks want to air their opinions but are unwilling to be held to a "no lying" standard. The English language has myriad ways to avoid lying and still share one's unfounded opinions.

• "I'm not sure, but I think/believe..."
• "I haven't confirmed this, but..."
• "My gut tells me..."
• "I'm unsure whether...."
• "While the facts indicate X is the rational conclusion, I do not accept that conclusion because...."

Those are just a few ways to do so, but like all the ways to do so, one must clearly (1) "own" one's uncertainty and/or irrationality, usually by indicating that one's stance is not supported by facts that one knows exist or that one has not found any that support one's POV.

Everyone can have whatever opinion(s) they have or want to have. But having an opinion and being entitled to have that opinion aren't the same things. One is entitled only to one's informed opinions, and when one is not fully informed, one can quite easily have an opinion to which one isn't entitled, that isn't justifiable, and that thus derives from ignorance, even if it's just partial ignorance. The way to ensure that's not the case is to overcome the ignorance, not "troll" about in forums looking to see if there are lots of others who are just as ignorant as oneself.

 

[Coyote]

Mods, I'm hoping you won't close the thread now that people are trying to derail it.

No names were mentioned in the OP; this could have been an interesting discussion regarding forums, articles, columns, etc. Trolls exist all over the political spectrum. All over the ideological spectrum. All over the social spectrum. All over the cultural spectrum.

This is the CDZ. Is there anywhere we can post without having this happen?
.

That's the way it goes. A thread about what Hillary did, how long does it take before the first "oh yeah but Trump " post appears? Or vice versa? Sad.

Yep.

I'm gonna try, yet again, to drag this back to the point of the thread.

What do you suppose is the motivation behind internet trolling? This thread has yielded a few interesting ideas so far.
.

Alleviating boredom.
Creating the illusion of power and control.
Satisfying one's inner toddler.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's more fun to laugh at troll threads.

Wow. You and I clearly have differing ideas of what is "fun to laugh at." Be that as it may, one still need not reply to "baiting" remarks if laughing at them is the thing one seeks to enjoy.

Serious discussions can be found all over the forum.

Tell me where the hell they are. I've looked for them and have not succeeded in finding many, so many, that is, as is implied by "all over the forum."

Btw, he invariably "admits" in his threads that he posted them to get a negative reaction. IMO that is always after his threads backfire on him.

Okay. I'll take your word for that. I'm not sure how that affects whether anyone "takes the bait."

In the Flame Zone mostly. I know there is a lot of flaming going on there but we also have serious discussions. I would say in comparison to the insults flung in the main forums the ones in the FZ are mild. Plus we police our own.

I have to admit that I haven't looked at anything in the Flame Zone. The title itself dissuaded me for "flaming" isn't something I care to be party to.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

banned said poster for lying for one week (from that subforum, not from the forum as a whole, not all subforums are that strict) Since those rules were imposed, that subforum is nearly dead, most posters simply do not want to be held to those standards.

It's strange that folks want to air their opinions but are unwilling to be held to a "no lying" standard. The English language has myriad ways to avoid lying and still share one's unfounded opinions.

• "I'm not sure, but I think/believe..."
• "I haven't confirmed this, but..."
• "My gut tells me..."
• "I'm unsure whether...."
• "While the facts indicate X is the rational conclusion, I do not accept that conclusion because...."

Those are just a few ways to do so, but like all the ways to do so, one must clearly (1) "own" one's uncertainty and/or irrationality, usually by indicating that one's stance is not supported by facts that one knows exist or that one has not found any that support one's POV.

Everyone can have whatever opinion(s) they have or want to have. But having an opinion and being entitled to have that opinion aren't the same things. One is entitled only to one's informed opinions, and when one is not fully informed, one can quite easily have an opinion to which one isn't entitled, that isn't justifiable, and that thus derives from ignorance, even if it's just partial ignorance. The way to ensure that's not the case is to overcome the ignorance, not "troll" about in forums looking to see if there are lots of others who are just as ignorant as oneself.

I often think people mistake facts for opinions.


In the example I gave. it is obvious that Hillary claimed to have never sent classified material via her private email. It is equally obvious that was a lie. If you choose to believe that lie, it doesn't make it any less true.

I can, however, understand a board not wanting to make such lies against the rules. Their main concern is clicks, not honesty in debate.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The need is the need to feel important. .

....which also explains how moderators at some sites can be the very worst trolls.

Their hunger for power over others at websites is often inversely proportional to the power they have in real life.

 

[Correll]

banned said poster for lying for one week (from that subforum, not from the forum as a whole, not all subforums are that strict) Since those rules were imposed, that subforum is nearly dead, most posters simply do not want to be held to those standards.

It's strange that folks want to air their opinions but are unwilling to be held to a "no lying" standard. The English language has myriad ways to avoid lying and still share one's unfounded opinions.

• "I'm not sure, but I think/believe..."
• "I haven't confirmed this, but..."
• "My gut tells me..."
• "I'm unsure whether...."
• "While the facts indicate X is the rational conclusion, I do not accept that conclusion because...."

Those are just a few ways to do so, but like all the ways to do so, one must clearly (1) "own" one's uncertainty and/or irrationality, usually by indicating that one's stance is not supported by facts that one knows exist or that one has not found any that support one's POV.

Everyone can have whatever opinion(s) they have or want to have. But having an opinion and being entitled to have that opinion aren't the same things. One is entitled only to one's informed opinions, and when one is not fully informed, one can quite easily have an opinion to which one isn't entitled, that isn't justifiable, and that thus derives from ignorance, even if it's just partial ignorance. The way to ensure that's not the case is to overcome the ignorance, not "troll" about in forums looking to see if there are lots of others who are just as ignorant as oneself.

I find your definition of "trolling" to be overly broad.

Being mistaken about a fact, or operating from an poorly supported opinion is not trolling.

One could sincerely believe, for example that, cigarette smoking is GOOD for you.


Such a person might have personal experiences or observations that lead them to that conclusion and they could present them and defend them quite strongly.

I'm sure that they could fine some reasons to doubt the to date medical research and reject the medical consensus.


BUT, imo it does not become trolling until they start not just disagreeing with people, but IGNORING their posts and restating their initial positions,

or MISREPRESENTING their opponents posts with the intent of using dishonesty to incite anger,

or simply Personally Attacking their opponents for made up bull reasons, such as being emotionally biased against Southern Tobacco growers, supposedly for no good reason.



Being WRONG is not trolling.


Being purposefully offensive in order to be provocative is being a troll.

IMO.

 

[Mac1958]

Nothing in the OP pointed in any direction, at any ideology.

Yet members of one ideology have disrupted the thread and made things personal, right on cue, unsolicited.

Somehow they think this isn't obvious.

The psychology of trolling is fascinating, indeed.
.

 

[320 Years of History]

members of one ideology have disrupted the thread and made things personal, right on cue, unsolicited.

LOL...Yes, "trolls," for all else they are, are delightfully predictable. There is no limit to the traps, both complex and not, into which they will fall. They just can't help themselves. How could they? They don't bother to think about what they say before saying it. Even after saying it, they generally only think of ways to finagle a "defense" of their foolishness, but rarely, if ever, about whether their remarks had any merit to begin with.

 

[Mac1958]

banned said poster for lying for one week (from that subforum, not from the forum as a whole, not all subforums are that strict) Since those rules were imposed, that subforum is nearly dead, most posters simply do not want to be held to those standards.

It's strange that folks want to air their opinions but are unwilling to be held to a "no lying" standard. The English language has myriad ways to avoid lying and still share one's unfounded opinions.

• "I'm not sure, but I think/believe..."
• "I haven't confirmed this, but..."
• "My gut tells me..."
• "I'm unsure whether...."
• "While the facts indicate X is the rational conclusion, I do not accept that conclusion because...."

Those are just a few ways to do so, but like all the ways to do so, one must clearly (1) "own" one's uncertainty and/or irrationality, usually by indicating that one's stance is not supported by facts that one knows exist or that one has not found any that support one's POV.

Everyone can have whatever opinion(s) they have or want to have. But having an opinion and being entitled to have that opinion aren't the same things. One is entitled only to one's informed opinions, and when one is not fully informed, one can quite easily have an opinion to which one isn't entitled, that isn't justifiable, and that thus derives from ignorance, even if it's just partial ignorance. The way to ensure that's not the case is to overcome the ignorance, not "troll" about in forums looking to see if there are lots of others who are just as ignorant as oneself.

I find your definition of "trolling" to be overly broad.

Being mistaken about a fact, or operating from an poorly supported opinion is not trolling.

One could sincerely believe, for example that, cigarette smoking is GOOD for you.


Such a person might have personal experiences or observations that lead them to that conclusion and they could present them and defend them quite strongly.

I'm sure that they could fine some reasons to doubt the to date medical research and reject the medical consensus.


BUT, imo it does not become trolling until they start not just disagreeing with people, but IGNORING their posts and restating their initial positions,

or MISREPRESENTING their opponents posts with the intent of using dishonesty to incite anger,

or simply Personally Attacking their opponents for made up bull reasons, such as being emotionally biased against Southern Tobacco growers, supposedly for no good reason.



Being WRONG is not trolling.


Being purposefully offensive in order to be provocative is being a troll.

IMO.

I've seen comments in a WIDE variety of online articles that were just insane in their nastiness and vulgarity. And it seems like it was just random - there was no indication that the poster knew the person to whom he was posting, he just let him have it with both barrels.

That to me is even more strange than the behavior on a message board, where at least posters have little online "relationships" built up.
.

 

[Mac1958]

members of one ideology have disrupted the thread and made things personal, right on cue, unsolicited.

LOL...Yes, "trolls," for all else they are, are delightfully predictable. There is no limit to the traps, both complex and not, into which they will fall. They just can't help themselves. How could they? They don't bother to think about what they say before saying it. Even after saying it, they generally only think of ways to finagle a "defense" of their foolishness, but rarely, if ever, about whether their remarks had any merit to begin with.

Well, the thought "they just can't help themselves" is one of the core questions I have. Some of the theories posited in the articles to which I linked make it sound like these people almost CAN'T help themselves. There has to be something going on in someone who is SO quick to be SO nasty.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Mods, I'm hoping you won't close the thread now that people are trying to derail it.

No names were mentioned in the OP; this could have been an interesting discussion regarding forums, articles, columns, etc. Trolls exist all over the political spectrum. All over the ideological spectrum. All over the social spectrum. All over the cultural spectrum.

This is the CDZ. Is there anywhere we can post without having this happen?
.

That's the way it goes. A thread about what Hillary did, how long does it take before the first "oh yeah but Trump " post appears? Or vice versa? Sad.

Yep.

I'm gonna try, yet again, to drag this back to the point of the thread.

What do you suppose is the motivation behind internet trolling? This thread has provided a few interesting ideas so far.
.

Honestly, it's a combination of things. Some people troll just trying to be funny. Others troll b/c they are just at base dishonest and or stupid people who have nothing intelligent to add to a conversation but feel compelled to comment on topics.

The majority of trolls are the latter group. There are just a lot of stupid people in this country Mac, people who in their real lives no one gives a shit what they have to say. I mean in real life if you walk up to a bunch of people who are having a discussion and you start telling all manner of lies, and exhibiting all manner of stupid behavior, at best you'll soon be told to fuck off, at worst you'll be knocked on your ass. In the virtual world though, you can do anything, say anything, be anyone and who's going to stop you? Oh sure break the very bare minimum rules and you get in trouble, but that's about it.

On the board I was talking about earlier, they have a subforum that is clearly marked no trolling. And the rules frankly make the CDZ look like a free for all. In that sub forum , for example. In a discussion about Clinton and her servers earlier today a poster made the statement that she never claimed she hadn't sent classified emails from her private server. A mod came into the thread and posted a quote from Hillary saying exactly that and then posted a quote from Comey where he says the FBI found that she HAD done so and banned said poster for lying for one week (from that subforum, not from the forum as a whole, not all subforums are that strict) Since those rules were imposed, that subforum is nearly dead, most posters simply do not want to be held to those standards.

One of the articles I linked mentioned that more and more sites (not so much forums, just news & opinion sites) are requiring people to use their real names as a way to slow down the trolls. I know the Huffington Post does.

Have you seen that?
.

 

[Ravi]

"Poke, observe, poke, observe."

^right there

 

[Correll]

Nothing in the OP pointed in any direction, at any ideology.

Yet members of one ideology have disrupted the thread and made things personal, right on cue, unsolicited.

Somehow they think this isn't obvious.

The psychology of trolling is fascinating, indeed.
.

Which undermines your claim that it is a bi-partisan problem.

 

[flacaltenn]

Closed for Moderation. Will re-open shortly..

 

[flacaltenn]

12 posts deleted. What was deleted?
Anything that makes this thread personal or violated CDZ rules.

Topic is not Trump or Hilliary. Topic is not you or me. If I was Dr. Suess
I would have removed more for glee..

 

[flacaltenn]

bump..

 

[Mac1958]

Thank you!

 

[Mac1958]

Nothing in the OP pointed in any direction, at any ideology.

Yet members of one ideology have disrupted the thread and made things personal, right on cue, unsolicited.

Somehow they think this isn't obvious.

The psychology of trolling is fascinating, indeed.
.

Which undermines your claim that it is a bi-partisan problem.

Well, there are trolls across the spectrum, especially if you use the working definition I'm using for this thread, "reacting to a post or article or column by getting nasty and personal, and staying nasty and personal". It's not tough to find plenty of that on this board (and, I'm sure, others).

It's just not working out that way on this thread....


.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Poke, observe, poke, observe."

You'll need to flush that out a bit before it is ready for literotica, Ravi.