Hints to the scientific basis for trolling
19 11 2007There’s a great article on the New Scientist blogs about internet trolling:
My pet theory about why people behave so rudely is that online commenting is treated, by most people, like a pub conversation – they don’t necessarily expect to be taken seriously and the social rules are fairly relaxed. And yet, because comments appear in cold text without important cues like friendly body language, they can easily seem more offensive than if they would otherwise. As a result some people get annoyed, and the flaming and trolling begin.
After being described a few weeks ago as “a self-lobotomised liberal who can’t face the facts”, I decided to look into the psychology of online behaviour a bit further. Much of the research on online communication has looked at email, but it seems that many of the results can be generalised to apply to chat rooms and forums too.
It’s well worth checking out for anyone who’s trolled or been the victim of trolls in the past. More on this tomorrow.
(via /.)
Good Link.
Wish I’d come up with that language to describe you…
… anyway, Keep up the good work. I enjoy your site, and of course, I disagree with everything, even on the articles that I haven’t read yet.
OOps, my tinfoil hat fell off and I need to comment on your other Article…
I was onto this years ago; fires do get started because of the lack of nuance that accompanies face-to-face human interactions: no voice inflection, no facial gestures, no body language. This is why the smiley got started, I’m pretty sure - as an attempt to emote. A wink, for example, after a comment that might be offensive otherwise.
Of course, there’s a difference between a conventional “flame war” and “trolling” as it has come to be understood in the context of the greater internet. While the term is habitually misused and misapplied, the genuine internet troll is, to my understanding, one who goes into a forum with the express purpose of sowing dissent. Very often the topical matter doesn’t even interest the troll; he may say something designed to get a fire started, and the fur may fly thereafter, but he’s not really interested in the argument, in winning, or losing. He is merely getting off on the fact that he started a fire.
And he will practice his art on anyone who will engage once he lights the match.
Hearkening back to the fairy tale, the troll under the bridge simply lurks, waiting for someone to cross his bridge. He is completely indiscriminate about who he eats when they cross his bridge; he’ll eat anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Billy_Goats_Gruff
In this respect, the nature of the internet troll that I’ve highlighted seems to conform to the fairy tale.
But there is an even more sinister side. I’ve read various “profiles” on the garden-variety internet troll, and they all tend to be characterized by the following:
1.) Antisocial with respect to the real world. Possibly living alone, unlucky in love, bad job, no friends, blah, blah
2.) Angry at the world
The internet forum becomes an outlet for their inner frustrations which they cannot unload in the real world.
This ties in with the formula laid out in what has become known (in some circles) as “John Gabriel’s Greater Internet F**kwad theory.” –
(normal person) + (anonymity) + (audience) = total f**kwad.
In the case of the genuine pathological troll, however, the expression should be altered to:
(angry, antisocial person) + (anonymity) + (audience) = total f**kwad.
Quite simply, I think trolls are firestarters, like the disturbed kid who goes around lighting houses in the neighborhood on fire because it makes him feel important.
PPP: Thanks, and I wasn’t kidding: We should go grab a beer sometime.
RB: I agree with most of your comment, and where I don’t agree I think the point is fairly minor. What I would suggest is that the knee-jerk trolls aren’t as large a percentage of the troll universe as you suggest.
Especially in the political arena, where many of them seem to be trying to achieve specific goals, such as poisoning the well or advancing an agenda. In getting their message across they just adopt tactics that aren’t particularly successful. I don’t know if they’re trying to make it a show of force or that’s just how people talk wherever the hell they come from, but it usually comes across as crazy BS.
Perhaps it’s a symptom of my scarred liberal brain (trust me: always have your lobotomy preformed by a professional) but I’m sure that some of them have good intentions and simply don’t quite get the difference between criticism and an attack, or “I disagree, and here’s why” and “Up yours, child molester.” There seems to be a certain segment of our population that is incapable of talking about even just mildly controversial topics without going nuclear, such as television pundits.
All that said, I’m not defending these idiots any more than I would the the angry children variety of trolls, just trying to broaden the definition.
Thanks for coming by, RB, Penny Arcade referencing local bloggers are always welcome!
Beer is seldom a bad idea, Do you ride?
Always fun to go for a cruise then have a beer.
Nah, my sneakers are my ride. I’m usually up for a long post-drink walk, though.
I need that gyroscope effect of the engine, transmission and wheels, otherwise I just keep leaning to the right all the time…
Oh, fair enough.