From Psychology Today: Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists (h/t to John Goetz)
Above: the Josh rendition of the troll known as “andthentheresphysics” who may have a rude awakening very soon. Image not to scale.
[NOTE: I’ve always believed that people who taunt others while hiding behind fake names aren’t really contributing anything except their own bile and hatred. The two people that came to mind when I read this article were Dr. Joshua Halpern of Howard University aka “Eli Rabett” and Miriam O’Brien aka Sou Bundanga/Hotwhopper. These people are supposed to be professionals, yet they position themselves as childish cowards, spewing invective from the safety of anonymity while taunting people who have the integrity and courage to put their real names to their words. The best way to combat people like this is to call them out by their name every time they practice their dark art. To that end, and not just for these two losers, I’m stepping up moderation on WUWT. If you want to rant/spew from the comfort of anonymity, find someplace else to do it, because quite frankly I’m in a position in my life where I don’t have the time to deal with this sort of juvenile crap. Be on your best behavior, otherwise its the bit bucket for you. Moderators, take note.. – Anthony]
Psychology Today: Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists
In this month’s issue of Personality and Individual Differences, a study was published that confirms what we all suspected: internet trolls are horrible people.Let’s start by getting our definitions straight. An internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.
What kind of person would do this?
Canadian researchers decided to find out. They conducted two internet studies with over 1,200 people. They gave personality tests to each subject along with a survey about their internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence that linked trolling with the Dark Tetrad of personality: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadistic personality.
They found that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said trolling was their favorite internet activity. To get an idea of how much more prevalent these traits were among internet trolls, check out this figure from the paper:
Look at how low the scores are for everyone except the internet trolls! Their scores for all four terrible personality traits soar on the chart. The relationship between this Dark Tetrad and trolling is so significant, that the authors write the following in their paper:
“… the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists.” [emphasis added]
Trolls truly enjoy making you feel bad. To quote the authors once more (because this is a truly quotable article):
“Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun … and the Internet is their playground!”
Full article here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists?tr=MostViewed
The paper:
Trolls just want to have fun
Abstract
In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have always said ‘don’t feed the trolls.’ I run several social media pages, when a troll shows up, the troll’s comment gets deleted, the troll gets banned, and I never say a word. Because what they want is that word… it’s yummy to them, makes them feel worthwhile.
Just came across my first major troll experience. Fits the definition to a “T”. 🙂
One expects to have a “discussion” but when the reply completely ignores the facts being presented and just goes off on a tangent it is tough to remain civil.
That’s why I don’t deal with trolls at all. Want a reasonable discussion? I love to talk about the posts on my pages, but some folks just want to spew trash and wait for attention. Those I delete.
Sometimes it’s a fine line between feeding a troll and keeping the record straight. As WUWT has become the most viewed website on global warming I think it’s important that the mainstream skeptical position is maintained, developed, and defended here if for no other reason than to accurately represent the mainstream skeptical position to those that may just be coming into the debate. If a comment isn’t deleted and it either 1) has the appearance of a legitimate criticism or 2) grossly misrepresents the mainstream skeptical position then it should be responded to with polite but devastating rebuttal.
It seems like it would be great if instead of banning people you could fix it so they were the only ones who can see their own posts. Then they would feel ignored and not get any of the desired psychic feedback.
Agree with, John West.
Yes, just because someone might disagree with the consensus of a site ( in the case of WUWT, scepticism) doesn’t automatically make them a troll.
Tonyb
And, besides, a troll is someone that for whatever reason is considered to be an outsider. Members of the in-group are generally far more delusional, violent and cruel. Eco-chamber effect, safety in numbers, etc, etc.
Nice to have a definition of troll I can point to next time I am called one. I most see it used as “someone who disagreed with me.”
I know what you mean, and I agree with you.
The definition is morphing. It was, for a long time, someone who posts to tweak others into reflexive comment, just for sport. Now, it seems to include any bad forum behavior.
I disagree with you. ;*)
This “study” strikes a little too much like a certain 97% “study” we all know and love. It’s too clear cut and too much exactly what people would like to be a truthful study. It’s just too convenient.
I agree to some degree. It’s my understanding that respondents to personality inventories, who have anti-social and/or narcissistic tendencies, do answer honestly simply because they think they are “wonderful human beings.” Look at Obama, he compares himself to Einstein, Patton, and Mother Theresa, without batting an eyelash. Directionally I would agree with the study, but I’d be very cautious about making very specific conclusions.
I’ve had the joy of working with somebody who fits the definition of narcissistic to a tee. They though the sun shone out their backside, and had not the slightest idea of the distress of everyone around them.
In a workplace its common for there to be one or two people who don’t get on. When EVERYONE (every. single. person.) in that workplace says “X is a problem”, then you know it’s time to stop questioning yourself, and agree that X really is the problem. X leaving was so, so wonderful. X is now off creating havoc elsewhere. And my feedback from the people at that elsewhere place is “oh gee, X is a problem!”
Well, Mother Theresa and Patton were well known as being difficult to work with. Einstein spent his working life trying to prove Relativity wrong. I can’t see POTUS doing that with Obamacare, his response to ISIS, Benghazi, the EPA………
Like Global Warming, they went looking for the result they wanted, and magically, it appeared. Gosh!
Being skeptical of results simply because they are too “clear cut”? Sometimes things are clear cut and given what we know about personality traits, this is exactly what you’d expect to find.
Yes, the conclusion is actually very obvious.
People who enjoy hurting others online have the personality traits of a sadist.
i.e.
People who enjoy hurting others online, enjoy hurting others.
Good point Jim
I can’t stand these pro AGW trolls and I think many of them are establishment trolls. fifteen years ago I got into some heavy 9-11 debating. I finally got one top admit he was with the secret police. Can’t say he wasn’t playing, can’t say he was… I think there is more of them around – Retired cops that plant Monsanto seeds on private farms trolling when it rains.
I for one applaud your positive steps to effect a pause in the growth of comment trolls. Something none of the models had predicted.
There’s gotta be something pretty weird about a guy who thinks he’s a rabbit and writes about himself in the third person….
Eh, what’s up doc?
OTOH, one on whom the carrot and stick model may work. One would hope anyway. Not sure it would on Eli.
Writing and speaking of yourself in third person is a classical red flag for narcissism.
Writing about and/or speaking about oneself in the third person is a classical red flag for narcissism. These people think so highly of themselves without doing or accomplishing anything of real substance.
Oops. Didn’t mean to double post. Thought the first one was lost.
Hopefully since this WUWT post has to do with Trolls my post ok with you Anthony.
This is an iffy post so, moderators may want to pass this one by Anthony first..
Very Interesting timing of this..lol
I just created this new hash tag this morning… #ClimateTrollGate for @hellerexposed Troll Act that showed up on September 20 after M Mann’s Troll Tweets on September 17.
You all can have fun guessing who he is. Lost of Clues out there,Hints Great Blog writing skills, Expert Twitter user and Knows of M Mann according to him.
Steven Goddard?
The Disney Cartoon “Wonder over Younder” did a marvelous little treatment on this in which a tiny troll grew bigger and bigger the more response he got from the people he was taunting.
Trolling predates the HTML internet, that’s for sure. The term is older than that. Back to the days of Unix bulletin boards even. And has been previously noted, the #1 attack is to treat the troll as if they are beneath contempt. Ignore them utterly and completely, as if their posts were lost in the posting. On smaller forums this is easily done, but in larger audiences it’s impossible. Most people are simply too thin skinned and cannot resist temptation, and that in of itself would make a great paper. To feed a troll is to express weakness or ignorance. And there is another (lesser) animal loose upon the internet: the fanboy who offers nothing but empty props and endless surface accolades for another party, often to a party that’s being criticized. Fanboys outnumber trolls 20-to-1.
I dont know I find that belittling a troll is the most effective method. They are narcissists. I go right after the ego and they tend to run.
Do you have any examples of your superior skills?
Of course this is high level judo. You have to have a very good understanding of the pathology and how to attack the ego in such a way as not to feed it. If you aren’t a black belt best to leave that to the experts.
Funny nonsense.
“They gave personality tests” From which school of psychology were these tests derived? Behavioral theory, pschoanalitical, learning theory or whatever? Having taken over 27 semester hours of psychology/behavioral studies (they were easy electives compared to the engineering curriculum), I would take any results from such tests with a large lump of salt. I am fairly confident that if one asked a practitioner from one of the other schools of thought on psychology, they would trash the study. You think climate science is a soft science, it is rock solid compared to psychology. I did kind of like the course in psychoanalysis, as with clinical psychology, one must first have an MD to go on in that field. Key finding in all of my studies in this field, there is one factor that allows an individual to improve when they do have a problem, irrespective of any “sessions” with a shrink, it is personal awareness that they have a problem. That would leave out some of the ego-maniacal posters who sometimes appear on this site.
Psychoanalytical-Spelling
A subtlety of this study is that they seems to classify the “trolls” as those who are self-aware that they are trolls.
Therefore, there is another class of people, unexamined in this study, who are trolls, but are unaware of their behavior.
The issue is not necessarily whether one is aware of their behaviour but rather if one is aware of the pathological nature of their behaviour.
Either that or they are lying about themselves (play acting) and trying to give trolls a bad reputation. I have never been able to tell whether anyone who was called a “troll” by another commenter was actually a “troll”. As far as I can tell, a “troll” or a “concern troll” is most likely just a persistent minority voice.
This is known as the Johari Window.
However, it is unsurprising that those who self-identify as trolls are narcissistic.
The report is essentially a tautology. People that like to offend others in person also enjoy doing so online. What a surprise. The New Book says “don’t feed the trolls” the Old Book said “don’t cast your pearls before swine” so the social phenomenon is obviously ancient.
For civility on an internet board moderation is essential. Even then there are those who try to push the limits.
Good points raised. If somebody is accused of being a troll on a forum, I can’t recall them acknowledging and it seems like, if anything it results in a denial.
This study, however suggests that trolls readily admit to purposely being trolls. Maybe it’s just because you can’t be effective as a troll on the internet if you admit that you are there as a troll. This would only cause others to ignore you.
Maybe trolls have more self awareness of the intent of their actions when analyzing their behavior in the setting of a questionnaire/survey……..probably not to the extend shown here.
Maybe this type of study/researcher(s), has an innate bias or those answering are responding in a way that intentionally effects the results.
For instance, a psychopathic personality is skilled at manipulation in all realms. Would we expect a psychopath to be honest and admit to having these personality flaws which categorize them as horrible people?
A distorted view of their importance may be perceptible by somebody that understands this type of behavior and is able to observe them in action.
However, this research only conducts a survey. It seems to be saying that psychopaths, readily identify themselves as psychopaths with answers to most questions they know suggest they are horrible people and that includes, being honest about enjoying behaving as a troll………..which we know from the real world, they hide from everybody else when they are trolling.
To me, this points towards the strong possibility of researchers with cognitive/confirmation bias, which has caused expected trait(s) to show up in the results of their research.
Oh good grief I think your painting with a brush that’s far too wide, as long as it’s not character assination, what’s the harm? It’s frowned on here but there are a sites that are far more “wild-west” and that’s fine for them. I spend a lot of time on slashdot, which is a user moderated forum, there trolling used to be a fine art-form,
, but these youngster now-a-days are just lame at trolling.
The contents of Slashdot#Culture lists many of the trolling memes that have been on slashdot and is not recomended for the faint of heart.
I often have comments on /. modderated as both insightfull and troll, and sometimes a few flamebaits are thown in for good measure; usually on a thread about climate change.
Also I don’t think trollong is strictly an internet thing, Howard Stern’s whole radio show is one big troll-fest and look at how popular he is.
Okay, so whenever I read something that I find that I disagree with I usually comment on it either within the comments section or I find the author on twitter and comment directly. I always use my real name and never hide behind some other name.
Am I a troll?
Depends if you address the issue you disagree with or just distract from that issue.
And if the distraction is designed to excite the passions of the person you are debiting with and not their mind… then you are probably a troll.
“Am I a troll?”
Results reveal intention. Trolls do not require agreement or disagreement; they might in fact agree with you but will start an argument for the fun of it.
I never do it just for fun but sometimes a particular hypocrisy is too acute to let pass unremarked and the results can be unexpectedly rewarding (or annoying). For instance over on ATTP the regulars were commenting intensely on the conspiracy of Koch brothers, paid disinformers and this great big scary thing called “denial”.
So I wrote a single sentence (if I remember right), “Looks like a bit of conspiracy ideation”.
Talk about starting a food fight. Really all I wanted was to suggest removing the beams (slivers?) from their own eyes before suggesting I remove the mote from mine.
I could probably start many such food fights if I wanted to but it seems a bit sleazy.
Anthony, this is a very interesting article. Thanks.
As I did not pay the $35 to read the whole paper, I am relying on your insights, so I’d like some clarification on your comment: They found that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said trolling was their favorite internet activity. To get an idea of how much more prevalent these traits were among internet trolls, check out this figure from the paper:
Your first sentence says “trolls are more likely to be tetrads” but the figure (which describes only members of the Dark Tetrad) says “tetraders like to troll.” I’m guessing (I’m hoping) that the Bayesian prior for “Dark Tetrad” (a term that is new to me, but very fun to use!) is relatively low, so we would need to see a different plot to infer that trolls are more likely to be tetrads.
The above sounds confusing even to me, so let me try again: Does the paper suggest, given that someone is a frequent troll, what the probability is that the person is a member of the Dark Tetrad?
That’s from the Psychology Today article, I need to make that clearer. [done]
@Michael D. 8:07 am
The paper suggests (going by the PR trailer for the paper) that self-aware trolls, i.e. trolls who know they are acting as trolls, are very likely to have a personality that measures in the Dark Tetrad. It is the self-aware part of the observation that makes the Dark Tetrad characteristic not surprising.
I do not think the paper even considered the population of people who engage in trollish behavior but think their hearts are pure.
The fact that “Debating issues” gets a positive DT score suggest to me that there is a spectrum between debate and trolling, at least in the mind of the respondents.
The difference between debaters and trolls is in the narcissism category.
Debaters lack the self-love to disregard any alternative views. That is how they can debate.
Trolls debate without listening.
I agree George, and doesn’t that then make it a subjective, not an objective view?
I think that a difference between “debating” and “trolling” is that in debate you have to recognize that the other person has a point of view. It becomes a combat of arguments where the victor is assessed by others. Trolls never can recognize that those they are attacking have anything useful to say, nor that what they say can ever be wrong. There might be a spectrum of debating, but the true Troll is at the extreme end.
The one who properly debates will use debate as a means of sparring. It is not to destroy the opponent, but to learn.
I have taken on a couple of Trolls, as a means of understanding arguments. In August last year it was someone who went by the name of “Michael the Realist”. It helped sharpen my own arguments, such as here. This year I took on a troll who does blogs under his real name – William Connolley – the one who undermined the credibility of Wikipedia. Both had taken to plaguing the comments of Joanne Nova’s blog. Neither do so now.
Machiavellianism? That’s a new one for me. I have read Machiavelli, who wrote on statecraft.
N. Machiavelli was a realist. I don’t understand what psychology imputes to him. I’ve read his works, and I personally find nothing objectionable. He just tells it like it is.
There’s more to him than that. Try to find an article by Harvey Mansfield on Machiavelli’s “effectual truth”. Effectual truth, promoted by Machiavelli, is basically what we call today, “the ends justifying the means.” Machiavelli believed that if you thought you could do a better job at running things, and you lied and deceived to get yourself in that position, and you succeeded, you didn’t really lie or deceive. Effectually, you told the truth. I see this in two clear areas today: climate change and Obamacare. Lies, lies and lies are okay with those pushing the agenda, because it’s doing the right thing, and effectually, that is the truth. Ask someone about Obamacare, how the premiums have gone up, not down, how you do lose your doctor and/or your insurance company, and you’re greeted with, “so what, in the end it will be better.”
Dangerous stuff. It justifies any behavior. This is why politicians act as they wish, regardless of morals or laws.
I’ve always wondered if certain people (leftist leaders, specifically) aren’t chosen based on personality types.
It amounts to self selection.
This is why I appreciate the direction of the OAS–getting past the hype, hyperbole, saracasm and vitriole so commmonplace on the interwebz… and the trolls that perpetuate it.
This has always been a favorite of mine…and it’s so dead on, in so many ways.
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/
Just browse and laugh.
HAHA! Brilliant. Thanks!
That is a brilliant link. Thanks for posting it.
This is sadly so true it ought to be a linked reference page on the sidebar.
Marvellous, thank you.
Brilliant list, great pics. A must see 😉
Its unsafe to use your real name on the internet.
At my old place of employment, had my employer known that I was a climate skeptic she would have summarily fired me. I had no choice but to use a pseudonym.
I use a pseudonym, not because I’m a psychopath, but because I’ve talked to a few on the internet. There are some sick people out there, and if you annoy them, they can turn up
on your doorstep.
exactly, I started using a nom de plume after some seriously nasty trolls continued to hassle me.
so while I understand the real name preference for many, a web page that demanded that was what brought so much grief n stress I halted use of what was a great social webpage with a lot on it I found of worth n interest. I was not the only one who left. the pages owners refused to ban the trolls.
I”ve had the experience of being shunned,shut out, publicly treated as a fool because of my views (which I might add have been carefully considered and built over a long period – I’m an ex-believer & still a pale-greenie). There are many cases now where if my name were public I’d have a few problems.
The worst one was blogging where I had to pull the account down (and pay extra to kill the domain name quickly) because I rattled the cage of some very nasty people who made threats against me and my family. The also posted grossly defamatory material on many many web sites and it took ages to contact each and ask that the offending material be taken down.
That experience means that my real name does not get out much any more. It’s better for the safety of the family.
I wonder how Joshua “Eli Rabbett” Halpern would have fared in that test.
His student ratings seem to place him down the scale on social and communication skills, earning him the bottom ranking of all chemistry teachers at Howard, with an awesome 2.3/5:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=543236
Wow. The more you scroll down, the worse he gets.
Curious… One certain Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State doesn’t seem to have a listing.
Never mind… found him another way.
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=939746
MM’s ratings are very curious. Rather odd that the bear a strong similarity to reviews of his book on Amazon. Which might explain the top & bottom scoring double bell.
Twenty five points grading curve, oof.
A minus? Who’re they kidding?
To be honest I’ve always been suspicious of spychological studies that seek to categorize human behavior. And, in fact, no one truly has their act together. I’ve known quite a few therapists in my time (none of which have been through court order – honest), and they would readily admit that they themselves don’t have their acts together. And life would probably be pretty bland if everybody did. Humans are far too fluid, and unpredictable to attempt to predict. (A little like the climate?)
Having said that I would simply describe a troll as an ‘annoying person.’
– Thomas Judd
Obligatory xkcd
http://xkcd.com/386/
A classic.
too funny! He looks exactly like me!
May I add that I “hide” behind not a fake name, but an incomplete name, because I live in a totalitarian country (Canada) where people holding dissenting views (for example on Climate Change) can be severely punished. I would like to be part of the discussion, but I fear my ability to work as a scientist could be compromised if people could Google my name and find these comments.
So you are a scientist and also a climate skeptic.
But, but.. what about the 97%?!!
Just what I’d expect from a 3%er.
/s
Reminds me of a Simpsons episode, Lisa the Vegetarian. Lisa held a dissenting view about meat. So to try to dissuade her, Principle Skinner comes in and says “A certain agitator, lets call her Lisa S. No, that is too obvious, lets call her L Simpson.” And then the class proceeds to watch a film by the meat company with Troy McClure.
mmmmmmm, tripe
Oh, and BTW, I did attend Bovine University.
Understood, so do I.
And when changing jobs recently I stopped posting on WUWT for a while to make sure my LinkedIn presence was internet searched, only. You can’t be too careful.
It’s not that safe out there.
Anthony:
I think you should also instruct your moderators to go out of their way to be viewpoint impartial when judging whether someone is a troll. There is a strong tendency to assume that someone who disagrees with your opinions can not possibly be sincere.
[Reply: Moderators should err on the side of free speech. Too many blogs censor comments just because they disagree with them. WUWT tries to be an exception to that. ~ mod.]
Being a Troll is like being a Racist. You can’t be a racist unless you’re white and you can’t be a troll unless you’re criticizing CAGW. No matter how lame your comments, or how much ad hominem you spew, it’s all fine in the defense of the planet and the Watermelon agenda. Skeptics are automatically trolls for being disagreeable. This paper is just more Left Wing academic garbage for the True Believers to wield in an attempt to shut the opposition down.
There is another reason I don’t put my name willingly out there. The CAGW people have stated almost from the beginning that anybody that doubts CAGW are criminals. Point in fact that was recently made by Robert Kennedy Jr. The term denial is a direct reference to people that deny the holocaust happened and by extension that by arguing the science and political agenda of CAGW puts me directly at causing potential millions of deaths and untold suffering. CAGW is well organized and funded. Additionally it seems to have the unofficial backing of the US government. Combine those two and it becomes dicey to say, “I think you are wrong, and here’s why”.
By the way, substantial arguments are ignored, misdirected, parameters changed, or often out right lied about.
The trolls will not recognize themselves. It is the nature of the beast.
But the problem is wider than that, because the Internet and democracy are the ideal environments for sociopaths and psychopaths. While struggling to be democratic, the majority have to be undemocratic to deal with them. They are unwilling to do that and so the trolls, sociopaths and psychopaths succeed.