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’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.
Well Anthony, If your view is limited to people who taunt others while hiding behind fake names, I agree. There are those of us around the world that would be inconvenienced(at the least) or worse should our affiliations, positions or political views be well known, which for me is not so bad but then there are the repercussions against family. It is oh so easy to take a stand ignoring the lessons of history proclaiming your name when there is nothing to lose.
Trapped in Polyphemos’s cave, he’s quick enough to call out “Nobody is my name. My father and mother call me Nobody, as do all the others who are my companions”
The use of a pseudonym for posts is valid for public posting (not so much for hit and run troll attacks).
It is bad in America in light of the illegal use of the IRS & the FEC by the DNC/Obama Administration to suppress the organization of voter opposition as exhibited during the scandal of the 2008 general elections. While it looks bad in America it is far worse here in Europe where the process is institutionalized and beaten down into the populations psyche.
Well, the psychology paper, with its own definition of trolls, may or may not be intellectually faulted. Certainly, I won’t give it the benefit of the doubt at all.
I think, without any need for such a psychology paper, it is long overdue for A. Watts to strengthen controls to stop the misuse of anonymity. The new anonymity policy statement by Anthony gives a justified context from many years of experience from abuse by anonymous commenters.
In my thinking, lack of civility by anonymous commenters means they get to avoid the responsibility for their uncivil behavior. In open society one should be responsible (accountable) for one’s actions.
Other issues with anonymity besides uncivil behavior exist. In my thinking, when anonymous commenters act without integrity then they avoid responsibility. Likewise, when anonymous commenters try to control the conversation by name-calling accusations that other commenters are trolls then they avoid responsibility.
Question: It makes me feel dishonest to be anonymous in intellectual discussions. Does it make any other commenters here feel that way too?
John
Anonymity breeds contempt.
Where contempt is institutionalized, penalizing all aspects of our lives, anonymity is the only refuge.
Our democratic vote is anonymous, so that citizens are not coerced. That same principle extends elsewhere.
I post under my initials, not really to be “anonymous”, but rather because that is how I have always signed my name, even in handwritten notes. (there have always been quite a few people who do that) I believe (of course others my differ) that a poster who consistently uses the same handle on the same forum for a long period of time isn’t “anonymous”, rather, that handle tells me more about who he is, by past reputation, than his actual name would.
My personal opinion is that the “anonymous” label should apply to those who change their name/handle frequently, along with the posting address, rather like a telemarketing company always rotating through new numbers so that they can’t be blocked. Or to put the thing succinctly, I don’t see a problem with someone using a consistent nom de plume.
The problem with using True Names, as has been pointed out elsewhere in these posts, is that there are quite a few people who are in positions and have jobs in which the simple act of posting on a site such as this one would be used to damage, and potentially end, their careers.
Poor content breeds contempt. For the rational, the “who” is irrelevant, only the content matters. It is what is said that should be judged, not the identity used to say it. Concerning yourself with the “who” is merely perpetuating the “argument from authority” falacy.
wws – I’ll post as Wally, with a real proper genuine email. If I can’t post as Wally, then I won’t post at all. The consequences of being found out are too severe.
John,
It doesn’t make me feel dishonest, but I had noticed that after I started using my full name some time back that after dropping anonymity I took more care with what I said. I generally did more research before speaking, generally thought through what I was going to say a little more carefully, etc. I think it was a positive change.
Of course I understand there may be risks involved, and I understand it’s not for everyone. ~shrug~
Mark,
I post under only part of my name, but try to take great care with my posts anyway. When I came to WUWT from CA, I did so to try to understand what was going on in the climate field. (I still go to CA occasionally, but Steve Mc’s format is harder to follow) I have been a skeptic on AGW from Mann’s first hockey stick because I studied too much history to entertain the idea that the MWP was not warmer than today at least in the northern hemisphere. I have had a few times in my comments where my previous understanding was corrected by others (for instance: DesertYote set me straight on salt water density verses temperature – for which I am quite grateful, I hate being wrong, so being shown a fact is appreciated). There have been other times when I would have liked more background, so I really should ask more questions.
I work in a University that has a leaning toward CAGW, but not fanatically so. We have no meteorology department or climate science so it is more that busy people just trust that the articles published in “the right journals” have been properly vetted and reflect the current state of understanding. Whereas I have seen the data adjustments and don’t believe the result. The wrong people publicly knowing my views could cause me difficulties I would prefer to avoid. I started off using just my first name, but a gentleman from Wales was already posting under that handle and it was causing some confusion so I added a general location of the US state I am in.
Owen,
I can certainly understand that. I’m a private sector engineer; nobody knows and nobody cares in my largely unrelated industry. The only risk I’m really taking is crazies tracking me down, and even there, I live in a conservative community that I’m confident would be sympathetic to my position if there was some altercation. In short, it’s no big deal for me because I’m really not risking much anyway. 🙂
Certainly, if I thought disclosing my identity wasn’t worth the (fairly minimal) risk, I wouldn’t hesitate to remain anonymous.
I’m not sure how many of my comments would be considered “intellectual”, but no, it doesn’t make me feel dishonest. Aside from the fact that I’ve identified with “Gunga Din” as me ever since someone else dubbed me with that as a CB handle 30 years or so ago, there are those out who would do real harm to those who don’t agree with them. Some of us may be more vulnerable than others. I said this earlier.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/and-climate-internet-trols-are-some-of-the-worst/#comment-1753052
I don’t use use “Gunga Din” to harm or disrupt.
& Anonymity is a minor art form that specializes in communicating who you aren’t.
John
Careful here….
Ultimately I believe the conclusions of the study will be expanded to add skeptical behavior to the troll category.
Simply questioning the status quo on any subject will be labeled as trolling as it may be seen as an attempt to upset rather than simply wanting to provide a point of view on a subject or correct the record.
My gut says that this study is really a disguised attempt to pigeonhole and discredit all skeptics as trolls.
InMD
I completely agree. There’s a full court press going on to get the Social Scientists and Psychiatric Scientists to manufacture papers that dehumanize and marginalize skeptics and paint them as “ill”. Money is flowing for this purpose and these scientists are moving to the money. This paper is one example.
The goal is to create stereotypes and prejudicial caricatures that become distinctions between believes and skeptics — ultimately forming dangerous ‘in group’ and ‘out group’ patterns. The ‘in group” comes to regard the “out group” as inyenzi who are not real humans, and as such must be eliminated. Or as James Cameron said when speaking of skeptics, “I think they’re swine”. “Kill the skeptics” becomes hip and cool among the believers.
Dr. Paul Bain from the University of Queensland (colleague of Stephan Lewendowsky) has studied the process of dehumanization extensively, and in particular its use in the Rwandan genocide. Its his primary research area. So its quite disturbing to see him now showing up in the climate change area and publishing papers calling skeptics deniers. In effect he is now applying his research in a way that dehumanizes skeptics. I guess he has discovered that its a better way to monetize his expertise. In any case, this needs to be exposed before it leads to a very ugly place.
That is illuminating. Other studies (in nonverbal communication) are actually quite sly in their conclusions about the use of stereotypes (such as for a race, or seniors, or any other group).
They show that using these stereotypes is effective because they are easily triggered (though unconsciously) after recent exposure to a stereotype.
People who are young have been over-exposed to stereotypes and misrepresentations of a lot of people, and I think it is a good idea to realize that.
I wrote something called “i´m going underground” and quoted the Daily Mail as follows:
“The professor….argued that ‘cultural resistance’ to accepting humans as being responsible for climate change ‘must be recognised and treated’ as an aberrant sociological behaviour.”
This refers to the Norgaard comments. When I realized they were serious about these ideas I decided I´d better be extremely careful when I visit known climate zombie haunts.
I’d be interested in a study of the anti-trolls as well – the people who immediately scream “Troll” whenever someone disagrees with them. A certain Lord who contributes to this blog comes to mind ;(
Hold on there Steve. I think you do ‘a certain Lord’ a disservice. Yes, I’ve seen him take trolls (in his mind) to task, but I figure he is well able to hold his own in civilised debate (would you take him on?) – so he does not need to hide behind troll-calling. Let’s face it, he is a very identifiable face and not scared to put himself up on the wall to make his case. Would that many more of us were that brave, and on balance, kudos to Monckton.
I am interested in the saint status of the non-commenter.
The only trait you can be sure of about a non-commenter is that at least they are not masochists.
Especially on Youtube. Ha ha.
Non-commenters are obviously solipsists. Or catatonic.
I am glad there are no trolls who post here. Right?
“andthentheresphysics” was always a flag for nonsense. A handle that is purposely myopic and suggests ignoring the numerous other sciences involved in understanding climate is not worth the time of day.
The worst case is when a person is identified as a troll for the crime of daring to disagree with the prevailing views on any particular site. I understand the need to filter out noise just taking up space or paid or unpaid trolls purposely trying to derail threads. None the less censorship is a slippery slope.
I leave a comment and usually leave soon after. We all know the US NAVY/NSA ‘sockpuppets’, as well as NSA automated ‘reply’ softwares are at play, right? What you term ‘trolls’ has been taken over by psyopcrapmosis.
I have seen trolling, and I have seen debate. Sometimes however, it gets fuzzy on who is debating and who is trolling. As long as both parties are not calling each other names, and both parties are actually acknowledging what has been said in relation to the argument, I’m ok with disagreement. When the discussion breaks down into either party changing the subject numerous times in rapid succession to evade conceding any point whatsoever, I call BS on the guilty culprit.
Alas: I do have concerns about making a negative impact on my employment, if I use my real name.
My real name, though simple and elegant, has only ONE duplicate in my metro area of 4 million plus people. (Nation wide, about 25 duplicates.) So I can’t use a name as John Smith for protection.
Many people know who I am. And, yes, they have my real email. And the emails I’ve sent to Anthony
ALWAYS have my real name.
When I think about it, aside from some mild sarcasm, I really NEVER have engaged in:
1. A direct attack on a personage for any aspect of their person, only their views of GLOBAL WARMING and the IR heat balance of the atmosphere.
2. Derisive or demeaning comments.
3. Putting forth information which would not have some reason behind it, and in many cases, some references to back it up.
I have, however, experienced an occasional “snap back” primarily…from what I can tell, by folks that generally would easily obtain the troll designation. Perhaps a badge of honor???
As far as I know, my real name is unique world-wide. It amounts to censorship to demand people post on controversial matters using their real name. This is what MSM is doing where I live, and therefore I am excluded from making my opinion heard. Problem solved for MSM.
There is one other Eric Werme in the United States. I think there are none in Sweden.
I’ve seen a few other Rics running about (one is a F/X guy in Hollywood), I’m certain I’m the only Ric Werme. Been on the ‘net since ARPAnet days with my own name.
so
Miriam O’Brien
and
Dr. Joshua Halpern
are anonymous trolls!!! That must be a new meaning of the word anonymous then?
Ok, anonymous before they were outed. so formerly anonymous trolls then, agreed?
Then there’s Fanny at Currys…
Trolling, in my mind, is any continued attempt to defeat the open discussion purpose of the site. Stupid and obnoxious posts and posters are many times simply in the eye of the beholder. Long rambling posts that break up the flow of the site and/or interrupt the discussion for the pure sake of interruption are candidates for the title of troll. But in the end, censorship is worse. The concept of personality “types” is not very valid in this respect as that becomes context specific. Occupy Wall Street types and Tea Party types probably would each comdemn the other’s personality except possibly at the extreme ends of the continuum in each group.
I still say that this is Anthony’s home… And as guests here, we should act appropriately… Anthony, I respect and admire you and your mission. I would never leave droppings for the moderators to clean up 🙂 Please never stop the fight against post normalcy. Many are counting on you.
I feel strongly that every person whose comment is posted should have a valid, verified email address so regardless of the name he/she uses to hide identify from other posters, the moderators know exactly the email address which gives them a way to contact the person to confirm identity if the situation merits research. In this regard, I have to laugh. When I made my first post after retirement, I accidently erred in entering my email address. When I corrected it later, my post was rejected. Moderators, my correct email address is available from Anthony.
😎
The first and only other time I “hung out” as a commenter at an online site it was the old AOL PetCare Forums under the subject of “Animal Rights/Animal Welfare”.
You couldn’t choose your name. The name that appeared was the name of your account. You had to be an AOL member to reach it. Add at aol.com and everyone and anyone there had your email address.
Any day now? New Climate study that global warming and climate change are the cause of Trolls.
The concept of a troll is over-engineered and unsuited to the purpose. It should be enough to say anyone with or without a fake or cloaked identity that is a serial disruption for a site is subject to ejection from the community. Labels such as troublemaker still work fine and are good enough. I have used a rather subjective threshold for certain types of posters on sites I host: If they appear indistinguishable from response-bots then they’re blocked. That would be anyone who repeats pet notions endlessly and omanuel at Climate Etc comes to mind. Mosher is another for his ability to be controversial without being relevant.
Another problem exists and that is the response to contributors here who don’t agree 100% with everything posted. This regards for example disagreement with science, belligerence of certain authors, and even editorial decisions (eg, appropriateness of certain articles). In a perfect world the percentage of these skeptical visitors should be 100% if everyone were truly a skeptic (and I can find no excuse for not being a skeptic). What I find is that when commenters express disagreement with a posted article there is a strong tribal reflex from other commenters that is unhealthy and very non-skeptical. The comments are personal and are intended to quash dissent, not to seek clarification. I think of these people as fanboys which is another unhealthy label but does make the point, and they are as toxic as any troll. George W. Bush jumped the shark in this regard when he said “you’re either with us or against us” in the days following 9-11. Life isn’t that convenient.
dp,
That was one of the most thoughtful and interesting posts of the entire thread. I say this not just because I happen to agree with you, but because … well … hmmmm … heck, because I agree with you. 🙂
So is this a case of most trolls being sadistic or most sadists being trollers?
YOu can bet that study was not done by Lewandowsky. 😉
Well the internet is a human cosmos so I expect that there are commensurate numbers of pathological liars, inferior and superior complexed folks (I’m told that the superiority complex is really a type of inferiority complex, though), schizoid types, drunks, cheats, gamblers, horse thieves, trolls, honest people, empathetic people, sympathetic people, just plain pathetic people, …… It’s all there. Indeed, what wonderful data there is to be teased out for a definitive study of the world’s psycho-pathologies, the percentages of every wavelength of human personality…. Trouble is the social sciences have long been suborned by political “progressives” and they’ve taken the field to combat sceptics to global warming, anti-elitists, educational goals, etc. and they would be the last to know and understand what a rich harvest there is. The authors of this article would seem to be the rare exception.,
In today’s world, where someone’s career can end because they signed the “wrong” petition or donated money to the “wrong” group, I think anonymity needs to be protected. A lot of forums ban anyone that presents a different opinion, no matter how expletive-free and respectful the posts may be. If someone is just blindly antagonistic, then do an IP ban on them, problem solved. Trying to get sociopaths to behave by forcing everyone to shed their anonymity is unnecessary and counterproductive, in my opinion.
I absolutely believe there are trolls who are psychopathic and narcissistic.
Then there are the trolls who are ideologues.
And then are the the trolls who are 12 year old boys who have discovered the joys of blogs rather than just flaming each other while playing CoD. I haven’t seen any of that 3rd class here but yes both of the first 2 categories show up occasionally.
Tamino was so abusive on the RC blog that Gavin had to delete some of the vulgarities flung in my direction. It took me some time to find it was well known climate ‘scientist’ Grant Foster. After revelling his name elsewhere, and added that I got his email, address and the place of work, without disclosing any of the information, in the following 3 or 4 years since, he never again commented on any of my posts on the RC (usually identical to what I post here on WUWT). In return Gavin more often than not despatches them to the bore hole.
Warmist trolls are becoming a very small minority backed up by the likes ofFake science created/adjusted by Mann Gavin ect. They are really fading fast.. My2c worth. BTW Troll is Scandinavian term for leprechaun LOL
I always try to post as I would say something to someone standing right in front of me. Recently, I’ve been really quiet. I don’t wish to be seen as some under the bridge ugly ogre but, on occasion, I have been insulting. I’ve only changed who I post under once and at that time, made it public.
I don’t mind the occasional (snip). The ones that get even worse in their diatribe when snipped, I believe are the true trolls.