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.
Play the ball, not the man.
I have to confess.. I don’t mind the trolls or the troll…perhaps I like them ..a bit. 🙂
Perhaps that makes me a troll… I don’t know..really!
As far as I can tell, if I am no wrong, a troll regardless of the exact motivation behind “it’s” behaviour, generally will engadge in an argument like from a normal possible point of view that could be expected from a non troll……. from a fake and a false representation through a character play with the intent of derailing-diluting or confusing the debate and the argument in the given issue.
Generally the troll’s “character play” will represent the point of “it’s” argument in the extreme flavour of either being too naive and dull-innocent or too brutal, and more than often there will be played too many characters at once, even in the case of a single comment……… and more than often leading to an inevitable jump out of the context and the actual argument.
Sophisticated trolls [“the clever ones”] in no time, while engadged, will have the “goal posts” of the argument shift and jump around like twig(s) in a hurricane and turning the debate in a chaotic mess.
Despite the dishonesty, irresponsability and the hatred introduced through trolling, I still don’t really mind them.
Perhaps sometimes I too see a troll in the mirror.:-)
Anyway, that is my personal take in this issue……but please please do not “shoot” them all. 🙂
Trolling still represent it’s own authentic flavour….. sometimes helping to estimate the strength and validity of certain points raised in a given issue or argument, I think.
cheers
I’m a troll and I disagree with everything in that psych article.
I troll Greenpeace and other “dark” greenies and also anti frackers. I do it to wind them up but usually by going all reductio ad absurdum on their key points to highlight the stupidity of their opinions.
The internet tends to create sheltered groups of like minded individuals who never get their ideas challenged. Calling someone they disagree with a “troll” is often an easy excuse for these people to avoid having to intellectually defend their beliefs. There are, of course, real trolls out there. The problem is that the word now tends to be applied to anyone who doesn’t share an individual or a groups’ world view, or worse, would like to challenge their ideas.
Over on NRO, Disquss has added tags that regulars can use to flag trolls “@troll”. If enough regulars (You’ll have to ask Disquss how a regular is defined) flag a troll, the software automatically deletes all existing posts from that poster and bans all future posts.
I have no idea how the software here works, but perhaps a scan of new posts looking for a tag, so that a post can be brought to the attention of moderators more quickly?
” the software automatically deletes all existing posts from that poster and bans all future posts.”
Governments must love that idea. Especially the current David Cameron.
“An internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation.”
That definition would fit anyone AGW “D-word” or skeptic who dares posts scientific facts or factual data in a Global Warming Alarmists forum. All a matter of perspective…
Yep – the less you know, the more likely you are to be a troll.
The worst example of this affecting me personally happened during my Linuxworld Series on IBM Linux: somebody had a note, written on a Fortune 500 company’s CIO’s personal letterhead, fed exed to my home with the words “You, sir, are an A*” and nothing else.
You might be a troll if you post comments about the person not the subject matter.
You might be a troll if you post generalized, unsubstantiated statements to disrupt the flow of the thread.
You might be a troll if you be a troll if you use the same generalized, unsubstantiated statements over and over.
You might be a troll if you constantly push you private agenda
You might be a troll if you spend more time looking for someone to disagree with than sleeping.
I googled a screen name that I used to see if there was a rebuttal on another site to something that I wrote and found that my real name was associated with it. You need to use an anonymous email address to stop that but I suspect that if you annoy someone from SkS for example, your real name will end up on the top of the search list.
Meh. In a way disclosure helps there too. I’ve had discussions with a couple of the SkS guys over the years and probably to some extent as a result of the lack of anonymity, the discussions were extremely civil. It always help moderate extreme behavior when everybody has to take personal responsibility for what they do and say.
sometimes, not ‘always’
take the dark tetrad test and find out if you are a troll 🙂 http://personality-testing.info/tests/SD3.php
Here’s a few comments likely to hurt and distress Warmists:
The Medieval Warm Period is….
RSS satellite data appears to show…
Any Climategate quote, for example…”I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till 2020 etc” by Dr Phil Jones UEA, CRU.
Antarctic Sea Ice extent is….
Arctic sea ice appears to…
Hurricane landfall is at a historical…
CO2 comprises 1/25th part of one percent of the Earth’s atmosphere…..
‘Children simply aren’t going to know what snow is’….
I guess I’m a pretty sick guy!
Just a thought. If a troll is someone who gets fun out of firing people up to get a response, what if,… a whole web blog site is one BIG TROLL itself, intended to grab attention, fire people up and get a reaction? What would be up with that? I mean, nobody is going to read and reply to boring mundane posts.
Willis once accused me of being an anonymous troll in the past over a difference of opinion, and I took it as an insult, I use a handle “Sparks”, I’ve posted photo’s of myself, my real name and social media links from this site and many others over the years, I even follow wuwt on twitter. My point is; Am I considered to be a troll?
Because I’ll piss of right now and never come back!! Just Messing… You’re all stuck with me for everrrrrrr..
I would say that the blanket term “troll” is overused, and few persons commenting at WUWT would fit the traditional interpretation.
In the 17th century public debate was held in coffee houses and in “salons” moderated by a host. I would view blog sites as closer to the latter while other social media closer to the former. However blogs differ from salons in that there is no face to face or group interaction. This carries the dis-advantage that peoples behaviour is often not how they would behave in company. However this physical isolation is what has made this blog and others such a powerful political force. The human being is a social animal and strongly influenced by tribal urges. In real world gatherings, the social engineering techniques of Saul Alinsky can be highly effective. Wrong or right, a small number of “change agents” can influence and steer the many. The blog environment seriously reduces the efficacy of these methods. It is difficult to isolate the individual or discount their voice when everyone is commenting as an isolated individual.
Prior to the Internet, the distinct political bias of much of the lame stream media allowed the AGW hoax to flourish. Blogs changed this. Blogs could be considered responsible for saving science. Blogs allowed sceptics to find that they were not alone, explore the science in greater depth, communicate globally and even advance scientific understanding. The limited censorship of the sceptic blogs allowed ascendancy while the astroturf believer sites suffered and became echo chambers. When believers ventured from the cosy censorship of the astroturf sites and the lame stream media sites, the paucity of their arguments were revealed to themselves and others on the sceptic sites. This demoralised believers and strengthen the resolve of sceptics.
When sites like WUWT start to cause a serious political impact, people do notice and react. While it would be great to debate the science alone, it would be foolish to ignore the highly political motivations of the believers. For them, careers, billions of dollars and indeed an entire political ideology is at stake. This brings me back to “trolls”. Have there been any at WUWT and other sceptic sites? I would say yes, (but far fewer these days) but they have been highly specialised variants. I would further suggest that some at WUWT, naturally preferring science to politics, have discounted the forces motivating them.
To put this in context it is well worth following Todd’s excellent link – http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/
When their numbers were greater, I used to have a few categorisations for sceptic sites –
Popcorn warrior.
light weight, used on mass, typically short comments or distracting questions. Thrown into a debate between other parties to delay and dilute a debate that was heading in a “dangerous” direction.
Snowstormer.
again delay, redirection and thread dilution is the aim, but a single identity is used with far more extended comments.
False Flag.
as distinct from “sleeper”. False flag is a complex “reverse” variant of Alisky techniques, re-engineered for blogs. The “change agent” here tries to drive others away from a view by making themselves and their support for the view seem ridiculous. Many identifying as “slayers” fell into this category. Sceptics needed to herded from discussion of net GHE.
Sleeper.
A lonely existence, and they sometimes snap (often dramatically). Posing as a mild sceptic, and nodding along with some criticism of more extreme believer behaviour for colouration. They hope to gently steer sceptics from within the crowd. Perhaps all sceptics should adopt an agreed luke warm position? Perhaps we should be quiet and work only on getting through pal-review? Maybe those not accepting net GHE should be excluded. sleeper numbers are dwindling now.
Japanese mega robot.
Formed of multiple units in a spectacular transformation sequence. Rare. I have only battled one. Three or more voices posting under the one screen name. Difficult to control and proved ineffective.
We all know the saying “Never ascribe to malice…” , and this is doubly true in the text environment of a blog, where misinterpretation is a constant risk. However I would add, that like it or not, climate science is highly politicised and some AGW believers are highly motivated. There is little they won’t try.
Identity versus Non-identity.
Asymmetry.
John
I am not a narcissist.
What happened? did your membership run out?
Did someone suggest that I was a narcissist?
Ok, I confess that I sometimes read the comments on sites that cater to AGW believers (I have to come here, afterwards, to restore my faith in the intelligence of Man). You will likely agree that trying to start a discussion based on observations and data is a frustrating waste of time, but I can’t stop myself from making some comment that might save the mind of someone not yet committed.
So, I write something like, “Some fool I’ve been debating claims that global temperatures haven’t risen in EIGHTEEN YEARS. Can one of you PLEASE give me a link to the data that proves he’s full of it, so I can shove it in his face? I’ve tried Googling for it, but I can’t find anything.”
If anyone gives an arm-waving response (warmest decade ever), I may reply, “Yes! Please give me a link to the data showing we have been warming over the recent years. This guy is really bugging me.”
Of course they can’t, and I hope I’ve tweaked the curiosity of some to actually research the data.
I rather feel like a troll, but it certainly doesn’t fit any of the above definitions. Am I trolling or not?
You are a stirrer. In the eyes of some thats probably being a troll.
Trouble is, it’s also the Socratic method: don’t answer the question. Ask questions that the questioner to find the answers for themselves.
Some people find this intensely irritating, but its a good way of teaching, too, as the results tend to be a bit more “sticky”.
Seems to be an awful lot of anonymous comments above – sycophantic anonymity is OK, obviously.
Anthony’s new found concern over poor behavior on blogs is very interesting, given how he recently demonstrated ( at the Mike Mann lecture) that he’s an internet coward-bully.
Michael…is that ‘you’?
Michael
October 2, 2014 at 9:36 pm
“Anthony’s new found concern over poor behavior on blogs is very interesting, given how he recently demonstrated ( at the Mike Mann lecture) that he’s an internet coward-bully.”
He demonstrated that he’s a bully by sitting there and listening? Then I must be the greatest bully of all times – I sat in hundreds of lectures, not saying a word – I even made notes, doubtlessly about the professors and what they were saying.
Michael, you’re not only a liar, you are also stupid.
I think of this thread and its lead post as partly being some intellectual bait laid out for catching the most clueless examples of aggressively uncivil anonymous person.
The bait was placed. We waited quietly, patiently.
It was inevitable that one would show up to take the bait and make a comment. Michael (commenting on October 2, 2014 at 9:36 pm) did.
It was too easy to catch Michael.
Do you think WUWT should have a bag limit on how many aggressively uncivil anonymous persons like you that we can catch in one thread? I suggest no bag limit.
John
What is interesting is that “Michael” fits the climate troll description perfectly, right down to the Flinders University affiliation and the holier than thou attitude that seems to be a common theme from Australian academics like Lewandowsky. Michael has had his say, he won’t get any other opportunities here.
I think the Australian academics are commonly overwrought and giving such pushback because they can’t handle the fact that their climate programs have been tossed out by the action of democracy.
[Snip. What’s the matter with you?? ~ mod.]
Anthony Watts on October 3, 2014 at 4:32 am
– – – – – – – –
Anthony,
‘Michael’ seemed to attach great importance to spitting with malice. Forcing him spit his malevolent effluent elsewhere seems a sanitary measure. Spitting is a nasty habit.
‘Michael’ even met my extremely rarely applied standard of troll. (I think ‘trolling’ only occurs when a person openly and explicitly comments on a venue with insults/ slanders/ lies/ etc about the venue’s host).
John
John Whitman
You say
That has to be the most erroneous and stupid definition of a troll ever devised.
In reality a troll deliberately hinders discussion of a subject by deflecting the discussion onto something else often – but not always – by attacking a person.
One can only conclude that you have invented your “standard of troll” as an excuse for despicable trolling.
Richard
Michael’s issue is he has been trolling Judith Curry’s site for some time, and no one bothers reading or responding to him any longer. So he has to try out trolling at other sites to get a rise.
Trolls must be fed or they whither and die.
Was this “Michael” the same person who commented as “Michael the Realist” over at Jo Nova’s blog? You may be able to tell by comparing style and choice of arguments/talking points.
If they are the same person then it supports the view that they comment until they get banned and then move on to find more unwary victims. “Michael the Realist” was eventually banned (on 21 March 2014 after writing over 1000 comments on that blog and being given every opportunity to substantiate his claims in one final showdown. Jo Nova must be one of the most tolerant blog hosts in the climate debate. I don’t know of any other user in the last 4 years to have actually been banned, it’s really rare.
I have been commenting on her site for almost 5 years. That is the first time I have seen a ban.
I’m a climate researcher so feel free to treat this politely worded comment as a vicious attack from a “climate troll”. It’s pretty clear to everyone actually working in climate science who the trolls are.
But trolls serve a useful function — how else do we easily spot without much effort which side of the discussion is the nutty one?
Mann tweeted this earlier today. Strange coincidence.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/518084046799527936
I am loving this, normally you just give them an elegant shoeing Wattsy.
I am deeply enjoying you dishing out a kicking and a stomping.
Just sayin’.
Sorry, can not use my real name. to my knowledge there is only one other person with my name globally and last I heard he was about 80 years old 15 years ago. Employment contract prevents me from using any form of social media where I can be identified. Linkedin is the only grey area.
We should expect an increase in irrationality from the climate lobby as they fight tooth and nail as their little scam goes down the toilet. In behavioural studies, this is known as an “extinction burst”.
Does anyone remember when the Petition Project was inundated with bogus names (i.e., Mickey Mouse, Biggus Dickus) which purportedly tarnished the petition?
If memory serves, there were hundreds of hits to that website from an IP address just one digit off from RealClimate.com’s address.