Why Trolls Start Flame Wars

by Bangalore 7 Replies latest jw friends

  • Bangalore
    Bangalore

    Why Trolls Start Flame Wars: Swearing and Name-Calling Shut Down the Ability to Think and Focus.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/trolls-start-flame-wars-swearing-name-calling-web-shuts-ability-think-focus.html

    Internet Psychology 101

    Psychological studies show that swearing and name-calling in Internet discussions shut down our ability to think.

    2 professors of science communication at the University of Wisconsin, Madison – Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele – wrote in the New York Times last year:

    In a study published online last month in The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, we and three colleagues report on an experiment designed to measure what one might call “the nasty effect.”

    We asked 1,183 participants to carefully read a news post on a fictitious blog, explaining the potential risks and benefits of a new technology product called nanosilver. These infinitesimal silver particles, tinier than 100-billionths of a meter in any dimension, have several potential benefits (like antibacterial properties) and risks (like water contamination), the online article reported.

    Then we had participants read comments on the post, supposedly from other readers, and respond to questions regarding the content of the article itself.

    Half of our sample was exposed to civil reader comments and the other half to rude ones — though the actual content, length and intensity of the comments, which varied from being supportive of the new technology to being wary of the risks, were consistent across both groups. The only difference was that the rude ones contained epithets or curse words, as in: “If you don’t see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you’re an idiot” and “You’re stupid if you’re not thinking of the risks for the fish and other plants and animals in water tainted with silver.”

    The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself.

    In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

    Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought.

    While it’s hard to quantify the distortional effects of such online nastiness, it’s bound to be quite substantial, particularly — and perhaps ironically — in the area of science news.

    So why do people troll in a rude way?

    Psychologists say that many Internet trolls are psychopaths, sadists and narcissists getting their jollies. It’s easy to underestimate how many of these types of sickos are out there: There are millions of sociopaths in the U.S. alone.

    But intelligence agencies are also intentionally disrupting political discussion on the web, and ad hominen attacks, name-calling and divide-and-conquer tactics are all well-known, frequently-used disruption techniques.

    Now you know why … flame wars polarize thinking, and stop the ability to focus on the actual topic and facts under discussion.

    Indeed, this tactic is so effective that the same wiseguy may play both sides of the fight.

    Postscript: Fortunately, it’s not that difficult to isolate the trolls and stop their disruption … if we just point out what they’re doing.

    For example, I’ve found that posting something like this can be very effective:

    Good Number 1!

    Or this might be better if the troll is a sociopath:

    Isn’t that kind of “entertainment” more appropriate elsewhere?

    (include the link so people can see what you’re referring to.)

    The reason this is effective is that other readers will learn about the specific disruption tactic being used … in context, like seeing wildlife while holding a wildlife guide, so that one learns what it looks like “in the field”. At the same time, you come across as humorous, light-hearted and smart … instead of heavy-handed or overly-intense.

    Try it … it works.

    Bangalore

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    Appreciate this Bangalore.

    Take Care

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    The two rude phrases in the OP are

    "You're an idiot"

    and

    "You're stupid"

    This is intellectual intimidation, it is why people become part of cults also. Just telling people they will have a low IQ can actually polorize their view of a given topic. Apparantly 2/3 of the population are influenced by this type of peer pressure. I hope I am not, what do you think? Kate xx

  • Xanthippe
    Xanthippe

    Very interesting Bangalore. The only way to protect ourselves from any kind of propaganda is to say, who are these people, how do they know that, if they are so sure of the facts why are they yelling at me? Psycopaths are more prevalent than was first thought, something wrong with their amygdala probably at birth, no empathy, with their casual acts of cruelty.

  • leaving_quietly
    leaving_quietly

    This goes beyond trolls. This tactic is used quite effectively by WTBTS.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    Of course, if a significant percentage of people have sociopathic or antisocial tendencies and this can be demonstrated to have been the case for some generations, then there's a good possibility that these people serve a purpose in society. For instance, empathy is not helpful as a survival trait when your tribe is starving and you can only find food by killing the neighboring tribe and taking theirs. So you can see how there could be selective pressure in favor of a few sociopaths even while there is also pressure in favor of empathy that promotes healthy relationships and glues tribes together. There can logically also be pressure towards creating a sort of personality that is capable of being both kind and cruel, so that a person is not all one extreme or the other, and their behavior is determined by the needs of the situation. We can probably see a little of this in each of us if we're being honest.

    The average troll is just a regular guy in the real world who only behaves badly while he has an "anonymous Internet user" mask on. It takes very little sociopathy or antisociality, in the true clinical sense of those words, to be a troll. It's not like these people are cruel in everyday life. If the worst they're doing is insulting some people online, then we should reserve our hate for drug dealers and other career criminals. What does concern me is mob behavior online. The Anita Sarkeesian debacle is a sad example of how hateful people come out of the woodwork when they see an opportunity to attack someone.

    A lot of trolling comes from people angry at their own situation and lashing out indiscriminately, so while they should be banned if they keep being disruptive, we could first try engaging them as people. As the OP article warns us, we shouldn't just let them push our buttons and get an emotional reaction from us. Address them as a person and ask why they are saying something. Trolls are usually people who don't feel that they are accepted in a community (or perhaps in the real world), so they decide that negative attention is better than no attention.

    The best ways to fight them are silence (ignoring them) or reaching out to them. They're not conscience-less monsters, they're just frustrated and directionless people. A lot of them would be genuinely ashamed of their own behavior if their online persona was connected with their face and they were asked in-person to explain themselves. Take a page from our knowledge of cult control, and try to address their authentic personality, the real face that lies behind the "troll mask".

  • Xanthippe
    Xanthippe

    Of course, if a significant percentage of people have sociopathic or antisocial tendencies and this can be demonstrated to have been the case for some generations, then there's a good possibility that these people serve a purpose in society. For instance, empathy is not helpful as a survival trait when your tribe is starving and you can only find food by killing the neighboring tribe and taking theirs. So you can see how there could be selective pressure in favor of a few sociopaths even while there is also pressure in favor of empathy that promotes healthy relationships and glues tribes together. There can logically also be pressure towards creating a sort of personality that is capable of being both kind and cruel, so that a person is not all one extreme or the other, and their behavior is determined by the needs of the situation. We can probably see a little of this in each of us if we're being honest.

    Fascinating Apog I have been thinking about the evolutionary basis for this behavior and its survival value. That really is helpful, thanks.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    Apognophos, I've heard the same argument that Schizophrenics serve a purpose. They see scary stuff where regular people do not. My Son-in-Law survived his time with the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), chiefly because he ducked when his friends did not. He scares easily to this day (afraid of me sometimes) but hey, he's alive to tell the tale.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit