CDZ The Psychology of Trolling

[Mac1958]

"Poke, observe, poke, observe."

You'll need to flush that out a bit before it is ready for literotica, Ravi.

Her original post was deleted by a mod because it got personal. This is her argument that I have admitted to starting threads to make people angry. Which I have not.

Maybe we can get back to the topic before this gets personal again.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Poke, observe, poke, observe."

You'll need to flush that out a bit before it is ready for literotica, Ravi.

Her original post was deleted by a mod because it got personal. This is her argument that I have admitted to starting threads to make people angry. Which I have not.

Maybe we can get back to the topic before this gets personal again.
.

As far as starting threads to make people angry, the essential element as to why it makes them angry has to do with the degree to which they are a true believer. The true believer sees the world in terms of rightness and blasphemy, and so treats ideas that fall outside their comfort level as blasphemous and therefore threatening to the ego they invest in their beliefs. It isn't merely challenging an idea to the true believer. It is challenging THEM.

 

[Mac1958]

"Poke, observe, poke, observe."

You'll need to flush that out a bit before it is ready for literotica, Ravi.

Her original post was deleted by a mod because it got personal. This is her argument that I have admitted to starting threads to make people angry. Which I have not. Maybe we can get back to the topic before this gets personal again..

As far as starting threads to make people angry, the essential element as to why it makes them angry has to do with the degree to which they are a true believer. The true believer sees the world in terms of rightness and blasphemy, and so treats ideas that fall outside their comfort level as blasphemous and therefore threatening to the ego they invest in their beliefs. It isn't merely challenging an idea to the true believer. It is challenging THEM.

Yep. This is meant to be a completely non-partisan thread; As I've said, as we know, there are a zillion trolls on both ends. There is no monopoly on trolling. But I can't stop anyone from taking it personally.

And as with other issues, the behaviors of the trolls on both ends are very similar. Nasty is nasty, baby. I'm just interested in the motivations.
.

 

[G.T.]

Ravi made the most intelligent posts in this thread.

 

[Mac1958]

WOW, check this one out -- The studies referenced in this short (2:56) video indicate that trolling:

1. Is, in fact, a manifestation of psychopathy, narcissism and what they have termed "everyday sadism"
2. Is practiced by about 5.6% of internet users
3. Is NOT a personality aberration - these people are also anti-social in real life
.

 

[Correll]

"Poke, observe, poke, observe."

You'll need to flush that out a bit before it is ready for literotica, Ravi.

Her original post was deleted by a mod because it got personal. This is her argument that I have admitted to starting threads to make people angry. Which I have not.

Maybe we can get back to the topic before this gets personal again.
.

As far as starting threads to make people angry, the essential element as to why it makes them angry has to do with the degree to which they are a true believer. The true believer sees the world in terms of rightness and blasphemy, and so treats ideas that fall outside their comfort level as blasphemous and therefore threatening to the ego they invest in their beliefs. It isn't merely challenging an idea to the true believer. It is challenging THEM.

Starting a thread on a controversial topic, even with a very outlier position is not trolling though.

If the person starting the thread is serious about discussing the issue, and engages in real discussion rather than troll like behavior such as ignoring valid points against his position and simply repeating his position as though it has not been addresses, and of course personal attacks (for two big examples)

 

[Mac1958]

"Poke, observe, poke, observe."

You'll need to flush that out a bit before it is ready for literotica, Ravi.

Her original post was deleted by a mod because it got personal. This is her argument that I have admitted to starting threads to make people angry. Which I have not.

Maybe we can get back to the topic before this gets personal again.
.

As far as starting threads to make people angry, the essential element as to why it makes them angry has to do with the degree to which they are a true believer. The true believer sees the world in terms of rightness and blasphemy, and so treats ideas that fall outside their comfort level as blasphemous and therefore threatening to the ego they invest in their beliefs. It isn't merely challenging an idea to the true believer. It is challenging THEM.

Starting a thread on a controversial topic, even with a very outlier position is not trolling though.

If the person starting the thread is serious about discussing the issue, and engages in real discussion rather than troll like behavior such as ignoring valid points against his position and simply repeating his position as though it has not been addresses, and of course personal attacks (for two big examples)

It's an interesting topic. It's also (I would think) a bipartisan topic. Not everything has to be a big battle, but some are just programmed to attack.

Ironically.
.

 

[Correll]

"Poke, observe, poke, observe."

You'll need to flush that out a bit before it is ready for literotica, Ravi.

Her original post was deleted by a mod because it got personal. This is her argument that I have admitted to starting threads to make people angry. Which I have not.

Maybe we can get back to the topic before this gets personal again.
.

As far as starting threads to make people angry, the essential element as to why it makes them angry has to do with the degree to which they are a true believer. The true believer sees the world in terms of rightness and blasphemy, and so treats ideas that fall outside their comfort level as blasphemous and therefore threatening to the ego they invest in their beliefs. It isn't merely challenging an idea to the true believer. It is challenging THEM.

Starting a thread on a controversial topic, even with a very outlier position is not trolling though.

If the person starting the thread is serious about discussing the issue, and engages in real discussion rather than troll like behavior such as ignoring valid points against his position and simply repeating his position as though it has not been addresses, and of course personal attacks (for two big examples)

It's an interesting topic. It's also (I would think) a bipartisan topic. Not everything has to be a big battle, but some are just programmed to attack.

Ironically.
.

I think it is a very important topic. Especially if you take it beyond the bounds of the internet and consider the overall Public Discourse and consider how much of it is basically Trolling in the real world.


After all, as your link says, these people are sadists in real life too.

 

[Mac1958]

You'll need to flush that out a bit before it is ready for literotica, Ravi.

Her original post was deleted by a mod because it got personal. This is her argument that I have admitted to starting threads to make people angry. Which I have not.

Maybe we can get back to the topic before this gets personal again.
.

As far as starting threads to make people angry, the essential element as to why it makes them angry has to do with the degree to which they are a true believer. The true believer sees the world in terms of rightness and blasphemy, and so treats ideas that fall outside their comfort level as blasphemous and therefore threatening to the ego they invest in their beliefs. It isn't merely challenging an idea to the true believer. It is challenging THEM.

Starting a thread on a controversial topic, even with a very outlier position is not trolling though.

If the person starting the thread is serious about discussing the issue, and engages in real discussion rather than troll like behavior such as ignoring valid points against his position and simply repeating his position as though it has not been addresses, and of course personal attacks (for two big examples)

It's an interesting topic. It's also (I would think) a bipartisan topic. Not everything has to be a big battle, but some are just programmed to attack.

Ironically.
.

I think it is a very important topic. Especially if you take it beyond the bounds of the internet and consider the overall Public Discourse and consider how much of it is basically Trolling in the real world.


After all, as your link says, these people are sadists in real life too.

Yeah. A poster made an excellent point earlier, that many TV political pundits are essentially trolls - ignoring/avoiding direct interviewer questions to just push their agenda, personal insults, name-calling, straw men. That's done CONSTANTLY, and it's considered pretty much normal by today's standards.
.

 

[Correll]

Her original post was deleted by a mod because it got personal. This is her argument that I have admitted to starting threads to make people angry. Which I have not.

Maybe we can get back to the topic before this gets personal again.
.

As far as starting threads to make people angry, the essential element as to why it makes them angry has to do with the degree to which they are a true believer. The true believer sees the world in terms of rightness and blasphemy, and so treats ideas that fall outside their comfort level as blasphemous and therefore threatening to the ego they invest in their beliefs. It isn't merely challenging an idea to the true believer. It is challenging THEM.

Starting a thread on a controversial topic, even with a very outlier position is not trolling though.

If the person starting the thread is serious about discussing the issue, and engages in real discussion rather than troll like behavior such as ignoring valid points against his position and simply repeating his position as though it has not been addresses, and of course personal attacks (for two big examples)

It's an interesting topic. It's also (I would think) a bipartisan topic. Not everything has to be a big battle, but some are just programmed to attack.

Ironically.
.

I think it is a very important topic. Especially if you take it beyond the bounds of the internet and consider the overall Public Discourse and consider how much of it is basically Trolling in the real world.


After all, as your link says, these people are sadists in real life too.

Yeah. A poster made an excellent point earlier, that many TV political pundits are essentially trolls - ignoring/avoiding direct interviewer questions to just push their agenda, personal insults, name-calling, straw men. That's done CONSTANTLY, and it's considered pretty much normal by today's standards.
.

Agreed.

 

[Correll]

One of my favorite shows in the past was Crossfire, because both sides got to present their sides.

But even there some of the guest hosts were trolls.

Indeed, I recall once, one of the few times I agreed with him on an issue, term limits.

He came up with a good point, that grandfathering in current office holders was hypocritical.

BUt the guest pointed out that, while that was true, it was just a fact of life that congressmen were not going to vote themselves out of office.


And at that point the discussion should have moved on.

But Press kept coming back to that same point, as though it had not already been addressed.

 

[Mac1958]

One of my favorite shows in the past was Crossfire, because both sides got to present their sides.

But even there some of the guest hosts were trolls.

Indeed, I recall once, one of the few times I agreed with him on an issue, term limits.

He came up with a good point, that grandfathering in current office holders was hypocritical.

BUt the guest pointed out that, while that was true, it was just a fact of life that congressmen were not going to vote themselves out of office.


And at that point the discussion should have moved on.

But Press kept coming back to that same point, as though it had not already been addressed.

Yeah, I remember that show, decades back. Very educational because they calmly & civilly presented both sides.

I don't know if you've seen With All Due Respect, but they do a pretty good job of examining issues without drama. But it's not Left vs. Right. They interview guests from both sides individually. I don't know if that old Crossfire format would work today - everyone is so desperate for fireworks and BS and talking/screaming over each other.
.

 

[Correll]

One of my favorite shows in the past was Crossfire, because both sides got to present their sides.

But even there some of the guest hosts were trolls.

Indeed, I recall once, one of the few times I agreed with him on an issue, term limits.

He came up with a good point, that grandfathering in current office holders was hypocritical.

BUt the guest pointed out that, while that was true, it was just a fact of life that congressmen were not going to vote themselves out of office.


And at that point the discussion should have moved on.

But Press kept coming back to that same point, as though it had not already been addressed.

Yeah, I remember that show, decades back. Very educational because they calmly & civilly presented both sides.

I don't know if you've seen With All Due Respect, but they do a pretty good job of examining issues without drama. But it's not Left vs. Right. They interview guests from both sides individually. I don't know if that old Crossfire format would work today - everyone is so desperate for fireworks and BS and talking/screaming over each other.
.

There were plenty of times Crossfire didn't work even back then.

Their model depended on the hosts being not trolls, and some of them were, like James Carville.


When both hosts were civil, you could really see when the guests were not.

THey would not respond to points, they would NOT let other other guest have their say, (talking over them during their turn)

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Her original post was deleted by a mod because it got personal. This is her argument that I have admitted to starting threads to make people angry. Which I have not.

Maybe we can get back to the topic before this gets personal again.
.

As far as starting threads to make people angry, the essential element as to why it makes them angry has to do with the degree to which they are a true believer. The true believer sees the world in terms of rightness and blasphemy, and so treats ideas that fall outside their comfort level as blasphemous and therefore threatening to the ego they invest in their beliefs. It isn't merely challenging an idea to the true believer. It is challenging THEM.

Starting a thread on a controversial topic, even with a very outlier position is not trolling though.

If the person starting the thread is serious about discussing the issue, and engages in real discussion rather than troll like behavior such as ignoring valid points against his position and simply repeating his position as though it has not been addresses, and of course personal attacks (for two big examples)

It's an interesting topic. It's also (I would think) a bipartisan topic. Not everything has to be a big battle, but some are just programmed to attack.

Ironically.
.

I think it is a very important topic. Especially if you take it beyond the bounds of the internet and consider the overall Public Discourse and consider how much of it is basically Trolling in the real world.


After all, as your link says, these people are sadists in real life too.

Yeah. A poster made an excellent point earlier, that many TV political pundits are essentially trolls - ignoring/avoiding direct interviewer questions to just push their agenda, personal insults, name-calling, straw men. That's done CONSTANTLY, and it's considered pretty much normal by today's standards.
.

Yeah, Bill Oreilly did a great segment on that the other night, he pointed out some shows and aired some segments and was asking "is that legitimate, even for an opinion show" things like calling Trump insane , etc etc. He won't tolerate "crooked Hillary" on his own show.

 

[Mac1958]

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

Pretending facts aren't facts is my greatest pet peeve when it comes to online trolls. Come on, if something is a fact, it's a fact. Just accept it and make your argument from there.

 

[Mac1958]

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

Pretending facts aren't facts is my greatest pet peeve when it comes to online trolls. Come on, if something is a fact, it's a fact. Just accept it and make your argument from there.

Yeah, that's where we are right now.

The slightest concession is equated with abject capitulation.

How do you communicate and progress with such an attitude?
.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

Pretending facts aren't facts is my greatest pet peeve when it comes to online trolls. Come on, if something is a fact, it's a fact. Just accept it and make your argument from there.

Yeah, that's where we are right now.

The slightest concession is equated with abject capitulation.

How do you communicate and progress with such an attitude?
.

You don't. I mean i try, and every once in awhile, someone concedes a fact that is pointed out to them, but it is so rare. Much too rare.

 

[320 Years of History]

WOW, check this one out -- The studies referenced in this short (2:56) video indicate that trolling:
....
2. Is practiced by about 5.6% of internet users

Wow. I must say I would think there are very few things that only 5.6% of people do that comes to the attention of most folks, yet "trolling" behavior seems to be one of those things that does. That, to me, suggests that "trolls" are some mighty "loud" Internet users given that their presence is widely known. LOL Talk about a "vocal minority." Geez.