48Likes
1
Post By icewendigo
1
Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
1
Post By Chucknorium
1
Post By Chucknorium
1
Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
1
Post By PhDemon
1
Post By PhDemon
1
Post By DianeG
1
Post By adelady
1
Post By John Galt
1
Post By Dywyddyr
3
Post By adelady
1
Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
1
Post By Chucknorium
2
Post By Dywyddyr
2
Post By Dywyddyr
2
Post By Dywyddyr
1
Post By Chucknorium
1
Post By shlunka
1
Post By Dywyddyr
2
Post By AlexG
2
Post By DianeG
2
Post By Dywyddyr
1
Post By Chucknorium
4
Post By Flick Montana
2
Post By Lynx_Fox
1
Post By Chucknorium
1
Post By Lynx_Fox
1
Post By Dywyddyr
1
Post By PhDemon
March 31st, 2014, 04:03 PM
i searched but did not find a simialr thread here.
are most trolls men ? it seems so to me but maybe that is wrong ? a disclaimer is that i am only on STEM type forums so maybe on other forums there are many women trolls. what do you think ?
we could dicsuss just troll behavior inn general without the gender attached
Last edited by Chucknorium; March 31st, 2014 at 04:23 PM.
i found this: Online trolls really ARE horrible people, researchers find | Mail Online
Online trolls have serious personality issues such as Machiavellianism, one of the biggest studies into trolling has found.
Researchers say that online commenters display traits that are Narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic and the worse the problems, the longer the person spent online.
They found the most common trait was to exhibit sadistic behaviour.
I could be wrong, but it doesnt strike me as a very serious study at a glance
probably true. i was trying to open the subject up so it was more general without gender questionsOriginally Posted by icewendigo
I agree with that. We should focus on the motives and the behaviour of Internet trolls, rather than their gender.
The website of the Daily Mail should not be used to present findings. It is not a good source (cf. posts #14 and #16).
i would like to know if most trolls are men though.
yes, yes,. i was just trying to open up subject. that was first link i found. you could start by saying what you do not like about its findings or methods. or do you know different data ?
i would like to know if most trolls are men though.
In general or on this particular forum?
yes, yes,. i was just trying to open up subject. that was first link i found. you could start by saying what you do not like about its findings or methods. or do you know different data ?
I have not read the study, but that was not the point of my reply.
It is better to provide a link to the actual study (or to a news site that actually specializes in reporting science), rather than the Daily Mail (cf. post #5).
Have you read the study in question?
no. but i have not claimed it is good or bad. i have claimed nothing. i have already stated it was the first link i found and was used just to open this subject up to more general discussion instead of only the restrictive gender discussion. if you think it is a bad study please let me know.
trolling is something i do not understand. i am curious about it. for example, if the internet was not anonymous, would people still troll ? or is the anonymous characteristic of the internet the sole cause ?
Here is the study:
Buckels, E.E. et al. (2014), "Trolls just want to have fun", Personality and Individual Differences.
I think pantodragon, Mayflow and LadyGaia/melissa1990 are the only female (either they have said they are female or by other less reliable indicators) trolls I've come across here. Male trolls? Too many to count...
Last edited by PhDemon; March 31st, 2014 at 05:42 PM.
thank you. i will read it. it may take me some time though.
do you think that may be same percentage as percentage of women who particicpate on STEM forum like this ?
while i can not prove it i assume that most trolls are also liars so there is probably no validity to your observation.
Most aberrations are male. I'm one. I assume most trolls are male. But I don't Know It. My guess, 98%.
There is a larger proportion of women who post here than the proportion of trolls who are female. Most trolls are bored teenage boys (they eventually grow out of it) if they are older than this they are just tragic individuals. In my experience most women have more sense than to waste time behaving like a moron...
In my experience trolls qua trolls tend to be male.
The females that get accused of trolling are, generally, simply dumb.
(There was a notable one on a different *cough* sciforum that would pop up every few months and claim at lenght that homoeopathy is scientific (but, I suspect, a good part of that was because she'd paid for an, er "education" and qualification in it and presumably didn't like the idea that she'd been suckered 1).
I think Adelady pointed out elsewhere that female nutcases tend to stick to the "non hard-sciences": anti-vaccination, diet/ nutrition and homoeopathy etc.
Or the execrable idiot Anita Meyer: see, for example, the comments/ discussion on the review by Alpha Geek (me!) where she displayed a phenomenal lack of, um, just about anything really, except for blind adherence to her own claims.
1 Then again, she could have been entirely sincere. Highly deluded. But sincere.
When I was a kid, we used to ring people's door bells and run away. It's hilarious when you are eight.
i think it is fair to say that the anonymity allow trolls to exist. but does anonymity create trolls ? or if the internet did not exist would these people still exist and do other bad things anonymously ?
i tried to read the study but it was too hard for me. so i am relying on the newspaper summary which also doesn't make much sense to me.
"Newspaper"?
It's the Daily Fail 1.
Probably based on a reporter overhearing someone in a lab coat (ergo "scientist") commenting to a colleague (ergo "study" because there was more than person involved) that he found one particular trollish comment offensive.
1 This is the "newspaper" that regularly (or did the last time I saw it - my parents used to buy it 2) had double-page centre spreads on "How Astrology Can Help Your Life".
2 The only thing I ever found worth reading was when they had the Dilbert strip in it.
oops
it shows what i know
I think the people who do the internet equivalent of ring the doorbell and run away type trolling are generally anonymous. And they're annoying rather than anything else.trolling is something i do not understand. i am curious about it. for example, if the internet was not anonymous, would people still troll ? or is the anonymous characteristic of the internet the sole cause ?
otoh, I might be one of very few here who spends a lot of time on feminist and related issues sites. You might be surprised to learn that many people who threaten to assault or rape or murder you, or attack your children or get you sacked from your job use their real identities. I'm always amazed when I see a deeply nasty or overtly threatening comment from someone and if you click on their name it goes to their facebook page. Huh?
As for whether they mean the threats. There's no way of knowing until the dead cat turns up on your doorstep.
My experience is that they're not so much tragic as they are simply horrible people. There might be some sad or traumatic life events in their background, but no sadder or more traumatic than other people go through. They're certainly not survivors of torture or other extreme circumstances. They're more likely to have had a marriage or other relationship go wrong. Charlotte Laws' fight with Hunter Moore, the internet's revenge porn king | Culture | The Observer He's one of these. More importantly, he couldn't have got anywhere with his activities nor made all his money if lots of other people hadn't sent in photos and tracked down details of these victims.
Which somehow or other makes them very special victims of the well-known, man-hating nastiness of every woman who's ever drawn breath, rather than making the mistake of getting involved with one horrible person or one non-workable relationship.
At a kind of abstract level, I can see that they're pitiful in some ways. Depriving themselves of love and laughter. But their vicious online behaviour and their advocacy of and support for harassment, humiliation, rape and violence against women means that I'm willing to let others feel the sadness. I also realise that support for rape and, especially, harassment is likely to arise - for some people - from uncomfortable reflection on some of their own behaviour in the past. Rather than acknowledge it (to themselves, it doesn't have to be public) and get on with their lives with some regret but feeling that they're now a better person who's learnt a hard lesson, they'd much rather join in on driving yet another victim to suicide.
your experience seem to echo that study i referenced in OP
Online trolls really ARE horrible people: Researchers find they are narcissistic, machiavellian, psychopathic and sadistic
Wow! What an amazing pile of self indulgent crap!
You have barely registered on my radar until this post. If I had been asked for my impression of you I would have hazarded an "average member, non-controversial, middle of the road sort of guy. Nothing to write home about; nothing to complain about."
You appear to think you have been functioning as some sort of vigilante, fighting revengeful nerdiness (?). Fascinating! I'll take a look through your more recent posts and see if their is any evidence in support of your self perception.
Again, wow!
Edit: and there's more -
You would have a massively hard time defending this position with actual evidence, unless you were to admit to suffering from rampant hyperbole. And I say that as someone fascinated by both science and science fiction for over half a century.Hard scientists don't care for us. They forget science fiction always precedes science fact.
I think it's not that easy to do a psychological profile of internet trolls, the area is way to broad and there are many factors involved. The person could easily be a sociopath, an attention seeker or simply very bored person without capacity to find better thing to do.
But psychologists know that if we reduce our sense of our identity, process known as de-individuation, we will less likely stick to the to social norms, usually people that aren't satisfied with their personality tend to go full 'TROLL' after this process. It could be an easy pointer that they are not satisfied with their life and with themselves, but it shouldn't be taken for granted.
At the other hand, we have trolls that are trolling just because they saw someone else trolling and wants to try it. Curiosity is a sword with two edges...
i tried to read the study but it was too hard for me. so i am relying on the newspaper summary which also doesn't make much sense to me.
The study by Buckels, E.E. et al. demonstrates that, after analysing the responses of two separate online surveys,
the act of trolling is linked to having unpleasant personal characteristics, especially sadism.
That is the study in a nutshell.
Would they have got similar results doing the study in a nut house?
thank you. that is about same as 'newspaper' summary.i tried to read the study but it was too hard for me. so i am relying on the newspaper summary which also doesn't make much sense to me.
The study by Buckels, E.E. et al. demonstrates that, after analysing the responses of two separate online surveys,
the act of trolling is linked to having unpleasant personal characteristics, especially sadism.
That is the study in a nutshell.
So is there a difference between nutcases - people obscessed with a fringe theory that has over whelming contradictory evidence, and trolls? Does a genuine troll believe the things he says, or is he just doing it to yank someones chain, or both?
The guy who posted this was a nutjob but wherevere he cut and pasted from defined trolls pretty well:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash...et-trolls.html
I've always been under the impression that troll, by definition, meant chain yanking for the sake of it.
A lack of sincerity rather than a lack of education (well, yeah, "lack of education" is sort of implicit in chain yanking for its own sake, but you know what I mean).
Tch, you should'a linked to his other thread.
At least you and I got a name check.
My feeling is that cranks and trolls are two separate issues. The trolls allow themselves to be driven by their worst impulses. Cranks are oblivious, self-indulgent, and dogmatic - but they're more likely to be driven by a form of narcissism I'd have thought. Narcissism is definitely excluded as a characteristic of trolls in that study. When you look at the kinds of insults and thin-skinned offence taking when cranks get upset with criticism they might use some of the less pleasant language of trolls, but it's not directed in the same way. It's much more likely to resemble a toddler or teenage tantrum rather than a purposeful needling to get under people's nails.
using this i think there are very few trolls showing on this forum. mostly cranks. is this your experience ?
I agree with what you have written.
I would like to add that a crank mainly focuses on one subject (denial of BBT, SR, etc.), whilst a troll is versatile when it comes to subjects.
In other words, a troll (apparently) experiences delight due to his/her disruption, regardless of the subject, forum and audience.
@ Chuck: yep trolls per se tend be much less evident than cranks here.
you phdemon and the others that defend science against cranks have my respect.
Thanks.
I do try to keep them down.
so cranks must be addressed differently than trolls. trolls are better just ignored but cranks are spreading scientific-type lies and their lies must be addressed with facts.
I'd say yes.
But, generally, I have trouble recognising trolls as trolls. Maybe it's my mind-set but I take statements at face value and have problems recognising deliberate dishonesty for its own sake.
And, of course, you can't "fix" a crank: they simply don't listen. All you can do is highlight their stupidity for others to see.
Newbies can get sucked by specious seemingly valid ideas (especially if they're surrounded by lots of waffling technobabble).
Someone else said: it's a sort of public service.
that is how i would describe also. thank you.
for cranks, i do not think that real scientists put their theories on forums. they write papers and then try to get published in good science magazines. they also use real names. not names like 'deep thoughts'.
Despite me having "Genius Duck" as my snotwuh (and I have pointed out elsewhere that it's a joke 1) I'm always suspicious of users whose user name alludes to intellect, especially high intellect.
I have, invariably, so far found such people to be cranks who vastly overestimate their own capabilities and (even if only unconsciously) intend that name to allude to some sort of lofty unquestionability.
1 So far no duck in the world has beaten me at chess or maths.
i see many times that some cranks think that the criticsim agains them is the same as those that criticized Einstein. they think they are in same position as Einstein was. very far from real truth.
A tactic known as the Einstein Gambit, although Galileo and Tesla are also frequently used.
thank you for that.
A tactic known as the Einstein Gambit, although Galileo and Tesla are also frequently used.
i learned this word last week ---- hubris i think it fits those type of cranks. although many famous scientists have this trait but it is earned i think.
Yeah, they conveniently forget that Tesla was, in later life at least, somewhat less than rational and had had for a good part of his career an annoying tendency to over-inflate his claims.
Earned is one thing.
A demonstrated track record justifies (in my mind at least) some smidgeon of hubris: after all, why show humility if there's nothing to be humile about?
Most are men. But some females are required for procreation.
Since we're on a science site I meant, this particular instance, an education in whatever subject is being expounded upon.
I.e. a troll may well know the subject - as opposed to a crank 1, but they're not applying it sincerely.
Where a troll IS lacking in "education" is how to conduct himself in an acceptable manner.
Don't understand this bit.Though you had little regard for "impression" ? Not as much as you previously stated.
1 Who, almost invariably, doesn't have an (adequate to the task) education in, or (sufficient) knowledge of, the subject (and, quite often, is inordinately - and inexplicably - proud of that fact).
Um, okay.
How did you understand this?
Are you perhaps talking about personal perceptions of time? E.g. your day dragged while a friend thought it gone too quickly?
Has that been claimed to be so?Science is not PERSONAL, nor is it the sole possession of "nerds".
Uh, yeah. Where exactly were these attempts?Attempts to categorize me, umbradiago, have been wildly off-target. I don't know trolls or cranks, nor am I either.
Valid? Okay. Valued? Not likely.
A quick google of 'internet troll gender', while not answering the question, did refer to trolls as young males, in articles written exclusively by young women.
How could discussion in a thread about trolls go so horribly wrong?
No, you weren't.
But you claimed previously that you were more than "in the neighbourhood".
Oh dear...But lack imagination
Right, because, as everyone knows, scientists would NEVER say "Hey, what if...".which is not science, it's speculation.
Hell, if we ever did I could imagine - oh sorry, not imagine, because I can't, but... you know - some guy, let's call him Einstein, saying "What if I could travel as a photon? How would the universe appear?"
Or another guy, let's call him Feynman, saying "If I were an electron how would I behave under these conditions?".
Crazy.
I'm just glad scientists don't give in to such idle speculation, otherwise where would we be?
It sure has taken a nasty turn.
I think it started with Umbradiago misinterepring a comment about the pet troll Kazooie in another thread and taking personal offence about it.
i am not sure. but it started in posts numbering 26, 27 and went real bad at posting number 32. i did not understand those posts.
yes. he now seems to be angry with everyone now. i wish he would calm down.It sure has taken a nasty turn.
I think it started with Umbradiago misinterepring a comment about the pet troll Kazooie in another thread and taking personal offence about it.
This is a bit of an urban myth.so cranks must be addressed differently than trolls. trolls are better just ignored
Any one of us "ignoring" a troll can't possibly work in the classic "extinction" of undesired behaviour manner because
a) we can't control the environment, so all but one of the group ignoring is completely negated by just one acknowledgement,
b) we have no way of knowing that "they're only seeking attention" applies in the first place, and
c) even if they are seeking attention it might be from their friends admiring their antics or any other of a dozen ways not related to the people on the forum/site/blog at all.
yes. that is true. it is almost impossible to get everyone to ignore a troll that is not obvious a troll
a question for forum mods and admins about trolls. i see that a troll called yellow koosie comes here 9 times and is baned 9 times. can you ban his ipaddr ? or is his ipaddr changing or at a university where others might want to access this forum ?
See any works by Jung or Freud or Pavlov. They are not just musings and speculations. Modern psychology can even be tied into neuroscience in quantitative ways.
See any examples of historical research or, again, psychology and human behaviorism.
Sad attempt at a personal attack? Or are you just frustrated that I work in a science which demands something physical in order to make sound conclusions? Or is it just that REAL science often pokes holes in the strange musings of some of the pseudotypical ideas cranks like to post?
Good. You should work harder at demonstrating that.
Assumption. For years, I made my living as a 3D modeler in the gaming industry, after which I moved into writing for a few more years. It was only when I was dissatisfied with the way the natural world was being treated and my eyes opened to our possible future that I moved into something more meaningful to me.
Being high and thinking you see unicorns is NOT being imaginative.
Last edited by Flick Montana; April 2nd, 2014 at 11:57 AM.
Humans aren't the only species with a sense of humor, it's quite strong in some other primates as well. (both chimp species spend even more time in laugher than most humans).
And to link it to the thread, one of the reasons there are trolls is because it's quite funny to them to trick people, sort of like a practical joke, or something finding humor in the unfortunately circumstance of others. "Your tears are delicious," being one of the more common expressions we see in social games as a form of trolling for example.
the trolls that come here seem to be harmless. the cranks are a bit less harmless because they try to spread their anti-science or dumb-science. but the worst are comments i read on sites like cbsnews.com are very disturbing. hateful and racist comments done with anononymity. scary sometimes too.
Nice hair-splitting. But, did you comprehend my point ? Science begins with speculation. It finds it's end when arrogance shows-up. Go pluck yourself, Duck.No, you weren't.
But you claimed previously that you were more than "in the neighbourhood".
Oh dear...But lack imagination
Right, because, as everyone knows, scientists would NEVER say "Hey, what if...".which is not science, it's speculation.
Hell, if we ever did I could imagine - oh sorry, not imagine, because I can't, but... you know - some guy, let's call him Einstein, saying "What if I could travel as a photon? How would the universe appear?"
Or another guy, let's call him Feynman, saying "If I were an electron how would I behave under these conditions?".
Crazy.
I'm just glad scientists don't give in to such idle speculation, otherwise where would we be?
Interesting. Only primates, though. I'd like to know of a study on primate humor. My point, I believe, remains valid: That humor has a biological, evolutionary expedient. And i'm not joking.Humans aren't the only species with a sense of humor, it's quite strong in some other primates as well. (both chimp species spend even more time in laugher than most humans).
And to link it to the thread, one of the reasons there are trolls is because it's quite funny to them to trick people, sort of like a practical joke, or something finding humor in the unfortunately circumstance of others. "Your tears are delicious," being one of the more common expressions we see in social games as a form of trolling for example.
Rational speculation.
No science ever began with, "I wonder if unicorns can..."
Fine, Flick. You make some good observations. Why does a computer help in the application of your science ? Does it 'aid the imagination' ? Yes ? Try that plus marijuana; see what you come up with.
Niggling. What if Bigfoot is real ?Rational speculation.
No science ever began with, "I wonder if unicorns can..."
yes. it is one thing for someone like Hubble who would speculate beyond the current knowledge. it is a nother thing for cranks to speculate without having any current knowledge.
My 'attacks' are seldom personal. You'll know when they are.
The trouble with Scientists is their tendency toward ownership of it. They don't.
Whut?
Well, since you now seem to be contradicting what I thought your point was...But, did you comprehend my point ?
Can you tell me how that firs in with your claim that:Science begins with speculation.
You guys ... lack imaginationYeah?It finds it's end when arrogance shows-up.
Show this "arrogance" please.
Do you mean the sort of "arrogance" where someone claims to have an "intuitive understanding" of, say, relativity from a young age when they don't even now, apparently, have the first clue what relativity actually says?
That sort?
@umdradiago personally a computer helps my research applications by doing calculations in seconds that it would take weeks to do by hand, and can control and log voltages better than I can, what does this have to do with imagination or pot?
I'm not entire sure what that means. What I do know is that if I showed up to work to use my computer while high, I'd probably be fired. That having been said, I have never (nor will I ever) subjected myself to marijuana. My rationale for this is the same as my rationale for not drinking alcohol, popping pills, smoking, etc. I don't feel that any of these actions will fill any void in my life. I don't feel like I need them and I certainly don't want them.
I might be a little bit of an adrenaline junkie, though. Guess we all have our favorite chemical.
If any REAL science has come from speculation regarding Bigfoot, Nessy, or Ghosts (they all fall into the same category for me), I'd have to see it to believe it. Sure, you can APPLY science to these things, but I don't think it's progressed any scientific field substantially. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.
Sorry. I beg your pardon. I didn't realize a serious discussion on trolls was in progress. Let me know when you get to fairies, or shadows. I'll just tip-toe out...
Your job, Duck.
Whut?
Umbradiago, you are gone for a week for trolling and derailing what could have been a good science discussion.
I've also removed many of the post into trash...sorry to others who's contributions might have been moved as well (mostly responses to unbra)...they are now in trash thread called "umbratrash."
this seems to be yellow koozie type of troll that comes here. irritating to some members but basically harmless. it is more of a game for him.
I strongly suspect he's also schniebsterthis seems to be yellow koozie type of troll that comes here. irritating to some members but basically harmless. it is more of a game for him.
I'd be surprised. I see their style and their content as being very different. (Although the effect on any given individual might be much the same.)I strongly suspect he's also schniebster
| « Consciousness as a way to fight off parasites | Psychohistory » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
