Internet trolls and the Dark Tetrad

[TimCallahan]

Recently, I was talking with a friend of mine about some exasperation I was feeling about dealing with trollish behavior in certain threads on jref. He mentioned coming across a paper about what was called the "dark tetrad," four traits evident, at a sub-clinical level, among internet trolls. These traits are: sadism, machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism. In other words, internet trolls are characterized by a desire to make other suffer and a joy experienced at the suffering of others (sadism); a strong desire to manipulate others (machiavellianism); a lack of empathy or sympathy with other human beings (psychopathy) and a focus on themselves to the exclusion of others (nrcissism). Here is an article on the subject. Here's a quote from the article:

The research, conducted by Erin Buckels of the University of Manitoba and two colleagues, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).

I don't know how well documented Buckels' research is, but from what I've experienced with some of the trolls I've dealt with on jref forums, these traits would explain a lot of their behavior. One of these types of behavior is that of being impervious to logical arguments and evidence. It often goes like this: The troll makes some grandiose or outrageous claim. Others respond by refuting the argument logically and with specific evidence. The troll seems to understand the arguments somewhat but doesn''t agree, or the troll mischaracterizes the argument in a way that leads others to try to explain the argument in more detail. The troll acts as though he/she hasn't read the argument and reiterates the claim. Others reiterate their arguments against it, often expressing anger at seeming obtuseness of the troll. The trolls respond with some arguments of their own. Others refute these arguments. The troll then repeats his / her claim as though it hadn't been refuted, eliciting the fury of the other posters. So, the troll gets off by upsetting others and focusing all their attention on himself.

Another tactic is to open with an egregiously abrasive attack on just about everyone else in the forum, which elicits either protests of self-justification (putting the respondent on the defensive), attempts to mollify the troll (putting the respondent in an inferior position) or expressions of indignation with strong counter-arguments, centering the attention of the other posters on the troll.

I'm trying to think of tactics to avoid entanglement with trolls. Right now I'm at the point of considering leaving jref altogether, since I seem to be a sucker for getting pulled in by trollish ploys. Does anyone have any other ideas?

 

[rustypouch]

There's no trolls here. In fact, I've received mod warnings for pointing out, without naming names, that there might be trolls in threads I've participated in.

But this place does tend to be better than most of the web in regards to such posters.

 

[Giordano]

I too sometimes feel frustrated when I think there is a troll here and people take them seriously. But then I realized that it is the Internet, and we are addressing only persona and have no clue as to the actual person. So I am happy to address the persona and point out why "they" are wrong. If the real person is a 15 year old living in his parent's basement, big deal if you just address their arguments and don't get upset by them.

 

[marplots]

I'm trying to think of tactics to avoid entanglement with trolls. Right now I'm at the point of considering leaving jref altogether, since I seem to be a sucker for getting pulled in by trollish ploys. Does anyone have any other ideas?

I would've thought that recognizing the situation would make one largely immune to it. Is this not so?

 

[Cain]

Right now I'm at the point of considering leaving jref altogether, since I seem to be a sucker for getting pulled in by trollish ploys. Does anyone have any other ideas?

Muhahaha, then you'd be doing exactly what I want you to. Pwned.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I would've thought that recognizing the situation would make one largely immune to it. Is this not so?

Honestly, I don't get it either. If one recognizes that a person is trolling, why respond? You know he or she is only doing it for the reasons listed above. Reminds me of the classic XKCD comic:

The simple solution, rather than leaving (because honestly trolls are not unique to the JREF) is to stop feeding them. Before you post a reply, ask yourself if you are feeding a troll and if so, don't post.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Harry Potter and the Dark Tetrad, in theaters this summer!

 

[Dohvakiin]

I think people need to get a grip to be honest. You get people in all walks of life that just want to take the piss by being cruel. The more attention you give the issue, the more they do it. So just don't rise to it. Simple.

While I'm here, could somebody explain to me the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath? I'm led to believe they're the same thing but not totally sure.

 

[Babbylonian]

While I'm here, could somebody explain to me the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath? I'm led to believe they're the same thing but not totally sure.

They're the same thing, though in common use the former seems to carry with it a connotation that includes illegal activity (usually physical harm to others). The other reason the word "sociopath" is often used is to avoid confusion with "psychosis." Psychopathy/sociopathy doesn't come with psychotic symptoms.

 

[casebro]

Only two out of four here, so I am NOT a troll.

My peeve here is that now somebody will tell me to provide a cite, then argue that it is a straw man, and after over analyzing what I said, point out how I mis-spoke. Afterwards, tell me how I'm wasting apostrophes.

But you know what? It is normal to be abnormal. Fahgetaboutit, and get back to exchanging ideas.

 

[Caper]

Recently, I was talking with a friend of mine about some exasperation I was feeling about dealing with trollish behavior in certain threads on jref. He mentioned coming across a paper about what was called the "dark tetrad," four traits evident, at a sub-clinical level, among internet trolls. These traits are: sadism, machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism. In other words, internet trolls are characterized by a desire to make other suffer and a joy experienced at the suffering of others (sadism); a strong desire to manipulate others (machiavellianism); a lack of empathy or sympathy with other human beings (psychopathy) and a focus on themselves to the exclusion of others (nrcissism). Here is an article on the subject. Here's a quote from the article:

The research, conducted by Erin Buckels of the University of Manitoba and two colleagues, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).

I don't know how well documented Buckels' research is, but from what I've experienced with some of the trolls I've dealt with on jref forums, these traits would explain a lot of their behavior. One of these types of behavior is that of being impervious to logical arguments and evidence. It often goes like this: The troll makes some grandiose or outrageous claim. Others respond by refuting the argument logically and with specific evidence. The troll seems to understand the arguments somewhat but doesn''t agree, or the troll mischaracterizes the argument in a way that leads others to try to explain the argument in more detail. The troll acts as though he/she hasn't read the argument and reiterates the claim. Others reiterate their arguments against it, often expressing anger at seeming obtuseness of the troll. The trolls respond with some arguments of their own. Others refute these arguments. The troll then repeats his / her claim as though it hadn't been refuted, eliciting the fury of the other posters. So, the troll gets off by upsetting others and focusing all their attention on himself.

Another tactic is to open with an egregiously abrasive attack on just about everyone else in the forum, which elicits either protests of self-justification (putting the respondent on the defensive), attempts to mollify the troll (putting the respondent in an inferior position) or expressions of indignation with strong counter-arguments, centering the attention of the other posters on the troll.

I'm trying to think of tactics to avoid entanglement with trolls. Right now I'm at the point of considering leaving jref altogether, since I seem to be a sucker for getting pulled in by trollish ploys. Does anyone have any other ideas?

It depends. I used to love trolling certain baseball fans. Sometimes it can be a lot of fun.

 

[Manopolus]

Not the first time this topic has come up. I think the former thread was in forum community though.

 

[turingtest]

I think there comes a point where you just have to be satisfied that what you've said is enough to speak for itself. And never mind the troll- speak to the lurkers.

I think I know the poster Tim C. has in mind (from this thread); and I'm not so sure he fits the definition of a troll, when the central characteristic there would be insincerity- stringing folks along for the lulz, without really believing anything he's posting. FWIW, my impression is that the poster in question is quite sincere. The effect is certainly the same- utter imperviousness to rationality, ignoring and/or misrepresenting counter-arguments, etc.- but the intransigence is at least, in its way, a more truthful one. It still can't be reasoned with; but, as I said, that's where you target the lurkers, the folks who may be listening, not someone you know either deliberately isn't or sincerely can't.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I'm trying to think of tactics to avoid entanglement with trolls. Right now I'm at the point of considering leaving jref altogether, since I seem to be a sucker for getting pulled in by trollish ploys. Does anyone have any other ideas?

You need to get over that part, or there won't be anywhere on the intertoobz that is safe for you. JREF isn't particularly worse, and definitely better than many other places. Discussion attracts trolls like flies to vinegar.

Remember that one person's troll is someone else's chew toy. It is often a symbiotic relationship.

Try to sit back and enjoy the show. Someone else is gonna come along sooner or later and take the bait. Let them do the heavy lifting if it starts getting to you.

Harder still is disengaging when you do find yourself "pulled in". That's the ability to focus on. Keep in mind that there are no losers, and there are no winners, either.

It's just a message board. Get another cuppa, and open a different thread.

 

[quadraginta]

You can also try desensitizing yourself.

Any comment section on a political topic is usually a hotbed of trolls. The JREF forum is a monastery by comparison.

For extra special fun look for comment sections that use Disqus as a comment host. (Mediaite is a great place to start.)

The Discus crowd are the pro leagues of modern trolling. (It isn't the art form it used to be.) Even the old YouTube comments couldn't hold a candle to them. They follow each other around from blog to blog trying to out-troll everyone else.

Once you climb out of that cesspool JREF will seem like a hot shower and a sauna. Afterward it'll take a while to even notice someone is trolling here. JREF trolls are definitely bush league.

 

[turingtest]

You can also try desensitizing yourself.

Any comment section on a political topic is usually a hotbed of trolls. The JREF forum is a monastery by comparison.

For extra special fun look for comment sections that use Disqus as a comment host. (Mediaite is a great place to start.)

The Discus crowd are the pro leagues of modern trolling. (It isn't the art form it used to be.) Even the old YouTube comments couldn't hold a candle to them. They follow each other around from blog to blog trying to out-troll everyone else.

Once you climb out of that cesspool JREF will seem like a hot shower and a sauna. Afterward it'll take a while to even notice someone is trolling here. JREF trolls are definitely bush league.

Boy, ain't that the truth. I used to comment a fair bit at Media Matters For America, until they switched to Disqus; I gave up commenting there for just that reason. There was one particularly obnoxious (and, IMO, positively deranged) guy who would copy other posters' avatars, then copy their screen-names with one change small enough that the software would see a difference but the casual reader wouldn't, and post the strangest, most non-sequitur-ish, and filthiest comments you can imagine. Since there was no language filter, and little to no moderation, he got away with it to the point that it was impossible to either have or follow a decent conversation.

As you say, JREF is nothing compared to that.

 

[applecorped]

No Planet X option?

 

[TimCallahan]

I think there comes a point where you just have to be satisfied that what you've said is enough to speak for itself. And never mind the troll- speak to the lurkers.

I think I know the poster Tim C. has in mind (from this thread); and I'm not so sure he fits the definition of a troll, when the central characteristic there would be insincerity- stringing folks along for the lulz, without really believing anything he's posting. FWIW, my impression is that the poster in question is quite sincere. The effect is certainly the same- utter imperviousness to rationality, ignoring and/or misrepresenting counter-arguments, etc.- but the intransigence is at least, in its way, a more truthful one. It still can't be reasoned with; but, as I said, that's where you target the lurkers, the folks who may be listening, not someone you know either deliberately isn't or sincerely can't.

Yes, that's one of them; also, on the same forum, another poster, particularly with respect to a certain doorstop supposedly belonging to Haman. I, too, suspect both of these posters are sincere in the beliefs they espouse. So, perhaps they don't entirely fit the dark tetrad. However, both express the characteristic of being opaque to counter arguments and misrepresenting those arguments in a way that has to be deliberate, especially since they've been called on those specific points multiple times. And, yes, this does exhibit what you rightly call, "utter imperviousness to rationality."

Considering their behavior, I don't know that sincerity of belief necessarily excludes the characteristics of sub-clinical levels of sadism, machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism. In fact, being a true believer, one utterly without any doubt in the rightness of his beliefs, may require a certain level of divorce from normal levels of human compassion (sub-clinical psychopathy); a desire to manipulate others (machiavellianism), since they are obviously deluded and need to be shown the way; and a certain degree of narcissism to support the view that one is absolutely and without a doubt completely in the right. The sadism might well be vicarious and limited to enjoying exasperating those the true believer views as antagonists. In any case, true believers would certainly be willing to make others suffer for the sake of their cause.

Put simply, entertaining the notion that we could be wrong, even in those belief we most passionately hold, i. e. having a sense of humility, probably acts as a brake on obnoxious behavior. Absolute certainty in one's belief system could easily sweep away any sense of humility and with it any sense of restraint in furthering ones belief system.

 

[TimCallahan]

Honestly, I don't get it either. If one recognizes that a person is trolling, why respond? You know he or she is only doing it for the reasons listed above. Reminds me of the classic XKCD comic:

[qimg]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png[/qimg]


The simple solution, rather than leaving (because honestly trolls are not unique to the JREF) is to stop feeding them. Before you post a reply, ask yourself if you are feeding a troll and if so, don't post.

I suspect my problem is that of the live lobster (or frog) being slowly boiled and not realizing the situation until I've been sucked in. I suspect I also have the tendency, having invested a certain amount of time and energy in a thread, to want to salvage that effort by finding some meaning where there is none. That, of course, is my problem to deal with.

Yeah, the comic is right on the money. The artist could have had me in mind.

 

[Delvo]

Put trolls in your Ignore list. You can also have threads Ignored. They won't be visible. It will be like they don't exist, or at most, like they're present but mute.

You'll still see the non-trolls and non-trolling threads.