Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People (Slate)
Original paper: Erin E. Buckels, Paul D. Trapnell, Delroy L. Paulhus, Trolls just want to have fun, Personality and Individual Differences, Available online 8 February 2014, ISSN 0191-8869
(didn't stuff in general science thread due to opportunity for separate conversational thread)
"Shocking" Science of Shitcock
Re: "Shocking" Science of Shitcock
The first problem I can see with this study:
Okay, so you've got someone who has admitted to being a troll.
You then proceed to take their subsequent answers at face value instead of assuming they're just intentionally selecting the most provocative response.
Second problem: vagueness of language.
I have sent people to shock websites for the lulz.
and
I enjoy griefing other players in multiplayer games.
Define your terms. How many of us, at some point or another, have given someone a link to something horrible? Goatse and Tubgirl used to be all the rage. What about my "Hi, I'm a stupid cunt who likes to leech images" graphic? Does that count as "shock website"? It's certainly intentionally rude and offensive.
And what's your definition of griefing, anyway? There were people who thought the stuff we used to do in City of Heroes was griefing. Or that story Sharkey told of tricking FF11 newbs into thinking there was a Float spell by exploiting a graphics bug. Is that griefing?
Third problem:
The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.
Okay, fucking seriously? If someone asked me that question I'd feel obligated to answer "Yes" just because it is just such a pure bullshit question. That's, like, fucking comic book supervillain dialogue. Who comes up with this shit?
So yeah trolls are annoying and it's tempting to assume all the most horrible things we can about them. But I'm pretty damn skeptical about this study. There's a pretty broad gulf between being a jackass on the Internet and being an actual bona fide sadist.
And for the record, no, I don't actually think Guild is a sociopath.
- Brantly B.
- Woah Dangsaurus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm
Re: "Shocking" Science of Shitcock
Further proof that there's not much difference between a comic book villain and myself in the bedroom.
- zaratustra
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:45 pm
Re: "Shocking" Science of Shitcock
But if you assume a troll tries to game the system for attention, what would they do when the attention is specifically on them?
Re: "Shocking" Science of Shitcock
zaratustra wrote:But if you assume a troll tries to game the system for attention, what would they do when the attention is specifically on them?
Accuse everyone who calls them a troll of being the REAL troll, of course.
Re: "Shocking" Science of Shitcock
Trouble at the Kool-Aid Point wrote:But the Koolaid-Point-driven attacks are usually started by (speculating, educated guess here, not an actual psychologist, etc) sociopaths. They’re doing it out of pure malice, “for the lulz.” And those doing it for the lulz are masters at manipulating public perception. Master trolls can build an online army out of the well-intended, by appealing to The Cause
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21397
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: "Shocking" Science of Shitcock
She has very correctly identified internet-only fame as a no-win situation.
Re: "Shocking" Science of Shitcock
Eh, you need to get fame despite people adamantly believing something of yours is shit.
Then again, I suppose there's usually at least the one person...
From the hater’s POV, you (the Koolaid server) do not “deserve” that attention. You are “stealing” an audience. From their angry, frustrated point of view, the idea that others listen to you is insanity.
Then again, I suppose there's usually at least the one person...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests