Sometimes we want to talk about feelings and stuff. And you other regulars are all so matter-of-fact. Maybe this time it’ll be a real heartbroken teenager we can forge a proper human connection with. Hope springs eternal.
Speaking for myself, though, I’ve probably been bitten enough times now that I’ll stay the hell out of it the next time one rolls around. You know what they say: Fool me once, shame on… shame on you. Fool me twice… we can’t get fooled again. Oh, you know what I mean.
I don’t know how to spot one. If they sign up with a new login name (definition of sock, isn’t it?) how can I tell? I tend to take things pretty much as they appear; if someone new joins up and asks about something…why not answer them?
What makes a sock “obvious?”
For Trinopus:
A guide to spotting internet sympathy trolls and emotional scammers: http://mamabythebay.com/2012/09/16/how-to-spot-an-internet-troll-or-emotional-scammer/
For Rhythmdvl:
Dr. Marc Feldman, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama describes Munchausen syndrome by internet. They are sometimes called cybermunchers.
The Stranger article interviews a cybermuncher:
[INDENT][INDENT]Alex is surprisingly candid about her deceptions when I call to get her side of the story. She’s upbeat, even laughing at herself as she tells me about her overpowering compulsion to be liked, to be the center of attention, to lie.
“I’m just full of bullshit and I have been since I was 4,” she says, recalling her first lie: “I told my mom I had kiwi at preschool for a snack. Had I ever eaten kiwi in my entire life? No. But I told her in great detail all about the kiwi, how it was hairy on the outside and green on the inside. I don’t know where I got these details.”
As I’d been warned, she is incredibly charming and her bluntness is ingratiating.[/INDENT][/INDENT]
Cecil provides some insight: Is there really such a thing as a pathological liar?: “…some people lie because they profit from it, some fib because they’re sick, and some do it because they’re lying sacks of sh*t.”
“Fool me twice” mandatory viewing. (I can’t link directly to the relevant time, so skip ahead to about 1:45 to skip the setup.)
That’s kind of in line with what I don’t get. It’s not 1999 anymore; someone lying on the Internet is passé. It’s happened again and again so often that I’d have thought (hence why I framed it as something I don’t ‘get’) that feeding a likely troll would get wearisome after ten, fifteen or fifty times.
I’m not pointing out any particular post/poster (I think that’s against the rules), and I’m sure some (small) percent of the threads I think are socks are really in earnest (or a real Doper with real problems that doesn’t want to link their name to the scenario).
I’m also sure that some percent of people who come up to me at a gas station or train station actually do need just a dollar or two to make it home. I’m absolutely sure that in that endless flood of con artists, some are real.
And that’s a key difference outlook—what the ‘one’ is in “I don’t know how to spot one.” When thinking of the boatload of sugar-glurge, is it “I don’t know how to spot the Internet troll/attention seeker” or is it “I don’t know how to spot the rare, actual person behind the sob story.” If you want to give time and attention to most of them just to be sure you give that shoulder to the one in need, well, that’s about as close as I can come to understanding it.
It annoys me (on a very trivial scale, of course), because it encourages the sock-creator to keep doing what they do. I’d think it would annoy you on a somewhat greater scale (though still trivial) because that one out of a hundred ‘honest’ posts is ignored by the majority of Dopers who are sick of that serial sock and his or her bullshit.
Oh, about obvious. Again, I’m not pointing to any post or poster, but there is a stark difference between someone who’s been here for a while posting about troubles that link up to other posts (or even absent such connections they have some history here) and someone who just signed up (or signed up a while ago and have few conversational posts) to post the glurge. GQ gets a lot of nods from a few other areas of the net, but we’re a backwater board in an ocean of forums and boards. That they somehow found this board (MPSIMS in particular) out of the thousands of more relationship- or socia-oriented places to post their shit defies credulity. Especially so when it’s a teen or twenty-something with a typically much stronger internet-based social awareness of other outlets. This is just one of a few factors that make the steady stream of bullshit smell so obviously.
There are of course exceptions, and of course some used cars really were driven only by little old ladies from Pamona. Most weren’t.
MbM: I like the term “cybermunchers”
They behave in ways new posters don’t. They act all familiar with the board. If they are trolls, they bring up topics they know will cause an explosion, or otherwise act in intentionally annoying ways. They say things like “long time lurker, first time posters,” but then are way too active to have previously been a lurker.
But, really, it’s not that you have to be on the lookout for socks. Or even that you shouldn’t answer questions in case they are legitimate. It’s that you need to be aware that things may not be as they seem, and not get overly invested. Don’t let yourself be the person who gets all upset or gets into a huge fight. Don’t give them an inordinate amount of attention.
Save your compassion for those you can be more sure are on the up and up, and only use a little on those you can’t. As time goes on, they’ll give you more clues, and you can always give them more compassion later.
Because it wouldn’t be perceived as genuine. Do you think that, when you get a form letter, the form letter is genuine? Do you think the guy who who sends the same message to every girl thinks you are the prettiest girl he’s ever seen? Do you not suspect the guy who tells the exact same story word for word is not telling the truth?
I am describing the human element, as I am describing one of the main ways humans decide if something is genuine. When the same thing is repeated over and over, word for word, we suspect it isn’t actually meant. It’s just not how genuine people interact with one another.
This is a community, not a scientific review process where you are submitting a paper for consideration. You’re here to have a conversation. And you cannot copy and paste your part of a conversation. Everything is going to be different even from the outset, because your audience is different. You think I talk like this on reddit?
I also don’t like how you left out the entire rest of my post, where I describe other ways of telling that something isn’t genuine, and even say that, while one aspect by itself may not be enough, multiple signs can be. You used a partial quote to make it seem I said something my whole post shows I didn’t say. I don’t appreciate such misquoting.
I really get frustrated with these types of arguments. When you deny the very words you’ve already spoken, there’s no point in discussing further.
Your attitude is defiant. Rather than ask questions, you defend your take. That means you are fighting to get what you want rather than trying to learn.
I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who says they are just asking questions but instead decides to argue. You even said " if these are the assumptions made about anyone who posts their first thread on multiple message boards, then that may be the reason for the rule. " Hence there was no reason to argue with me at all
I answered your question to the best of my abilities. I expect that, if I’m wrong, the mods will come in and correct me. Otherwise, it is the correct answer. Arguing with me is pointless and frustrating, and only makes people less inclined to answer you in the future.
AFAICT, you’re making an unfounded accusation. Unless you can point out the words I’ve spoken and then denied, you’re just flinging out a baseless accusation.
If you’re reading defiance into my words, that’s your reading of it. I’m not trying to get anything. I asked you a question and gave my opinion of your answer, which I hadn’t formed before you answered it.
‘Trying to learn’ on a message board works both ways. Anyone can learn from anyone else’s opinion if they choose. I learned from your opinion that I disagreed with most of it.
If you choose not to interact with me, that’s your choice, and one that I’m fine with.
Although I agree with you that it’s pointless and frustrating arguing with you, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that the mods will correct you on everything you post, especially on topics where you’re speaking in generalities about what you think other people know.
I also think it’s unreasonable to expect that whatever you post is the “correct answer” if the mods don’t explicitly post to correct you. It may be that the mods didn’t read your post or didn’t take it seriously enough to consider it.
I may be wrong on that. If you want to check it out for sure, you might want to start an OP in ATMB asking, ‘Is it reasonable to expect that everything BigT posts is the ‘correct answer’ if the mods don’t explicitly post to correct him?’ I’d be interested to see the answer.
I think this thread has run its course and has devolved into side issues between posters. Closed.
If someone truly needs to add something of value concerning the OP, I might reopen it.
samclem, moderator