Inspired by, albeit somewhat grudgingly (but hardly restricted to) by the petite cause célèbre of this thread
Like Justice Potter Stewart, we often “know it when we see it.” But what, precisely, is the impetus/payoff for that rare breed in the online world who stir shit, seemingly just to observe its Brownian motion?
Not limited to simply this board, but online communication in general, almost since its inception. Is it simply an Andy Kaufmanesque delight in screwing with people? A cry for attention, as some suggest? Or something perhaps more sinister—a desire to corrupt (perceived) order, to plant a seed of chaos, in a small but reactive way? The manifestation of a deep-seated disrespect for others, maybe even a complete failure to acknowledge them as human, but instead as pawns to be manipulated for sport?
In other words, is trolling a form of (usually relatively harmless and inconsquential) sociopathy?
IMO, it is definitely a form of sociopathy, but it’s an unavoidable by-product of the generally desirable anonymity of Internet users.
I’m baffled myself that people come here, and sometimes even pay the subscription fee, for no other apparent reason than to pick as many verbal fights as they can with a bunch of complete strangers, and sow as much disruption as they can before being banned. It seems like a complete waste of time. I’m especially bemused by the fact that these people seem to know or care nothing at all about the Straight Dope newspaper column and its responsiblity for there even being a board to disrupt. It’s as if they think the entire concept of the Board itself is some evil thing that must be destroyed.
I’m less baffled by the sort of troll that presents itself as something it is not, such as the legendary Formeragent. It of course doesn’t take much cleverness at all to misrepresent oneself in an anonymous text message, yet for certain people that’s clearly a great form of personal entertainment.
One answer in both cases is that they can sow all sorts of disruption and draw attention to themselves without ever facing any significant real-world consequences. A guy who decides to drop his pants and wave his dick around on a busy street corner will likely find himeself quickly ending up in handcuffs, but one can do the verbal equivalent all day long without any particular penalty except banning from the particular board they’ve infested. What’s particularly interesting is those people who have been banned from not just one but multiple boards: it would seem that they are deliberately trying to find excuses to shut down the ability to communicate freely with others.
Bad trolls just like to piss people off. They’re a dime a dozen and probably just bored. It doesn’t take much effort or time, really. An 8 year old could do it. That it works so well so often is kinda scary.
Good trolls are rarer but like to use craftier methods to psychologically manipulate people – they’ll weave a grand, fake tapestry and make their puppets dance. They’ll often create a schism in the community they visit, even if only temporarily, and have made the biggest and greatest train wrecks seen on this board IMO. We haven’t had one of those in awhile, though.
On the off chance that this actually turns into a Great Debate regarding trolling on the internet*, I am leaving this here, for now.
I have, however, broken the link to the Pit thread. Dragging current accusations of trolling by other posters (particularly when such accusations have not been substanitated by the staff banning the accused, but even without that particular concern) is simply not appropriate to GD.
If you wish to discuss the motivations of trolls, that is fine. Posting in such a way as to compel the target of accusations to come to this Forum (where the accusations are prohibted) is really not a good idea.
I suspect that this thread has a strong potential to become a poll and get moved to IMHO, buty we’ll see what you folks can do with it for now.
There’s a guy in the newsgroup rec.sport.baseball who has been going at it for a decade and
a half now, and shows no sign of slowing down. I think in a lot of cases it is pathology, and
sometimes a extremely rabid fanatic is indistinguishible from a troll (if you assume a definite
conscious effort on the part of the latter to raise the flame level, while for the former it is
simply a direct function of his very sincere beliefs).
Frankly, I don’t see much trolling here, not least because it’s a well-moderated forum. On Craig’s List, OTOH, it’s almost SOP. Having observed it for several years, I have concluded that one of the motivations for many trolls is that it’s a sort of kick-the-cat game. They spend much of their lives being pushed around and given orders, especially at work. Trolling, then, becomes a way of venting at the universe.
I agree with PBear42. There’s a lot less trolling on this board than on most forums. It’s the quality of the moderation here that induced me to pay my $14.98. How many of us have been on other boards where the wisest and wittiest contributors quit in disgust because the mods didn’t crack the whip? Most of us, I’d venture to say. Just as surely as bad currency drives out good currency, trollage drives out intelligent posters. I tip my hat to the ever-alert mods here at the SDMB. Og bless 'em all.
My apologies. It wasn’t my intention for this to be a referendum on that poster, or even to discuss the SDMB in particular, but to talk about the phenomenon of trolling in general, which (however comparatively rare it may be on this board) doesn’t seem to me to be on the wane.
Attention seeking. Its the whole ‘If I cant have good feedback/reinforcement, Ill have bad feedback/reinforcement’. Like the child who throws a fit just for attention. They cant get regular attention, but they have to have some attention, so theyll get it any way they can.
My guess is a feeling of power. It’s a lot like people who spread gossip. A troll can drop a couple of statements into a post, sit back, and watch the tempest. All the while knowing that they orchestrated the whole thing. A “look what I can make them do” moment.
PBear42 mentioned a child having a tantrum to get attention. This is even better, because while a parent can remove the child, ending the spectical, a thread, unless removed, is always there to document the trolls actions.
People seem to have a great fascination with provoking negative responses in others. I haven’t seen Borat, but from what I understand, the creator of the film is pretty much a real-life troll. He pretends to be something he is not in order to goad reactions out of unsuspecting people. And the film seems to be quite popular. Personally, I don’t get it, but there are obviously a lot of people in the world who are really into that.
I’ve often wondered about how trolling relates to our current culture. Many big-name critics and intellectuals have somehow concluded that it’s a good thing for entertainers to be “outrageous” and “offensive”. This has never made sense to me. Trolling, such as it is, is simply what happens when that mentality is applied by people who don’t have the necessary connections to get their own TV show. I don’t understand it at all, either from the media elites or from ordinary citizens.
Explanations for bad behavior in general don’t seem to apply to trolling. When I child misbehaves for no logical reason, there may still be certain psychological reasons: children need to find the limits of allowable behavior, figure out where they stand in society and how much they can get away with. Trolls, on the other hand, gain no knowledge or understanding from trolling. They don’t learn any new social skills or figure out anything about their standing in the community, because they care nothing for the community to begin with.
I’ve been accused of trolling before, which always annoys me, because I don’t look at it as trolling. I’ll sometimes take a position I disagree with and carry it to its logical extreme, which shows the foibles of that position. I call that hyperbole or satire, or sometimes internet performance art. I don’t think it’s trolling because I always come clean, in case the readers can’t figure it out beforehand. I’ve never done it on Straight Dope, but I’ve done it in other places, in particular the Yahoo message boards, where everyone’s crazy anyway. I figure that if no one gets that I’m not serious, then I’m not really making a point, and I’m always about making a point.
I think if you asked these media trolls, they would rationalize their behavior by claiming they are using the deception to flesh out the true nature of their victims, and thus telling us something about human nature. “See how people behave when put in X situation.” But it’s really the two oldest motivations in the book: money and power. By manipulating the reactions of others, they can feel in control. And when they use these situations to create entertainment for their audience, they are often well-rewarded financially.
Question: what is the difference between trolling and “playing devil’s advocate”?
From what little I know of Debate (as a team “sport”) a good debater should be able to defend positions that (s)he disagrees with and to successfully attack those positions that (s)he agrees with. Now I am not referring to those who troll with no logic or data but merely in a way to cause reactions with silly positions or hate inspired rhetoric just to experience a semblance of power in that they caused others to react, even if only to rubberneck at the disaster, but those who take a position just for the challenge of defending an unpopular view. If others cannot rise to the occassion that is telling of something methinks. Yet both the silly/hateful attention/power-seeking narcissistic personality disordered troll and the latter (competitive perhaps) devil’s advocate are equally verboten here, as if they were the same thing. Yet one is just being a jerk off and the other is trying to show that (s)he is a master debater.
Okay, maybe they are the same thing, when I put it like that.
Just my opinion, but were I to play devil’s advocate in an argument in order to flesh out another’s position, I would predicate it with something along the lines of “just to play devil’s advocate…” I don’t understand what would be gained by deliberately choosing a position that one does not actually believe in and arguing that position without informing anyone that I was doing so. I think of these threads as geniune discussions, not contests to see who is the best at arguing. If you are arguing that which you don’t actually believe, are you really doing it just to test your skill, or are you just trying to mess with people. I don’t see a whole lot of difference.
Taking this a step further, what if the point of the debate has implications about the behavior of the forum and how it functions and the person debating feels that improvements to the forum could be made. . . even improvements in open-mindedness or the ability as you say to “rise to the occasion” of debating such points in a non-defensive manner?
