psychology research study: trolls are horrible people.

[nathanjizzle]

Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic




In the past few years, the science of Internet trollology has made some strides. Last year, for instance, we learned that by hurling insults and inciting discord in online comment sections, so-called Internet trolls (who are frequently anonymous) have a polarizing effect on audiences, leading to politicization, rather than deeper understanding of scientific topics.

That’s bad, but it’s nothing compared with what a new psychology paper has to say about the personalities of trolls themselves. 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).

It is hard to underplay the results: The study found correlations, sometimes quite significant, between these traits and trolling behavior. What’s more, it also found a relationship between all Dark Tetrad traits (except for narcissism) and the overall time that an individual spent, per day, commenting on the Internet.

In the study, trolls were identified in a variety of ways. One was by simply asking survey participants what they “enjoyed doing most” when on online comment sites, offering five options: “debating issues that are important to you,” “chatting with others,” “making new friends,” “trolling others,” and “other.” Here’s how different responses about these Internet commenting preferences matched up with responses to questions designed to identify Dark Tetrad traits:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/140214_CDESK_MachiavellianTraits.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg



To be sure, only 5.6 percent of survey respondents actually specified that they enjoyed “trolling.” By contrast, 41.3 percent of Internet users were “non-commenters,” meaning they didn’t like engaging online at all. So trolls are, as has often been suspected, a minority of online commenters, and an even smaller minority of overall Internet users.

The researchers conducted multiple studies, using samples from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk but also of college students, to try to understand why the act of trolling seems to attract this type of personality. They even constructed their own survey instrument, which they dubbed the Global Assessment of Internet Trolling, or GAIT, containing the following items:

I have sent people to shock websites for the lulz.

I like to troll people in forums or the comments section of websites.

I enjoy griefing other players in multiplayer games.

The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.

Yes, some people actually say they agree with such statements. And again, doing so was correlated with sadism in its various forms, with psychopathy, and with Machiavellianism. Overall, the authors found that the relationship between sadism and trolling was the strongest, and that indeed, sadists appear to troll because they find it pleasurable. “Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others,” they wrote. “Sadists just want to have fun ... and the Internet is their playground!”

The study comes as websites, particularly at major media outlets, are increasingly weighing steps to rein in trollish behavior. Last year Popular Science did away with its comments sections completely, citing research on the deleterious effects of trolling, and YouTube also took measures to rein in trolling.

But study author Buckels actually isn’t sure that fix is a realistic one. “Because the behaviors are intrinsically motivating for sadists, comment moderators will likely have a difficult time curbing trolling with punishments (e.g., banning users),” she said by email. “Ultimately, the allure of trolling may be too strong for sadists, who presumably have limited opportunities to express their sadistic interests in a socially-desirable manner.”


I think we all know whom this research is relevant too.

[JohnFreeman]

Nice thread fakkit waddup doe

;)

[nathanjizzle]

Nice thread fakkit waddup doe

;)


Narcissistic

I bet you think this thread had something to do with you!:roll:

[Angel Face]

I bet you think this thread had something to do with you!:roll:

:oldlol:

[JohnFreeman]

I bet you think this thread had something to do with you!:roll:
Who couldn't love me? Chiseled features and a winning personality. Angel Face laughing cause he shat himself in the other thread

[$LakerGold]

I bet you think this thread had something to do with you!:roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Angel Face]

Who couldn't love me? Chiseled features and a winning personality. Angel Face laughing cause he shat himself in the other thread

What thread?

[Trentknicks]

You've been an absolute butthurt bitch with anything Bulls/Heat related in the last 2 years, lol. Stick to internet dating :roll:

[dr.hee]

I think we all know whom this research is relevant too.

Your test results are in.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/482/554/363.gif

[mr.big35]

yes they are

[JohnFreeman]

You've been an absolute butthurt bitch with anything Bulls/Heat related in the last 2 years, lol. Stick to internet dating :roll:
:oldlol:

[JohnFreeman]

no i havent. i dont even go into the nba forums that often. and when i do, im either talking shit about how terrible melo is, which is the truth, or defending d rose.

let me guess, youre ****ing the monkey shit thats in new york? LOL
Racist ass

[16X]

Who couldn't love me? Chiseled features and a winning personality. Angel Face laughing cause he shat himself in the other thread
You're on pace for almost 8000 posts a year, my friend. Time to turn the computer off and go outside.

[Nick Young]

I am definately very Machiavellian but I dont see anything wrong with that.

[Dresta]

The people who did this study really need to take a look at how worthless they are and then try doing something a bit more worthwhile. I actually thought upon initial reading this was a brilliant joke thread by OP, but googled it to find out some assholes are taking themselves seriously with this shit :lol.

I mean things like:

'the science of Internet trollology has made some strides'

'Erin Buckles?' 'University of Manitoba' the 'Dark Tetrad' :lol

'They even constructed their own survey instrument, which they dubbed the Global Assessment of Internet Trolling, or GAIT'

:facepalm

Where's the study on the extent of self-absorption among the little babies who actually get worked up over a troll? Anyone who gets all upset over someone being mean over the internet needs to really get a grip and deserve to be trolled tbh. In this way trolls actually perform a pretty useful function.

[red1]

No, having thin skin makes you a horrible person.

[miller-time]

Where's the study on the extent of self-absorption among the little babies who actually get worked up over a troll? Anyone who gets all upset over someone being mean over the internet needs to really get a grip and deserve to be trolled tbh. In this way trolls actually perform a pretty useful function.

It happens so why not study it? Trolling shows us that there is a duality between some peoples social behavior and their inner desires. Remove the social judgement from a person but let them engage socially and what happens? Some people continue to maintain social conventions and some people abandon them. Why? Not why do you think it happens anecdotally, but what is the psychological explanation for it? Is it a random throughout the population or is it done by people with personality disorders or mood disorders?

Also there is nothing there indicating anyone was upset over trolling behavior, they just want to understand why it happens.

[ace23]

You're on pace for almost 8000 posts a year, my friend. Time to turn the computer off and go outside.
Are you retarded?

[tpols]

It happens so why not study it? Trolling shows us that there is a duality between some peoples social behavior and their inner desires. Remove the social judgement from a person but let them engage socially and what happens? Some people continue to maintain social conventions and some people abandon them. Why? Not why do you think it happens anecdotally, but what is the psychological explanation for it? Is it a random throughout the population or is it done by people with personality disorders or mood disorders?

Also there is nothing there indicating anyone was upset over trolling behavior, they just want to understand why it happens.
Its also heavily age dependant.. the more time you spend on this shit the more tired the same things become. Most 'trolls' are just kids desperate for attention.

[Dresta]

It happens so why not study it? Trolling shows us that there is a duality between some peoples social behavior and their inner desires. Remove the social judgement from a person but let them engage socially and what happens? Some people continue to maintain social conventions and some people abandon them. Why? Not why do you think it happens anecdotally, but what is the psychological explanation for it? Is it a random throughout the population or is it done by people with personality disorders or mood disorders?

Also there is nothing there indicating anyone was upset over trolling behavior, they just want to understand why it happens.
Because no one ****ing cares and it is a complete waste of time, money and effort. Trolls get their kicks from winding people up, wow nice finding guiz!!!! People who enjoy upsetting people are likely to have more negative qualities to their personalities - thanks for that gem!!

Some people live repressed normal lives and so let off steam winding up people online: oh wow, what an incredible finding!! Thanks psychology team of random shit university in the middle of nowhere!!!

It is a completely moronic investigation and tells us absolutely nothing of worth. It's just an opportunity for pseudo-intellectual mediocrities to think they're doing important and valuable intellectual work. 'trollolgy' (lol) - maybe that'll be a university course soon; i wouldn't be surprised. And i think you'll find plenty of people get very upset over trolls: anti-bullying groups in the UK are pushing for prosecutions and people have been prosecuted merely for trolling and making 'obscene' jokes.

[russwest0]

tl;dr

[IamRAMBO24]

It happens so why not study it? Trolling shows us that there is a duality between some peoples social behavior and their inner desires. Remove the social judgement from a person but let them engage socially and what happens? Some people continue to maintain social conventions and some people abandon them. Why? Not why do you think it happens anecdotally, but what is the psychological explanation for it? Is it a random throughout the population or is it done by people with personality disorders or mood disorders?

Also there is nothing there indicating anyone was upset over trolling behavior, they just want to understand why it happens.

Trolling happens because the person doing the trolling is allowed to do it.

1. Ignore the person.

2. Ask the mods to ban them.

3. Don't be a little b*tch and get hurt.

You don't need any stupid studies to tell you what they are; it's the internet; nobody takes this sh*t seriously, and the person doing the trolling is probably doing it out of "fun" rather than actually hurting the other person on the other end.

In the end, the only person hurting you is yourself. Nobody can hurt you with words .. unless you allow them to.

[miller-time]

Because no one ****ing cares and it is a complete waste of time, money and effort.

You don't care but I'm interested and so are plenty of other people. I'm not saying it is the most worthy thing to study ever. But it is something most internet users likely experience, it is something that is a common behavioral phenomenon now. Why wouldn't you study it?


Trolls get their kicks from winding people up, wow nice finding guiz!!!! People who enjoy upsetting people are likely to have more negative qualities to their personalities - thanks for that gem!!

Finding the causal link is important. What if they discovered that most people that troll suffer from severe depression or social anxiety? What if they discovered that people with absolutely no personality issues or mood disorders engaged in trolling - what would that say about us and our social behavior? It is easy to just dismiss the findings in hindsight because they were easily assumed. Have you never heard of a study where something different or even the exact opposite of what thought happens is the case?

[MMM]

internet trolling has made me very suspicious of real life trolling as of late. Heck, can't really tell sometimes if people are trolling or really serious nowadays.

[miller-time]

Trolling happens because the person doing the trolling is allowed to do it.

That means nothing. I am allowed to troll but I don't. And that is the case for the majority of internet users. The point is why do some people do it and some don't?

Also some people don't have the tools to deal with trolling. They may have mental health problems of their own and are unable to disengage from the troll. Trolling isn't just a case of ordinary people having a laugh by winding up other ordinary people. It is more likely sociopathic people beating up on people with depression or are too young or naive to handle the situation properly. But hey, lets not worry about finding out whether that is true or not. Lets just sit back smugly and pretend we know everything already.

[Dresta]

You don't care but I'm interested and so are plenty of other people. I'm not saying it is the most worthy thing to study ever. But it is something most internet users likely experience, it is something that is a common behavioral phenomenon now. Why wouldn't you study it?



Finding the causal link is important. What if they discovered that most people that troll suffer from severe depression or social anxiety? What if they discovered that people with absolutely no personality issues or mood disorders engaged in trolling - what would that say about us and our social behavior? It is easy to just dismiss the findings in hindsight because they were easily assumed. Have you never heard of a study where something different or even the exact opposite of what thought happens is the case?Bro, there are limited funds and limited resources available. So many far more important things go under-funded. This research is frivolous to the extreme.

I really don't care about any of those things tbh, and they could all be examined in far more effective ways than expanding research into the 'realm of trollology'

Some people troll because they find it fun, that is really all there is to it. Depression or anxiety is not a causal link, though maybe a higher proportion may be depressed simply because they are individuals with nothing better to do than troll people on the internet.

[9erempiree]

Good study and good find. While some people on here feel that the study is bogus. I find that there is some merit to this. We are at an age in society where social media exists and message boards are common.

It may sound outrageous that they are spending money on something as trivial as "trolls" but a few years ago we would have said the same for bullies. Believe it or not the internet is real life. There is a thing called Facebook where you are real and your friends are too.

Years ago, online daters would be classified as anti-social, socially irresponsible or downright "loners" but over time it has proven false. It has become part of society.

Online bullying and trolling does exist. Most of the times it for fun and games but eventually this behavior, if acting on a regular basis, will eventually be part of the internet user. It may translate over to real life or it may not.

I find the study to be fascinating and gives you a little look on why people do it.

[miller-time]

Some people troll because they find it fun, that is really all there is to it. Depression or anxiety is not a causal link, though maybe a higher proportion may be depressed simply because they are individuals with nothing better to do than troll people on the internet.

And your evidence for that is where? Do I just take your word for it? Is that how we do things now?

[Dresta]

Damn you're stupid if you think there is a causal relationship between depression and internet trolling. As if 'evidence' is required to refute such an idiotic assertion.

[miller-time]

Damn you're stupid if you think there is a causal relationship between depression and internet trolling. As if 'evidence' is required to refute such an idiotic assertion.

Depression was an example. The point is we don't know what is and isn't a causal relationship until we actually investigate. Until then it is all speculation. There could be more than one factor for different trolls or even several factors for individual ones. If you read back to what I wrote I said, depression or social anxiety (but I could have slotted anything in there, schizophrenia, schizotypal personality disorder, lesions in the frontal lobes..), and then I said it might be something that happens in people with absolutely no mental health problems.

[Nevaeh]

It happens so why not study it? Trolling shows us that there is a duality between some peoples social behavior and their inner desires. Remove the social judgement from a person but let them engage socially and what happens? Some people continue to maintain social conventions and some people abandon them. Why? Not why do you think it happens anecdotally, but what is the psychological explanation for it? Is it a random throughout the population or is it done by people with personality disorders or mood disorders?

Also there is nothing there indicating anyone was upset over trolling behavior, they just want to understand why it happens.

It's not a "disorder". It's called having a different opinion on a subject than other people. This is something that used to be celebrated in certain societies (I'm American). But now, we have a world trying to classify anything that's not robotically sucking the D!ck of whatever the "maintstream" presents them as a "problem".

How about studying why school funding continues to get cut, why wack ass b!tch ass auto tune rappers continue to get promoted over real artists, or why peeps should just smile and nod to sh!t that they might not agree with?

[Nick Young]

It's not a "disorder". It's called having a different opinion on a subject than other people. This is something that used to be celebrated in certain societies (I'm American). But now, we have a world trying to classify anything that's not robotically sucking the D!ck of whatever the "maintstream" presents them as a "problem".

How about studying why school funding continues to get cut, why wack ass b!tch ass auto tune rappers continue to get promoted over real artists, or why peeps should just smile and nod to sh!t that they might not agree with?
Autotune rappers haven't been cool for like 6 years bruh. They haven't been promoted for a long time.

[gigantes]

i'm thinking trolling is more than just related to diseased minds... it's also one of the natural mechanisms in response to the stresses of overpopulation and over-encroachment.

where people are scarce, other people tend to be precious resources. where people are bumping elbows, and where there's a codification to accept everyone's various views and weirdness, there's an urge to lash out... even destroy.

sign o' the times.

[niko]

So this study concluded that people who spend all the time acting like assholes are in fact assholes? Shocking... I never got the trolls, the constant ones. I get one day being bored and screwing around for ten seconds, but creating personas designed to annoy strangers seems ridiculous and such a waste of time. It's kind of sad.

[ILLsmak]

Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic



I think we all know whom this research is relevant too.

I'm a troll. I take great effort to turn every conversation I have into totally irrelevant, strange shit. If it doesn't, I defeat it entirely.

In order to troll someone, you have to understand them (or just keep busting out tried and true shit that you figure will work.) You can def troll someone without being a psychopath. Friends troll each other often.

But there is a different breed of troll.

Because I am a good-natured troll, I am immune to bad trolls. I sometimes cringe at how mean they can be, but I am like a day-walking vampire... yakno.

I think a lot of people don't want to admit that a lot of trolls ARE psychopaths. It proves how prevalent psychopathy is in the population. Epic alliteration.

But yea, trolls are weak people. That's why they are always on the attack. Just like psychopaths are weak people. Everyone says they don't feel pain or have emotions. Sure they do. They are just super underdeveloped. When you get them to their core and defeat them, it's pretty sad.

-Smak

[nathanjizzle]

I'm a troll. I take great effort to turn every conversation I have into totally irrelevant, strange shit. If it doesn't, I defeat it entirely.

In order to troll someone, you have to understand them (or just keep busting out tried and true shit that you figure will work.) You can def troll someone without being a psychopath. Friends troll each other often.

But there is a different breed of troll.

Because I am a good-natured troll, I am immune to bad trolls. I sometimes cringe at how mean they can be, but I am like a day-walking vampire... yakno.

I think a lot of people don't want to admit that a lot of trolls ARE psychopaths. It proves how prevalent psychopathy is in the population. Epic alliteration.

But yea, trolls are weak people. That's why they are always on the attack. Just like psychopaths are weak people. Everyone says they don't feel pain or have emotions. Sure they do. They are just super underdeveloped. When you get them to their core and defeat them, it's pretty sad.

-Smak

I never saw you as a troll.

-Nate

[IamRAMBO24]

Depression was an example. The point is we don't know what is and isn't a causal relationship until we actually investigate. Until then it is all speculation. There could be more than one factor for different trolls or even several factors for individual ones. If you read back to what I wrote I said, depression or social anxiety (but I could have slotted anything in there, schizophrenia, schizotypal personality disorder, lesions in the frontal lobes..), and then I said it might be something that happens in people with absolutely no mental health problems.

There is no causal relationship. It is just some bullsh*t study from psuedo science hacks to make themselves feel relevant.

You nerds will believe anything if there is the words "study" and "science" behind.

Flaws in the study:

1. Proper definition of the word troll. What constitutes a troll? Dark humor is a huge attribute of a troll, but normally it just means that, humor. What if the troll is being humorous and not really sadistic? You can't pinpoint what a troll is because there is no known definition for it.

2. If you can't properly define a troll, then you can't properly carry out a study on it in the first place. It sounds like they are pulling out every demeaning psychological terms to see what sticks. That's not real science; that's bullsh*t science.

3. Let me guess, they use stats right? Yup, stats are nothing more than some lame creation by a lame pseudo scientist to try to explain phenomenons that they can't be certain about using lame mathematics (if we can call it that) that only deal with probabilities and not certainty.

The study is bullsh*t. I give it a year before it becomes obselete.

[nathanjizzle]

There is no causal relationship. It is just some bullsh*t study from psuedo science hacks to make themselves feel relevant.

You nerds will believe anything if there is the words "study" and "science" behind.

Flaws in the study:

1. Proper definition of the word troll. What constitutes a troll? Dark humor is a huge attribute of a troll, but normally it just means that, humor. What if the troll is being humorous and not really sadistic? You can't pinpoint what a troll is because there is no known definition for it.

2. If you can't properly define a troll, then you can't properly carry out a study on it in the first place. It sounds like they are pulling out every demeaning psychological terms to see what sticks. That's not real science; that's bullsh*t science.

3. Let me guess, they use stats right? Yup, stats are nothing more than some lame creation by a lame pseudo scientist to try to explain phenomenons that they can't be certain about using lame mathematics (if we can call it that) that only deal with probabilities and not certainty.

The study is bullsh*t. I give it a year before it becomes obselete.

and you came to this conclusion by what research? because these people actually did studies on people, not form their own narcissistic opinion and deem it is fact like you are doing. :roll:

btw, we all know youre a loser thats why you need to come on the forums and act like your enlightened and smarter than all of us, when you might be the most delusional irrational poster here.

thats the profile of most if not all conspiracy theorists, they feel a need to feel important or special than most people because in reality they are nobodys. its a self defense mechanism of the mind, same thing as someone hating on another persons success.

[niko]

There is no causal relationship. It is just some bullsh*t study from psuedo science hacks to make themselves feel relevant.

You nerds will believe anything if there is the words "study" and "science" behind.

Flaws in the study:

1. Proper definition of the word troll. What constitutes a troll? Dark humor is a huge attribute of a troll, but normally it just means that, humor. What if the troll is being humorous and not really sadistic? You can't pinpoint what a troll is because there is no known definition for it.

2. If you can't properly define a troll, then you can't properly carry out a study on it in the first place. It sounds like they are pulling out every demeaning psychological terms to see what sticks. That's not real science; that's bullsh*t science.

3. Let me guess, they use stats right? Yup, stats are nothing more than some lame creation by a lame pseudo scientist to try to explain phenomenons that they can't be certain about using lame mathematics (if we can call it that) that only deal with probabilities and not certainty.

The study is bullsh*t. I give it a year before it becomes obselete.

You really like to sound informed. The study is ridiculous. How does it become obsolete in a year? That means you think right now it's relevant. Is it relevant or not? You have to be meaningful at some point to become obsolete.

[IamRAMBO24]

and you came to this conclusion by what research? because these people actually did studies on people, not form their own narcissistic opinion and deem it is fact like you are doing. :roll:

btw, we all know youre a loser thats why you need to come on the forums and act like your enlightened and smarter than all of us, when you might be the most delusional irrational poster here.

thats the profile of most if not all conspiracy theorists, they feel a need to feel important or special than most people because in reality they are nobodys. its a self defense mechanism of the mind, same thing as someone hating on another persons success.

So what if they did studies? Like I said, as long as these nerds have the words "science" and "study" behind it, you guys will believe anything.

It is all a play with words and what is weird, different, philosophical, and can constitute as a conspiracy is automatically consider bullsh*t. It has nothing to do with reason.

Unlike you, I won't take anything at face value. First I attack the premse, second, I attack the supporting arguments, and third I will formulate my opinion.

I will never attack the evidence. I use the evidence as the focal point of my argument and premise, and quite frankly, this study has neither of those.

I don't think I am smarter; I just think my methodology is better. Hate me all you want but it is hard to argue against someone who solely relies on evidence as the starting point of their position.

As is, you guys are obsessed with an ideology, and will use confirmation bias to fight tooth and nail for your position.

[niko]

So what if they did studies? Like I said, as long as these nerds have the words "science" and "study" behind it, you guys will believe anything.

It is all a play with words and what is weird, different, philosophical, and can constitute as a conspiracy is automatically consider bullsh*t. It has nothing to do with reason.

Unlike you, I won't take anything at face value. First I attack the premse, second, I attack the supporting arguments, and third I will formulate my opinion.

I will never attack the evidence. I use the evidence as the focal point of my argument and premise, and quite frankly, this study has neither of those.

I don't think I am smarter; I just think my methodology is better. Hate me all you want but it is hard to argue against someone who solely relies on evidence as the starting point of their position.

The study relied on evidence. It's just manufactured. And on such a stupid topic. I can't believe someone funded a study and worked on a study whose primary goal was to prove those who act morons, are actually...morons.

[niko]

There definitely is something wrong with some of the trolls though, like Euroleague. Think how much time he must spend researching european basketball, posting, etc. He formed a personality, looks up stats, does the trolling thing across a ton of different boards. He could have wrote a freaking book on European basketball but instead argues with people on a message board endlessly. To me at least, it's bizarre.

[IamRAMBO24]

There definitely is something wrong with some of the trolls though, like Euroleague. Think how much time he must spend researching european basketball, posting, etc. He formed a personality, looks up stats, does the trolling thing across a ton of different boards. He could have wrote a freaking book on European basketball but instead argues with people on a message board endlessly. To me at least, it's bizarre.

See that is the thing, is he really "trolling" or does he possess some other psychological symptoms that has absolutely nothing to do with trolling?

The word "trolling" is open ended. It can mean so many different things. Someone can disagree with someone else and is adamant about his position can be consider a troll; someone else can be dumb as f*ck, throw around a few cuss words and does not contribute can be consider a troll; someone who is just angry and can find solace in expressing his anger online (without retribution) can be consider a troll. Trying to define trolling with characteristics that correlate to serial killers and then trying to carry out research based upon this premise is flawed in and of itself.

If you can't pinpoint what it is, then how can you even begin a study for it? It's like me studying birds and not really know what birds are.

[niko]

See that is the thing, is he really "trolling" or does he possess some other psychological symptoms that has absolutely nothing to do with trolling?

The word "trolling" is open ended. It can mean so many different things. Someone can disagree with someone else and is adamant about his position can be consider a troll; someone else can be dumb as f*ck, throw around a few cuss words and does not contribute can be consider a troll; someone who is just angry and can find solace in expressing his anger online (without retribution) can be consider a troll. Trying to define trolling with characteristics that correlate to serial killers and then trying to carry out research based upon this premise is flawed in and of itself.

If you can't pinpoint what it is, then how can you even begin a study for it? It's like me studying birds and not really know what birds are.

They did pinpoint, they told you exactly what they considered a troll to be. You seem to disagree with the broad spectrum they set which is a very fair criticism (which i agree with) but I'm not going there just simply because the whole exercise strikes me as stupid. The bird example is silly, a bird is a bird. There is a dictionary definition. Troll doesn't have a scientific definition to point to. So they made one, which is so broad as to probably create so much noise as to hurt analysis.

I do analysis for a living and numbers can say what they want you to say. The best analysis doesn't have a preset bias going in (this seemed to but why wouldn't it as it's so stupid) and tries to remove as much of the noise as possible that would prevent you from reaching useful conclusions. Who knows what they did...

Again, I think you are trying to do a deliberate and thoughtful analysis of why this analysis is stupid, it's stupid because as Dresta said "did they really use resources for this?" Again, they are trying to prove people who act like assholes, are assholes. That shouldn't be hard to do.

[miller-time]

3. Let me guess, they use stats right? Yup, stats are nothing more than some lame creation by a lame pseudo scientist to try to explain phenomenons that they can't be certain about using lame mathematics (if we can call it that) that only deal with probabilities and not certainty.

Statistics is required because of how complex the system we are studying is. Studying social behavior and the brain is noisy and complicated. If you can come up with a better methodology that provides more accurate and reliable results that don't violate ethical codes then we are all ears? What do you have for us?

In fact all science uses statistics. The discovery of the Higgs boson if I remember correctly had a confidence level of sigma 5. Obviously in social sciences the measurements are not nearly as accurate or reliable (psychologists don't have a 6 billion dollar piece of hardware to measure peoples brain states) so the accepted confidence level is lower, around sigma 3.

[MadeFromDust]

There's no such thing as a good person so there's no distinction between a troll and anyone else. No point in one group of sucky people calling another group of sucky people, sucky. It's redundant and doesn't accomplish anything lulz

[miller-time]

Again, I think you are trying to do a deliberate and thoughtful analysis of why this analysis is stupid, it's stupid because as Dresta said "did they really use resources for this?" Again, they are trying to prove people who act like assholes, are assholes. That shouldn't be hard to do.

Except in science the point is to disprove the hypothesis.

Think of it like this, if they demonstrated that people that were highly empathetic and had high self esteem were the ones doing the trolling it would be a pretty interesting outcome no? But we wouldn't be able to discuss the outcome because no one wants to do the study because they've assumed the conclusion. The study may have agreed with out preconceived idea of the type of person a troll is, but that doesn't mean that the study wasn't worth doing. If we never did studies on things we already think are true we wouldn't discover anything interesting. Not every study is going to yield amazing results, but sometimes they do, so we push on even if we strongly believe we already know the conclusion.

[bladefd]

Except in science the point is to disprove the hypothesis.

Think of it like this, if they demonstrated that people that were highly empathetic and had high self esteem were the ones doing the trolling it would be a pretty interesting outcome no? But we wouldn't be able to discuss the outcome because no one wants to do the study because they've assumed the conclusion. The study may have agreed with out preconceived idea of the type of person a troll is, but that doesn't mean that the study wasn't worth doing. If we never did studies on things we already think are true we wouldn't discover anything interesting. Not every study is going to yield amazing results, but sometimes they do, so we push on even if we strongly believe we already know the conclusion.

Plus there is always a good chance you may find out something interesting or something contradicting what we thought was true all along... or we may confirm what we thought was true all along. All results are fair game in the act of doing science.

There are always new questions to ask or different ways of exploring previous questions in new studies. There is little in science that you can point to and say "hey look, this is a foregone conclusion, and we cannot expand further on this idea"


edit.. btw - i have a hard time finding the original source of the quoted study in opening post. where is the link?
nvm found it... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324


Abstract

In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

[IamRAMBO24]

Except in science the point is to disprove the hypothesis.

Think of it like this, if they demonstrated that people that were highly empathetic and had high self esteem were the ones doing the trolling it would be a pretty interesting outcome no? But we wouldn't be able to discuss the outcome because no one wants to do the study because they've assumed the conclusion. The study may have agreed with out preconceived idea of the type of person a troll is, but that doesn't mean that the study wasn't worth doing. If we never did studies on things we already think are true we wouldn't discover anything interesting. Not every study is going to yield amazing results, but sometimes they do, so we push on even if we strongly believe we already know the conclusion.

It's pseudo science, period. For example, understanding the laws of gravity can lead to certainty. Trying to define what a troll is has nothing to do with searching for certainty but rather to reaffirm confirmation bias by the mere fact it uses statistics to formulate the outcome.

I can already refute this stupid study based on one simple observation: what if the person is being sarcastic? I didn't have to use stats or interview anybody to already redefine the premise.

Are you going to say the person is being sadistic when he is merely f*ckin around with no intent to harm? Good luck arguing that.

[miller-time]

I can already refute this stupid study based on one simple observation: what if the person is being sarcastic? I didn't have to use stats or interview anybody to already redefine the premise.

Are you going to say the person is being sadistic when he is merely f*ckin around with no intent to harm? Good luck arguing that.

Because psychometric and self report testing generally have safe guards in them to check for non-serious (people filling in random answers for instance) or non-applicable (people unable to answer) subjects. There are all kinds of reliability and validity measures for these kinds of tests. I managed to find the paper, here is an excerpt from the method:


The sample was restricted to respondents from the United States. The key questions regarding trolling and other online behaviors were embedded in a larger battery of personality questionnaires. Participants received monetary compensation ($0.50) for their time.

The test didn't explicitly say it was looking at trolling, the participants most likely thought it was just a general online behavioral and/or personality survey.

[IamRAMBO24]

Because psychometric and self report testing generally have safe guards in them to check for non-serious (people filling in random answers for instance) or non-applicable (people unable to answer) subjects. There are all kinds of reliability and validity measures for these kinds of tests. I managed to find the paper, here is an excerpt from the method:



The test didn't explicitly say it was looking at trolling, the participants most likely thought it was just a general online behavioral and/or personality survey.

What kind of questions were they asking?

Which demographic did they target?

These survey scientific studies are generally bullsh*t and don't hold any value to truth for no more than 5 years, hence why they use statistics (probabilities) instead of real mathematics.

[Jailblazers7]

What kind of questions were they asking?

Which demographic did they target?

These survey scientific studies are generally bullsh*t and don't hold any value to truth for no more than 5 years, hence why they use statistics (probabilities) instead of real mathematics.

Hmm, sounds like you are arguing based on confirmation bias and not facts...

[IamRAMBO24]

Hmm, sounds like you are arguing based on confirmation bias and not facts...

I'm working my way towards a conclusion homeboy. I'm trying to reveal that study is confirmation bias and not based on any real world evidence.

[miller-time]

What kind of questions were they asking?

Which demographic did they target?

These survey scientific studies are generally bullsh*t and don't hold any value to truth for no more than 5 years, hence why they use statistics (probabilities) instead of real mathematics.

I don't think you understand why they use statistics. There are different types of statistical tests used to look at the data. Some are used to check that the data is normally distributed (a skewed distribution may indicate bias). Other tests look at the differences between groups.

The results may change over time but that is because the population changes over time (although probably slower than 5 years). Animals are dynamic systems, they aren't constants like gravity or light.

There are two studies in the paper, they use various personality measures (big 5, dark triad scale) interspersed with their own measure (global assessment of internet trolling) which has questions on internet usage and a few questions specifically on trolling. Some of the participants were university students and others were from amazon forums. 42% female, mean age = 29, n = 1215.

[IamRAMBO24]

I don't think you understand why they use statistics. There are different types of statistical tests used to look at the data. Some are used to check that the data is normally distributed (a skewed distribution may indicate bias). Other tests look at the differences between groups.

The results may change over time but that is because the population changes over time (although probably slower than 5 years). Animals are dynamic systems, they aren't constants like gravity or light.

There are two studies in the paper, they use various personality measures (big 5, dark triad scale) interspersed with their own measure (global assessment of internet trolling) which has questions on internet usage and a few questions specifically on trolling. Some of the participants were university students and others were from amazon forums. 42% female, m = 29, n = 1215.

Ok let me elaborate my questions:

1. Which demographic did they choose? Where is the sample? What age group is the sample? What number are we talking about here? Did they do it by phone? Mobile? What are the details?

2. What kind of questions were they asking? This is pretty self explanatory.

[miller-time]

Ok let me elaborate my questions:

1. Which demographic did they choose? Where is the sample? What age group is the sample? What number are we talking about here? Did they do it by phone? Mobile? What are the details?

2. What kind of questions were they asking? This is pretty self explanatory.

What do you mean what demographic? They used university students and people from the amazon forums. They aren't a single demographic. Some are male some are female, some are young some are old.

42% of the total subjects were female. The average age was 29. The total number of participants was 1215.

The questions they asked were those from the Big 5 personality scale, the Dark Triad scale, and the comprehensive assessment of sadistic tendencies. Look those tests up if you want to see the questions.

They also used their own scale called the global assessment of internet trolling. The questions were things like "I like to troll people in forums or the comments section of websites" and "I enjoy griefing other players in multiplayer games" but it also had questions like "How many hours per day do you spend on the Internet?" and

[IamRAMBO24]

What do you mean what demographic? They used university students and people from the amazon forums. They aren't a single demographic. Some are male some are female, some are young some are old.

42% of the total subjects were female. The average age was 29. The total number of participants was 1215.

The questions they asked were those from the Big 5 personality scale, the Dark Triad scale, and the comprehensive assessment of sadistic tendencies. Look those tests up if you want to see the questions.

They also used their own scale called the global assessment of internet trolling. The questions were things like "I like to troll people in forums or the comments section of websites" and "I enjoy griefing other players in multiplayer games" but it also had questions like "How many hours per day do you spend on the Internet?" and ‘Do you post comments on websites (e.g., YouTube, news sites, forums, etc.)? (even occasionally?)"

So basically they got a small sample from amazon and their own university and concluded trolling (a universal phenomenon) have personality traits of a serial killer? Sh*t like psychopathy, narcissism, and sadism are sh*t you will correlate to a prisoners and not a bunch of nerds joking around all over the world. Last I check, Manitoba and amazon shoppers aren't the only nerds with access to the computer.

1. "I like to troll people in forums or the comments section of websites"

Again, the person could be sarcastic without any evil intent. Trying to correlate behaviors online to real life behaviors is fallacious in and of itself. Do you know how many people create fake personas and act different online? Some of the biggest nerds are the biggest thugs, and vice versa.

2. "I enjoy griefing other players in multiplayer games"

It's a competition; people talk smack for fun. So f*ckin what? It doesn't mean they are "sadistic" or "out to hurt" anybody.

Again, they already have a confirmation bias (trolls tha evilz) and what they are doing is trying to find a sample and manipulate the questions to fit their research, instead of starting with the evidence, axioms, universal truths, etc. and working their way around. This is actually the opposite of finding truth. Be wary of surveys like these: they are anything but scientific.

[miller-time]

So basically they got a small sample from amazon and their own university and concluded trolling (a universal phenomenon) have personality traits of a serial killer? Sh*t like psychopathy, narcissism, and sadism are sh*t you will correlate to a prisoners and not a bunch of nerds joking around all over the world. Last I check, Manitoba and amazon shoppers aren't the only nerds with access to the computer.

1. "I like to troll people in forums or the comments section of websites"

Again, the person could be sarcastic without any evil intent. Trying to correlate behaviors online to real life behaviors is fallacious in and of itself. Do you know how many people create fake personas and act different online? Some of the biggest nerds are the biggest thugs, and vice versa.

2. "I enjoy griefing other players in multiplayer games"

It's a competition; people talk smack for fun. So f*ckin what? It doesn't mean they are "sadistic" or "out to hurt" anybody.

Again, they already have a confirmation bias (trolls tha evilz) and what they are doing is trying to find a sample and manipulate the questions to fit their research, instead of starting with the evidence, axioms, universal truths, etc. and working their way around. This is actually the opposite of finding truth. Be wary of surveys like these: they are anything but scientific.

I like how you criticize the sample size and then talk about how one person may have responded to the test.

[QUIZZLE]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/la-dee-da.gif

[IamRAMBO24]

I like how you criticize the sample size and then talk about how one person may have responded to the test.

You said the questions were things like ....

Ok then, post the real questions, I'm sure I can call bullsh*t on them as well.

[miller-time]

You said the questions were things like ....

Ok then, post the real questions, I'm sure I can call bullsh*t on them as well.

They were examples of the questions but there were more.

The point is that most people that answered those questions highly also scored highly as sadistic. That isn't saying every single person that trolls is sadistic, but a majority were. If there was no relationship between the two we wouldn't be discussing this.

I mean what are you trying to say? That the people who admitted they trolled on the internet deliberately (and unbeknownst to each other) scored highly on sadism to mess with the test results?

[IamRAMBO24]

They were examples of the questions but there were more.

The point is that most people that answered those questions highly also scored highly as sadistic. That isn't saying every single person that trolls is sadistic, but a majority were. If there was no relationship between the two we wouldn't be discussing this.

I mean what are you trying to say? That the people who admitted they trolled on the internet deliberately (and unbeknownst to each other) scored highly on sadism to mess with the test results?

Absolutely, you're gonna need a complete study to establish what people say online has a specific set of behaviors that shows a causative link between how they act in real life.

The assumption is what they say online is based on how they are in real life, and really, that is farther from the truth. There are way too many people online in forums bullsh*tting with a fake persona to take them seriously. Hell we even had a guy in here who posted fake pictures of his place, himself, his girl, etc. to try to look cool, so how can you believe how a person acts online is how they will act in rl?

[miller-time]

Absolutely, you're gonna need a complete study to establish what people say online has a specific set of behaviors that shows a causative link between how they act in real life.

The assumption is what they say online is based on how they are in real life, and really, that is farther from the truth. There are way too many people online in forums bullsh*tting with a fake persona to take them seriously. Hell we even had a guy in here who posted fake pictures of his place, himself, his girl, etc. to try to look cool, so how can you believe how a person acts online is how they will act in rl?

Because the test isn't measuring how they act in real life. What you just said has nothing to do with the study. It is comparing personality types and online behavior. All of your evidence is at best anecdotal and even though you obviously don't like to think so, it amounts to nout. You criticize this study that has real world data using 1215 participants yet your response is based on some vague concepts and beliefs you have in your head.

[IamRAMBO24]

Because the test isn't measuring how they act in real life. What you just said has nothing to do with the study. It is comparing personality types and online behavior. All of your evidence is at best anecdotal and even though you obviously don't like to think so, it amounts to nout. You criticize this study that has real world data using 1215 participants yet your response is based on some vague concepts and beliefs you have in your head.

Calling someone sadistic or narcissistic are real world implications. That's quite a stretch don't you think, consdering how they act in rl prob has no direct causation towards how they act online.

Fair criticism.

[miller-time]

Calling someone sadistic or narcissistic are real world implications. That's quite a stretch don't you think, consdering how they act in rl prob has no direct causation towards how they act online.

Fair criticism.

It is a personality trait, not an action. Someone who is sadistic may still conform to social convention in most situations. There is no good reason for someone to score highly on sadism and then score highly on trolling unless there is some relationship between the two. The relationship was very significant (p=0.001).

Just to add again, this doesn't mean everyone who trolls is a psychopath or a sadist, just that if you took a random sample of trolls you would most likely find that a lot of them are.

[miller-time]

I'm working my way towards a conclusion homeboy. I'm trying to reveal that study is confirmation bias and not based on any real world evidence.

http://mjanja.co.ke/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/borat_great_success.jpg

[ILLsmak]

I never saw you as a troll.

-Nate

I am a postmodern troll.

Edit: Also found the dudes who want to refute these things the most are generally the ones who ARE ****in' psychopaths. Jussayin. I still luv u guyz.

-Smak

[Bless Mathews]

So trolls are mean?

[nathanjizzle]

iamrambo trying to argue against the theory that trolls online are of a certain personality profile in real life.