PDA

View Full Version : This will surprise forum members: The Internet is sadists' playground.



Lokhopkuen
02-21-2014, 11:25 PM
8114
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 overplay 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:

8115
E.E. Buckels et al, "Trolls just want to have fun," Personality and Individual Differences, 2014.

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.”


Chris Mooney is the author of The Republican War on Science and, with Sheril Kirshenbaum, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.

Scott R. Brown
02-22-2014, 06:22 AM
This post has hurt my feelings!!:mad:

Syn7
02-22-2014, 07:36 AM
How do they know they weren't just being trolled?:p

YouKnowWho
02-22-2014, 12:33 PM
The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.

There is some truth in this statement. When we see a good fighting clip, someone will always say, "His opponent is too weak. Will he be able to handle Mike Tyson?"

GeneChing
02-24-2014, 10:19 AM
It's the heart of the BDSM community in SF. Internet trolls ain't got nothing on real sadists.

srsly.


:eek:

Jimbo
02-24-2014, 10:28 AM
Most trolling is less sadistic and more passive-aggressive/cowardly behavior, IMO.

Syn7
02-24-2014, 11:46 AM
The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.

The more pure something is, the more susceptible it is to corruption. Hardly an accomplishment worthy of bragging rights. If satisfaction is what you're looking for(if you're douchbag enough to get satisfaction from corrupting), then sophistication should be your target. Not the simpleton mind of a purist. What's the challenge in that?

RenDaHai
02-24-2014, 12:10 PM
The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.

I'd say the satisfying is to build something beautiful out of something formless, to purify that which is corrupt.

But certainly this statement sums up some vices and surely in at least some small way affects us all. It would be interesting to know where this urge has its origin and why it is so unbalanced in some people.

Syn7
02-24-2014, 12:49 PM
Just curious... what is it about purity that people find so fascinating/comforting/alluring/whatever?

RenDaHai
02-24-2014, 03:43 PM
Just curious... what is it about purity that people find so fascinating/comforting/alluring/whatever?

Purity is simultaneously a vague word as well as being highly polarised.

It evokes anything of Virtue, and opposes anything of vice and corruption.

The virtues are of a very different character to the vices. Virtue is immutable and self generated, Vice is transient and requires external input, etc etc. Stands to reason the thread of purity in things is comforting and fascinating and beautiful since it evokes our conceptions of virtue.

Jimbo
02-24-2014, 04:26 PM
The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.

I'd say the satisfying is to build something beautiful out of something formless, to purify that which is corrupt.

But certainly this statement sums up some vices and surely in at least some small way affects us all. It would be interesting to know where this urge has its origin and why it is so unbalanced in some people.

I suspect that, at least in many instances, it may have to do with a hatred many people seem to have towards that which they perceive as being beautiful and 'pure'. Maybe they feel it's something they cannot aspire to be or to have. Maybe deep down they really see themselves as ugly, and want to bring the rest of the world down to their level. The truth is that such behavior is always an outward reflection of their inner selves.

GeneChing
02-24-2014, 04:29 PM
:p

You know, if we follow this trollz=sadists train of thought, then all of us who claim not to be trolls yet still hang out in a forum full of trolls must be masochists.

Either way, time for me to sling some of these (http://www.martialartsmart.com/45-73.html). :D

Your proper reply is:
"Thank you sir. May I have another?"

Syn7
02-24-2014, 05:17 PM
Don't you think that it is just as fair to label purity as a lack of sophistication, diversity and rounded perspective?

Do you think our seeing purity as a virtue is linked to religiosity and it's mechanisms of control?

Do you not see the same beauty in things that are not "pure"? And where does functionality come into this? Especially in MA terms?


Is a pure bread dog more beautiful than a mutt? If so why? Is pure gold more beautiful than 18k? Is a colored diamond less beautiful than one that is clear? Do we covet these things because they are more beautiful or because we have been conditioned to believe such things? Do you think our notions our purity dangerous? Advantageous? Virtuous? Ignorant? Arrogant? Exceptional?

Syn7
02-24-2014, 05:22 PM
:p

You know, if we follow this trollz=sadists train of thought, then all of us who claim not to be trolls yet still hang out in a forum full of trolls must be masochists.

Either way, time for me to sling some of these (http://www.martialartsmart.com/45-73.html). :D

Your proper reply is:
"Thank you sir. May I have another?"

If I do a ton of pure cocaine can I use the whip to purify my soul?

RenDaHai
02-24-2014, 07:04 PM
Don't you think that it is just as fair to label purity as a lack of sophistication, diversity and rounded perspective?

Do you think our seeing purity as a virtue is linked to religiosity and it's mechanisms of control?

Do you not see the same beauty in things that are not "pure"? And where does functionality come into this? Especially in MA terms?


Is a pure bread dog more beautiful than a mutt? If so why? Is pure gold more beautiful than 18k? Is a colored diamond less beautiful than one that is clear? Do we covet these things because they are more beautiful or because we have been conditioned to believe such things? Do you think our notions our purity dangerous? Advantageous? Virtuous? Ignorant? Arrogant? Exceptional?

1. Purity is a vague word..... I can't talk to it exactly other than that its polarity is such that it evokes virtue, the good, the beautiful, in the most general terms.

2. Certainly not, purity is linked to virtue semiotically. As to virtue, it in no way has to be linked to religiosity. The early church fathers absorbed the 4 cardinal virtues from the prevalent neoplatonism around at the same time. Across at least 2500 years of texts there is a huge amount of literature relating to good and virtue that has no religious connotations. I've heard of no reasonable doctrine against virtue, scientific, philosophical, religious or otherwise. I would argue that virtue is largely independent of cultural frame.

3. Pure, as I say its a vague word.... It simply has certain connotations.

4. We can all say that beauty is subjective, relative to the senses, though certainly there are some elements to beauty that transcend the senses. Harmony, symmetry etc. Who can look upon the stars and call them ugly? Have you ever met someone who does not appreciate the contour of a splendid pair of breasts? Certainly if you have seen pure gold its lustre is beyond compare with its lesser platings and alloys. One would not need to be conditioned to appreciate the refractions of diamond. All dogs are mutts, their evolved form has been radically altered with different criteria of selection.

When we call something beautiful we have created what is ugly, but beauty is also a vague term with many definitions. Some of which relative, others of the stuff of the absolute. I for one think Euler's formula is beautiful, especially when you make the x = Pi. There are some things in it that could be mathematically argued as beautiful, but your average person would not attach such words to it.



Would you drink a glass of water that appeared 'impure'? We have an inborn ability to see the decay and pollution within food and water.... It is an inevitable abstraction for a man to apply this concept to intangible things like behaviour. Of course though that abstraction will rely on the mans perception, there will be elements of the absolute within it.

In conclusion, Pure is too vague a word. It is never the less associated with truth/beauty/absolute etc. You could put the word 'purity' to ill effect if you tried. To the un-contemplative man his preconceived notions of purity being 'good' could be dangerous. But then, so can everything in the hands of the un-virtuous.

wenshu
02-24-2014, 11:30 PM
Complaining about trolls is the new trolling.

GeneChing
02-25-2014, 04:29 PM
Doxxing trolls is the new trolling. :D






Is a pure bread dog more beautiful than a mutt? If so why? Is pure gold more beautiful than 18k? Is a colored diamond less beautiful than one that is clear? Do we covet these things because they are more beautiful or because we have been conditioned to believe such things? Do you think our notions our purity dangerous?
You only ask because you're dirty. Very dirty. So dirty that you must be whip (http://www.martialartsmart.com/45-70.html)ped in a sadistroll way.

It's for your own good, you know.


If I do a ton of pure cocaine can I use the whip to purify my soul?
If you did a ton of pure cocaine, your whip would look like a weed whacker. At least it would for a few minutes. Then your heart would explode. I can't speak about your soul. :p

wenshu
02-25-2014, 07:01 PM
Complaining about trolls is the new cocaine.

YouKnowWho
02-25-2014, 07:20 PM
We all have some trolling blood in our veins. When someone

- talks about LKJ, we like to make fun out of it.
- puts up a solo form clip, we like to say that TCMA is much more than just "performance" and "health".
- refuses to "cross train", we try to convince that person to change his mind.
- ...

David Jamieson
02-26-2014, 04:40 AM
"Beat me, whip me. bite me" said the masochist.

"No" said the sadist.

;)