Quote:

---

Human argumentation is at the center of recent (and less recent) psychological work. We are learning a lot about our ability to argue. But the motivation behind human arguing is less well known. What makes us want to argue back at other people, even when we know they won't be convinced ? Internet Trolls know a few answers to that question.

A few weeks ago, the web was all abuzz about with one of those stories people are so fond of discussing online. A Canadian woman, who couldn't work because of a depression, lost her sick-leave benefits over a few photographs that were displayed on Facebook. She was smiling on the photographs. The anecdote provoked widespread outrage and rekindled the endless debate over Internet privacy.

But the story in itself did not interest Steve that much. Where other people see a scandal, Steve sees an opportunity for fun. That night, he logged himself on a forum devoted to discussing the condition and problems of depressive people - one among a dozen medical forums where Steve, under a variety of aliases, is a regular. He quickly spotted the thread where the Facebook scandal was being discussed, licked his lips, and began typing something like this:

"It serves her right, if you ask me. You can't defraud insurance companies and think of yourself as a responsible person. It's not the victimless crime it appears to be. Depression is not a real disease anyways."

He clicked 'Send', and waited for the angry reactions to pour in. He did not wait long: people rarely refrain from biting on Steve's baits. He relished every minute of the argument, every insult, every pathetic attempt at counter-arguing - and shared it all with friends over Skype. When the outrage abated, Steve poked the conversation back into existence with a few nasty comments about lazy depressed jobless people funding their parasitic lifestyle with taxpayers' money. It did not take long before the fun was back. When Steve grew bored with infuriating depressed websurfers, he might have gone nagging at a forum of semi-literate teenage girls, heaping trash on Twilight 2, with similar success. Or perhaps he just discussed the night's achievements with a couple of appreciative colleagues.

Steve and thousands like him look for trouble on the Internet. Every night, many hours a night, Steve haunts forums - and he spoils discussion after discussion. His arguments span all the range of conversational perversion: from childish insult to intricate accusation, from in-your-face provocation to subtle insinuation, from blatant non sequitur to elaborate sophistry. For Steve is a conversation hacker, or, as they are better known, a Troll.

---

Quote:

---

I live in the real world, which is not entirely brutish and ugly; you live in your own world filled with violence, pseudo-heroes and fantasies.

---

Quote:

---

We feel a need to balance some scale, we need to "set the record straight." If someone posts brutish, antisemitic rants, we somehow feel that we are required to "fix" this somehow. Why do we feel that need when the outcome is so obviously out of our hands?

It's pretty common adult behavior to try to win the battles we lost long ago as children, to finally get "them" to admit that they are evil, evil, evil and we are right, right, right! It's an eternal battle for dominance that children will always lose, so when we grow up, we spend our lives seeking revenge and vindication.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Gawd, OTB, you’re a real asshole, aren’t you?? I quite clearly said I don’t know all the answers, and I wasn’t asking any questions…answered Byte’s question to the best of my ability, and started this out by saying “Okay, here's a new thread where we can rant and rave and offer our opinions of the war itself. What does any of that have to do with your asinine statement? Nothing, obviously. What thread were YOU reading? You’re strange. And nasty.

---

Quote:

---

If you already *know* all the answers , why are you still raising the questions ? Just looking for another opportunity to beat your gums , so to speak ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Most of us don't wonder, we already know the answer to that, just as we do to the reasons for the war in Iraq. I believe DT enumerated it quite clearly in another post, and I agree with 3 out of his 4 conclusions.

---

Quote:

---

The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

First given a name by the boys at Penny Arcade, it is a theory that seeks to illuminate why people seem to degenerate into antisocial jerks online, when many are only mildly unpleasant in-person.

The equation, illustrated here is basically:

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad

This phenomenon has been studied in an academic setting, and by all accounts PA's satirical analysis is spot-on; normal people seem to degenerate when they think that their behavior carries no real-world consequences. Hence the number of people who think that being a Troll is funny. The academic name of the phenomenon is the Online Disinhibition Effect, but even leading researchers use GIFT outside the trade journals.

In short: the relative anonymity of the internet allows people to be complete and utter bastard-coated bastards with bastard fillings. An extreme real-life example (and probably a cause) of this might be the Lucifer Effect.

The idea that anonymity and lack of consequences leads to irresistible corruption was proposed by Plato in The Republic where he recounts the myth of the Ring of Gyges, making it Older Than Feudalism. Perhaps better known is the book The Invisible Man which follows a similar premise but is more recent.

However, as Soul Coughing said, correlation is not causation: it should also be noted that people who genuinely are Jerk Asses in real life are more likely to hang out on the Internet, because, y'know, nobody who knows them would want to spend any time at all with them. There's still a greater chance that even actual Jerkasses will moderate their behaviour more in face-to-face social settings rather than online, if only because there's a greater chance of someone punching them in the face if they go too far in the former setting.

---

Quote:

---

Niki is often on the personal attack. I try to be fair to her because, like PN, she has things to say, but at risk of offending both, I think they're very alike: They're primarily in the propaganda business, and post far too much content for anyone to even care to read. The goal here is (links included: remember when niki demanded everyone read a self-published book?) To bombard people with so much information that they cave under the weight and concede the argument.

---

Quote:

---

But let's be fair, both John and Niki are in the carpetbombing business.

---

Quote:

---

Sure, Niki doesn't deserve any moral high ground, probably half her threads, this one included are personal attacks. That just discredits Niki, not anyone else. Ignore it. She's called me some choice things in the past and might in response to this reply

---

Quote:

---

If you don't want to be classified along side PN, then stop competing for the spot. Stick to rational arguments.

---

Quote:

---

you're the text only version of PN's evil twin, or good twin, or anti-twin, or whatever, but it most definitely leaves you wide open for attack. You're almost begging for attack, which, incidentally, is what really defines a troll. Just don't engage in the PN carpet bombing, and skip the personal attacks

---

Quote:

---

Not trying to pick a fight, just pointing out that this is a personal attack thread in which you're complaining about personal attacks while, personally, I can't see a lot of difference between the two of you.

---