Science Proves That Trolls Ruin Everything

Bostur

New member
Mar 14, 2011
1,070
0
0
Abomination said:
I find it odd that there's no link to what the study defined a "troll" to be.

It is odd because many people disagree on exactly what a troll is. To some people it's someone who plays devil's advocate, to others it is someone who enters a thread saying something with the intent of riling others up, and sometimes it's just someone who disagrees with you.

I thought the term for someone who just spouts obscenities or negative opinion over something was a "flamer", not a "troll".
Indeed. I imagine the study was not about trolling at all, but about the effect of inflammatory comments. Unfortunately the link to the actual study returns a 404, so it might be all made up.

My own opinion is that the fear of trolls is much more damaging to a discussion than actual trolls themselves, who tend to be extremely rare. I find that when people create negative responses they are usually sincere about them, and have a point.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
VanQQisH said:
No, really? How do you think the church managed to pass witch hunts off as an acceptable thing for so long. Once the first person starts crying witch then it's only natural that other idiots will follow suit. Humans are essentially just big monkeys, when we see someone starting to fling shit, we quite happily join the festivities. Monkey see, monkey do.

Yes, I'm aware people are actually apes. But I still mean it when I call them monkeys.
And what do we burn apart from witches? MOAR WITCHEZ!!!!

OT: Seriously though, a scientific study on the effects of internet trolling? Really? Someone actually got a GRANT to perform this...that means that someone else PAID people to study this...

Forget doing more research into cancer remedies or other diseases. No, lets focus our efforts on finding out the psychological effects of internet trolling. I saw another study the other day that declared "Male Jurors Are More Likely To Think That Fat Female Defendants Are Guilty." Personally I'd like to see a study on just how useful trivial scientific studies - like the effects of internet trolls causing people to become angry and irrational - are for the general public. That or more specifically a study on how many people think such studies are a waste of time and money.
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
RJ 17 said:
VanQQisH said:
No, really? How do you think the church managed to pass witch hunts off as an acceptable thing for so long. Once the first person starts crying witch then it's only natural that other idiots will follow suit. Humans are essentially just big monkeys, when we see someone starting to fling shit, we quite happily join the festivities. Monkey see, monkey do.

Yes, I'm aware people are actually apes. But I still mean it when I call them monkeys.
And what do we burn apart from witches? MOAR WITCHEZ!!!!

OT: Seriously though, a scientific study on the effects of internet trolling? Really? Someone actually got a GRANT to perform this...that means that someone else PAID people to study this...

Forget doing more research into cancer remedies or other diseases. No, lets focus our efforts on finding out the psychological effects of internet trolling. I saw another study the other day that declared "Male Jurors Are More Likely To Think That Fat Female Defendants Are Guilty." Personally I'd like to see a study on just how useful trivial scientific studies - like the effects of internet trolls causing people to become angry and irrational - are for the general public. That or more specifically a study on how many people think such studies are a waste of time and money.
As someone mentioned before, these kinds of studies don't cost a lot of money relative to things like cancer research. You can pump millions into finding cures for a disease and get nowhere, but putting a few thousand (if that) in to a physchological study and you get some vaguely interesting trivia. You might as well say that we should stop teaching people anything other than biomedical sciences, because having a degree in English literature isn't going to find the cure for AIDS. And by the same logic advanced maths is useless because it won't cure cancer!

These studies don't waste time and money because the people conducting the research were likely psychology students under the guidance of a supervisor, funded by their tuition fees. So it's not like the world is moving backwards just because someone wants to know something that isn't going to end all suffering and pain.

But it is kind of obvious that trolls piss on people's cornflakes. Do I get an MPsy too?
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
CriticalMiss said:
RJ 17 said:
VanQQisH said:
No, really? How do you think the church managed to pass witch hunts off as an acceptable thing for so long. Once the first person starts crying witch then it's only natural that other idiots will follow suit. Humans are essentially just big monkeys, when we see someone starting to fling shit, we quite happily join the festivities. Monkey see, monkey do.

Yes, I'm aware people are actually apes. But I still mean it when I call them monkeys.
And what do we burn apart from witches? MOAR WITCHEZ!!!!

OT: Seriously though, a scientific study on the effects of internet trolling? Really? Someone actually got a GRANT to perform this...that means that someone else PAID people to study this...

Forget doing more research into cancer remedies or other diseases. No, lets focus our efforts on finding out the psychological effects of internet trolling. I saw another study the other day that declared "Male Jurors Are More Likely To Think That Fat Female Defendants Are Guilty." Personally I'd like to see a study on just how useful trivial scientific studies - like the effects of internet trolls causing people to become angry and irrational - are for the general public. That or more specifically a study on how many people think such studies are a waste of time and money.
As someone mentioned before, these kinds of studies don't cost a lot of money relative to things like cancer research. You can pump millions into finding cures for a disease and get nowhere, but putting a few thousand (if that) in to a physchological study and you get some vaguely interesting trivia. You might as well say that we should stop teaching people anything other than biomedical sciences, because having a degree in English literature isn't going to find the cure for AIDS. And by the same logic advanced maths is useless because it won't cure cancer!

These studies don't waste time and money because the people conducting the research were likely psychology students under the guidance of a supervisor, funded by their tuition fees. So it's not like the world is moving backwards just because someone wants to know something that isn't going to end all suffering and pain.

But it is kind of obvious that trolls piss on people's cornflakes. Do I get an MPsy too?
I love when people take something you've said and then say "by that logic" and insert some extreme position that the original comment in no way suggested. I'm not saying that EVERY study has to be about curing diseases and ending suffering, all I'm saying is that there's much more valuable infomation to be seeking than "Internet trolls piss people off." As has been pointed out by numerous others: it's a study into the obvious. Do we really need detailed information on just HOW internet trolls piss people off? Can we not just leave it at "they piss people off"? You mean to tell me that someone spitting flames and insults regarding a subject that some people are - for lack of a better term - passionate about can cause that passion to turn into irrational fury? Could that study not have been completed by basically just looking up the definition of "internet troll"? That's why I say studies like these are a waste of time and money. Then there's the fact that some studies just come up with wrong conclusions, or at the very least misleading.

I saw one stating that teenagers that smoke pot will suffer from a decaying IQ as they grow up. The study focused on a number of teens that smoked pot and tracked them from (I believe) ages 15-35, and it found that on average those that smoked pot as teens had lower IQs when the experiment ended than when it started. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that weed won't lower your IQ over time, but that's not a valid conclusion to draw from that study. Correlation does not prove causation. Over the course of 20 years there's any number of different things that could have caused the IQ to drop. Perhaps they took up drinking during that time and it's actually BOOZE that lowers IQ? Perhaps they started watching a lot of reality tv and that lowered their IQ.

But I'm getting off track here. My point is that studies into the obvious are a waste, and studies with misleading conclusions are even worse than a waste.
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
RJ 17 said:
CriticalMiss said:
RJ 17 said:
VanQQisH said:
Words
More words
So many words
I still disagree that it is a waste, someone is getting experience doing work on a study (be it number crunching or what have you) which will likely lead to a qualification. It's not going to change the world that we now have a study saying something we already know, but we don't have to pay anything for it and we aren't losing anything. But I think it is at least interesting that someone is looking in to WHY trolls are such twats and our interactions with them. Maybe it will lead to a vaccination against trollism.
 

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
Bostur said:
Indeed. I imagine the study was not about trolling at all, but about the effect of inflammatory comments. Unfortunately the link to the actual study returns a 404, so it might be all made up.
Are you suggesting that these researchers are actually trolling us and in fact are basing their research on the comments from this new article under the guise of having a;ready completed their research? *grabs tinfoil hat*

On topic;

Yeah it really shouldn't surprise anyone one that hurtful stupid comments make people react irrationally. It happens enough in real life as it is, so I don't see why online comments should be any different.
 

OldNewNewOld

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,494
0
0
So in other words, trolls don't ruin anything. Your lack of self control ruins it.
Forums and such have an ignore option for a reason. And when they don't, you can willingly choose to ignore it. Like with IRL trolls. Except that it's even easier on the internet.
 

Distance_warrior

New member
Jul 6, 2011
25
0
0
To all those that don't see the point in the experiment I think the most important part of the result is that when someone presents their opinion in an inflammatory and tactless way all it does is make people hunker down and refuse to see other peoples opinions. This has a large number of practical applications. Now I know that all a strongly worded argument does is reinforce my opponents position. I now know that many opinions I hold are based on an innate defensive tendency that only gets worse the more genuine points are thrown at it.

I also see why the most discussed topics are the most polarising. If everyone just remained calm and collected about ME:3 then the ending wouldn't be seen as anywhere near as bad as it is now. That's probably why none of the reviewers mentioned it because they wouldn't have been exposed to all the strong opinions.

People not knowing this is probably why we don't have gay marriage already. the people trying to allow them were probably so vocal in their support of it that anyone even remotely iffy about the idea instantly went into defensive mode and fortified their belief with whatever justification was at hand and now won't budge a bloody inch.

This is why we always have such polarised major parties in almost every democracy because all the topics matter so much that you can't not advocate them passionately thereby ensuring that everyone who disagrees will never see reason.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I have to rethink absolutely all of my opinions because of ANOTHER subconscious force I did know about. And to think I use to deliberately pick apart the strongest opinions to see if there was any genuine criticism there when all I was doing was making it so my opinion was based more and more on emotion as opposed to logic.
 

Distance_warrior

New member
Jul 6, 2011
25
0
0
RJ 17 said:
I love when people take something you've said and then say "by that logic" and insert some extreme position that the original comment in no way suggested. I'm not saying that EVERY study has to be about curing diseases and ending suffering, all I'm saying is that there's much more valuable infomation to be seeking than "Internet trolls piss people off." As has been pointed out by numerous others: it's a study into the obvious. Do we really need detailed information on just HOW internet trolls piss people off? Can we not just leave it at "they piss people off"? You mean to tell me that someone spitting flames and insults regarding a subject that some people are - for lack of a better term - passionate about can cause that passion to turn into irrational fury? Could that study not have been completed by basically just looking up the definition of "internet troll"? That's why I say studies like these are a waste of time and money. Then there's the fact that some studies just come up with wrong conclusions, or at the very least misleading.

I saw one stating that teenagers that smoke pot will suffer from a decaying IQ as they grow up. The study focused on a number of teens that smoked pot and tracked them from (I believe) ages 15-35, and it found that on average those that smoked pot as teens had lower IQs when the experiment ended than when it started. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that weed won't lower your IQ over time, but that's not a valid conclusion to draw from that study. Correlation does not prove causation. Over the course of 20 years there's any number of different things that could have caused the IQ to drop. Perhaps they took up drinking during that time and it's actually BOOZE that lowers IQ? Perhaps they started watching a lot of reality tv and that lowered their IQ.

But I'm getting off track here. My point is that studies into the obvious are a waste, and studies with misleading conclusions are even worse than a waste.
(In a calm helpful tone of voice)All you did with that argument is enforce his already held beliefs just as all his did was enforce yours. The real message of this study is that if you want someone to listen to you you need to be friendly. Using a condescending tone, excess hyperbole, veiled insults or standing on an absolute opinion will only cause them to become defensive and focus more on what they need to do to maintain their opinion and less on any genuine points they might have.

(Joking cheerfully) Hell you weren't even arguing against me and reading your post made me all the more sure of myself in my interpretation of the article.
 

Iron Criterion

New member
Feb 4, 2009
1,271
0
0
BiH-Kira said:
So in other words, trolls don't ruin anything. Your lack of self control ruins it.
Forums and such have an ignore option for a reason. And when they don't, you can willingly choose to ignore it. Like with IRL trolls. Except that it's even easier on the internet.
But that was the point of the research. That trolls manage to overpower the self control of an otherwise rational person; making him became just as spiteful and irrational as them.
 

thethird0611

New member
Feb 19, 2011
411
0
0
Distance_warrior said:
To all those that don't see the point in the experiment I think the most important part of the result is that when someone presents their opinion in an inflammatory and tactless way all it does is make people hunker down and refuse to see other peoples opinions. This has a large number of practical applications. Now I know that all a strongly worded argument does is reinforce my opponents position. I now know that many opinions I hold are based on an innate defensive tendency that only gets worse the more genuine points are thrown at it.

I also see why the most discussed topics are the most polarising. If everyone just remained calm and collected about ME:3 then the ending wouldn't be seen as anywhere near as bad as it is now. That's probably why none of the reviewers mentioned it because they wouldn't have been exposed to all the strong opinions.

People not knowing this is probably why we don't have gay marriage already. the people trying to allow them were probably so vocal in their support of it that anyone even remotely iffy about the idea instantly went into defensive mode and fortified their belief with whatever justification was at hand and now won't budge a bloody inch.

This is why we always have such polarised major parties in almost every democracy because all the topics matter so much that you can't not advocate them passionately thereby ensuring that everyone who disagrees will never see reason.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I have to rethink absolutely all of my opinions because of ANOTHER subconscious force I did know about. And to think I use to deliberately pick apart the strongest opinions to see if there was any genuine criticism there when all I was doing was making it so my opinion was based more and more on emotion as opposed to logic.
-clap clap clap clap- Someone gets it! Or at least what the study is most likely about.

The stupid thing about posting an article without the source material is we lose -alot- of context. I am on my last semester of my Bachelors degree in Psychology, and seriously, you need the journal article to know the specifics of this.

Most Psychology students go through -multiple- classes on -just- forming research ideas and writing journals. In those journals, there is -alot- of information pertaining to the study, past studies, research ideas, specific statistics, looking forward to future research, and many other things.

Honestly, this study could be the basis of a large idea that the researcher had in mind, this is just the starting point. Journals have to be very speicific in their ideas, so nothing else could be paired in the same journal as this study.

...Orrrrrrr, it could just be a throw away study by a student. That is completly possible. You know the funny thing about that though? Most students get absolutely -no- money to conduct research. Im doing my own study (about 7 months in, with breaks), and there is no profit in them. But thats ok, its research experience that is nearly a -must- for most graduate schools. Even though it may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, this little research could be cited and used to help back up ideas.

Also, people say 'Oh, this is common sense'. Yeah... Psychology does not accept common sense when we are forming ideas and theories. The reason shows in this article, its the -attitude- of the troll that causes people to get defensive, not the words themselves. Tada. That little specific means ALOT, especially when forming a new idea that incorporates that.

So... thats my soapbox. heh. Yeah.
 

thethird0611

New member
Feb 19, 2011
411
0
0
rollerfox88 said:
Feeling emotion is an effortful action, to do so occupies a portion of your working memory. This means you have less available "processing power" to sort through the information in the article, and so pay less attention/assign less meaning to it. This causes you to disregard any new information, which is why original beliefs are affirmed.

While I understand that its important to prop theories up with supporting evidence, there comes a point when there is already enough evidence (see practically all of Dan Kahnemans career) and scientists should spend their time researching something else.
I hate to quote and say this, but you are completely wrong on your first paragraph. The comments came after the article, which means that the information in the article was already processed. Also, 'working memory' doesn't have a set limit.

Also, working memory and emotion are two different areas. Emotion happens on the subconscious level and influences our working memory, not takes up the capacity.

Also, another point, Psychology doesn't do what you propose -exactly- for that reason. Even if you were to be right about your idea, I would have -no- reason to believe you without the research.

'Common Sense' holds no place in research. Everything starts with a foundation, and builds off of that.

EDIT: Also, for people outside of internet culture, the research would allow them to understand the situation. They may not know what a 'troll' does, because articles are more than just research.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
CpT_x_Killsteal said:
Remember when trolls were actually funny
I'm not sure such a time existed.
Then you missed some of the greatest.

The "original" troll was an individual who would make stupid/arrogant people make fools of themselves for everyone else's enjoyment. The problem was, like many things the general public tries to emulate, it got out of hand and too many people wanted to become "trolls". Now the meaning is lost in a haze of rage and stupidity where an ignorant comment can be brushed off as "lol i wuz just trolling u".
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Wow, I hate to say it, but the only one who isn't making my bile raise in this thread is the self professed troll Kouriichi. I demand a second study to see how pointless bickering about a secondary slightly related topic effects the overall impact of an internet article.

Correction, the discussion started back towards a rational one as I was posting this, so there are some exceptions to that rule now.
 

Riobux

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,955
0
0
I agree with the methods, but the conclusions they drew are just flat out wrong; or at least the conclusions the media picked up and ran with. I don't disagree with the idea of hostile comments having a negative effect, but to automatically equate that to trolls is just flat out wrong. The idea that trolls are the only ones who leave nasty comments or the only thing trolls do is leave nasty comments is just an insane notion that is just wrong. I really think this has more to do with researchers trying to seek attention than actually producing something of value.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Distance_warrior said:
Actually I think the real point of this article can be summed up with the wise saying "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded." It is for the exact reason that you brought up: 9 times out of 10 no matter how well thought out, stated, and expressed your opinion might be, the chances of actually changing someone else's opinion is nearly impossible. What's the moral of the story? What we all already knew: just ignore the jackass saying things clearly just to piss you off.

The Plunk said:
RJ 17 said:
Forget doing more research into cancer remedies or other diseases. No, lets focus our efforts on finding out the psychological effects of internet trolling. I saw another study the other day that declared "Male Jurors Are More Likely To Think That Fat Female Defendants Are Guilty." Personally I'd like to see a study on just how useful trivial scientific studies - like the effects of internet trolls causing people to become angry and irrational - are for the general public. That or more specifically a study on how many people think such studies are a waste of time and money.
It is not a sociologist's job to find the cure for cancer. Just as it is not a psychologist's job to perform heart surgery.
True, but is it their job to research the obvious? If so, I picked the wrong major. I'd love to get paid for researching common-sense things. :p

For an apples-to-apples comparison, wouldn't it be better (for society) if the money spent on this study had instead been spent on research into various mental illnesses so as to help develope ways to prevent tragedies like the Sandy Hook Shooting?