jnk... wrote:Not that "scientific"; not really "evidence." IMO.
I agree that some people who feel they haven't yet got their due recognition in life like to draw attention to themselves on the Internet by being disruptive. But if you can't trust a word they post, how could anyone trust a personality test of them?
The antidote to nonhelpful posts is to make helpful posts. That works much better than making no posts, I believe--especially in a medical-condition-related forum.
For example, if someone posts something you consider stupid, don't attack him or his post (that would bring added attention to it)--just post something you consider intelligent on the same subject. Right next to the trolling post. Someone may happen by and learn something from your helpful words, even in that context.
The Internet is not the only lair of trolls, after all If you go to a town meeting and someone stands up and says something inflammatory and ignorant, sitting on one's hands in silence and hoping the person will go away is not the only option for other members of the audience. Raise your hand and say something useful to the community and observers. It will stand on its own merit without your having to reference earlier less-than-helpful statements made at the same meeting or just prior to your comment. If the trolling citizen becomes disruptive, go ahead and call the authorities. But take the opportunity to be as helpful as circumstances allow until the authorities arrive. But if the situation hasn't come to that yet, continue being helpful. It is much the same with threads. Just move honest dialog along, if you can.
Remember, the goal of a troll is to get people upset. Silence can feel to the troll like he accomplished that. On the other hand, if helpful dialog continues, the troll sees he has no ability to upset anyone, so he moves on. It isn't feeding the troll to continue discussion of a topic. Getting upset is what creates food for the troll.
Agreed on all, for the most part - good post, jnk. If one agrees from the article referenced that "...the goal of a troll is to get people upset," then your solutions most likely are best (IMO.) However, how valid is this study of 1,200 people when there are billions of people in the world? Also - this study was done in Canada, so cultural characteristics also come into play. How might the social rules in one country differ from another? And how do these differences impact results on the study of 'trolls'? ( so much to think about and so little time!
I say perspective is everything... instead of narcissistic and sadistic, could troll behavior also be disguised intelligence provoking people to think outside of their comfort zones? Hmmmm.....