New Study: Internet Trolls Are Often Machiavellian Sadists

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

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 so-called 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:

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 enjoy "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, comprised of 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 alsotook measures to rein in trolling.

But Erin Buckles of the University of Manitoba, the study's first author, 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 commented 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."

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/internet-trolls-sadists-psychopaths-lulz

Who are the trolls on this forum?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/internet-trolls-sadists-psychopaths-lulz

Who are the trolls on this forum?

Hey Carlos, if you stick around, you'll see. It's kind of hard not to. But I think this article gives them way too much credit.

[B_J 2,752]

Who are the trolls on this forum?

I'm pretty sure if I named the trolls then my post would get deleted rather quickly.

Honestly, I think there is only one regular poster here who could be considered a troll; and it's obviously done out of narcissism.

I think most people here are just voicing their honest opinions; which sometimes creates arguments.

Of course, there are a few on the left who are just insulting with almost every post; but that's not because they're trolls - they're just jerks.

And there's a couple on the right who are not trolls but they are borderline racist and I'm not really sure which side of the line they are on.

And there's a few of us in the middle who are reasonable people that are enjoyable to be around. Plus we're really good looking.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

"Plus we're really good looking."

Love that last line, BJ!

[B_J 2,752]

"Plus we're really good looking."

Love that last line, BJ!

Just trying to make sure I'm enjoyable to be around.

[GandD 5,966]

Hey Carlos, if you stick around, you'll see. It's kind of hard not to. But I think this article gives them way too much credit.

Oh he knows.

[GandD 5,966]

I'm pretty sure if I named the trolls then my post would get deleted rather quickly.

Honestly, I think there is only one regular poster here who could be considered a troll; and it's obviously done out of narcissism.

I think most people here are just voicing their honest opinions; which sometimes creates arguments.

Of course, there are a few on the left who are just insulting with almost every post; but that's not because they're trolls - they're just jerks.

And there's a couple on the right who are not trolls but they are borderline racist and I'm not really sure which side of the line they are on.

And there's a few of us in the middle who are reasonable people that are enjoyable to be around. Plus we're really good looking.

God isn't that the truth.

As for the other guys, I'd say "borderline" is saying it kindly.

[B_J 2,752]

Do you think they are the "I hate black people" type of racist or the "black people aren't as good as white people" racist?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Do you think they are the "I hate black people" type of racist or the "black people aren't as good as white people" racist?

Both are one and the same. You can't separate them. It's the same chain of thought.

You have folks here that swear because they married outside their race and still hate black people, they can't be racist. Sorry to bust the bubble, but yes you are. If you hate anyone based on the color of their skin, or the actions of a few, you're a racist.

[B_J 2,752]

Both are one and the same. You can't separate them. It's the same chain of thought.

You have folks here that swear because they married outside their race and still hate black people, they can't be racist. Sorry to bust the bubble, but yes you are. If you hate anyone based on the color of their skin, or the actions of a few, you're a racist.

I agree it is the same chain but I think one is further down the well of bigotry than the other.

[GandD 5,966]

Do you think they are the "I hate black people" type of racist or the "black people aren't as good as white people" racist?

Each has their own perspective on the matter from what I've seen. It appears to me the "black people aren't as good as white people" racist is most common. I still don't see that most people, on here at least, hate black people. What they are guilty of doing is generalizing people based on skin color. We all know the numbers and the picture they paint on black folks. What is forgotten are the people that are not like this in the black community and that being "black" does not make one inherently a thug or whatever. What we should achieve to do as a society, is allow each person we meet to start with a fresh slate so to speak. Whether that be in context to college admissions, club membership, job interviews, whatever.

[GandD 5,966]

Both are one and the same. You can't separate them. It's the same chain of thought.

No, they're different. Some hate because of ignorance and what they've been taught, and some make up their mind based on existing stats about black folks. Since the root cause of the existing numbers are hard to quantify at best they are typically ignored or assumed along the line of one's political/cultural leanings.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I agree it is the same chain but I think one is further down the well of bigotry than the other.

If you're a bigot, there is no level for me. That's what you are.

Each has their own perspective on the matter from what I've seen. It appears to me the "black people aren't as good as white people" racist is most common. I still don't see that most people, on here at least, hate black people. What they are guilty of doing is generalizing people based on skin color. We all know the numbers and the picture they paint on black folks. What is forgotten are the people that are not like this in the black community and that being "black" does not make one inherently a thug or whatever. What we should achieve to do as a society, is allow each person we meet to start with a fresh slate so to speak. Whether that be in context to college admissions, club membership, job interviews, whatever.

That would be nice. It's so funny to see folks reaction when I mention something not commonly known by a black person so to speak. It's like their entire perception of black people is blown to bits.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

No, they're different. Some hate because of ignorance and what they've been taught, and some make up their mind based on existing stats about black folks. Since the root cause of the existing numbers are hard to quantify at best they are typically ignored or assumed along the line of one's political/cultural leanings.

Ok, I can see your point. I try to educate them here, but they seem determined to hang on to those notions.

[B_J 2,752]

If you're a bigot, there is no level for me. That's what you are.

That would be nice. It's so funny to see folks reaction when I mention something not commonly known by a black person so to speak. It's like their entire perception of black people is blown to bits.

That's just it. If it is someone who has the belief that they are better than blacks, then sometimes you can change their opinion just by being who you are. You can actually prove that you are as good, or better, than them. It does happen that a person like that loses their prejudice.

But if someone is just filled with hate; well, there's not much you can do.

I'm not saying either one is acceptable; but I have more issue with the blind hatred