The Reality behind One Internet Troll

kalibex

Dagobah Resident
What happened when one woman did react publicly to an especially cruel internet troll. (Apparently this one wasn't necessarily an essential psychopath). Common sense, I know, but yet another reminder that people who do that type of thing are not Happy people. What is interesting is that he admitted why he did it - and why he stopped.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/02/what-happened-confronted-cruellest-troll-lindy-west
 
kalibex said:
What happened when one woman did react publicly to an especially cruel internet troll. (Apparently this one wasn't necessarily an essential psychopath). Common sense, I know, but yet another reminder that people who do that type of thing are not Happy people. What is interesting is that he admitted why he did it - and why he stopped.

I am perhaps way too cynical but it does not mean that the guy in question isn't a psychopath at all.

There were articles on Sott about the kind of people who enjoy the suffering of others the most :

http://www.sott.net/article/273962-Trolls-just-want-to-have-fun

http://www.sott.net/article/274076-Do-not-feed-the-trolls-Online-trolls-are-psychopaths-and-sadists-psychologists-claim

I don't know but someone unhappy might have a destructive behavior but to engage in systematic troll activities, especially to hurt, is quite something else entirely osit.
 
Tigersoap said:
kalibex said:
What happened when one woman did react publicly to an especially cruel internet troll. (Apparently this one wasn't necessarily an essential psychopath). Common sense, I know, but yet another reminder that people who do that type of thing are not Happy people. What is interesting is that he admitted why he did it - and why he stopped.

I am perhaps way too cynical but it does not mean that the guy in question isn't a psychopath at all.

That's possible, but did you read the article yet? There was a very interesting follow-up a while after the initial event - assuming the guy wasn't lying (which is always possible).
 
A the end of the article (great article BTW) the "troll" seemed very remorseful (and his resourcefulness was kind of backed up by what seemed like at drastic life change, i.e. becoming a teacher, seeing pain in others, etc..). Of courses his apology to the woman seemed abrupt, maybe the author missed part of the story, maybe the troll really had a conscience? Dunno. And we would have to take the former troll's word that he actually changed (which is a no-no when it comes to psychopaths).

I guess my point is that further investigation on the matter would be needed to determine true psychopathic involvement. As good as the author was in writing up and concluding her experience, she may have taken too much value in the possibility of good in all people without taking into account the number of psychopaths out there. I wounder if she followed up in her nemesis' words at all?

I honestly don't feel cynical about my thoughts on kalibex's link and the information displayed in it by Lindy W. At least Lindy found out that backing down is not the optimal answer, but instead pushing forward was the better "life choice".
 
nidO said:
A the end of the article (great article BTW) the "troll" seemed very remorseful (and his resourcefulness was kind of backed up by what seemed like at drastic life change, i.e. becoming a teacher, seeing pain in others, etc..).

That was my point (which I didn't make explicit in the original post) - that this one may possibly have been a case of a ponerized (but not essentially psychopathic) individual who had been acting more out of self-centered frustration and rage than from a complete lack of conscience. At least I found it telling that his behavior reportedly started to change after he started to 'get a life'.
 
kalibex said:
Tigersoap said:
I am perhaps way too cynical but it does not mean that the guy in question isn't a psychopath at all.

That's possible, but did you read the article yet? There was a very interesting follow-up a while after the initial event - assuming the guy wasn't lying (which is always possible).

Well, that's the problem, if he's lying or not. I have read the article, and despite his sincere repentance, I wonder what kind of guy really is having done what he did in first place.
He is someone to forgive and forget -and stay away- I think.
 
l apprenti de forgeron said:
kalibex said:
Tigersoap said:
I am perhaps way too cynical but it does not mean that the guy in question isn't a psychopath at all.

That's possible, but did you read the article yet? There was a very interesting follow-up a while after the initial event - assuming the guy wasn't lying (which is always possible).

Well, that's the problem, if he's lying or not. I have read the article, and despite his sincere repentance, I wonder what kind of guy really is having done what he did in first place.
He is someone to forgive and forget -and stay away- I think.
Yeah, I think so too. If he's telling the truth, that's great, and that's his choice, his right and responsibility. There's no point in encouraging further life intersections. Let him shoulder his own burdens, and shoulder your own, as each chooses. And, maybe, don't spend much energy on pity.
 
kalibex said:
nidO said:
A the end of the article (great article BTW) the "troll" seemed very remorseful (and his resourcefulness was kind of backed up by what seemed like at drastic life change, i.e. becoming a teacher, seeing pain in others, etc..).

That was my point (which I didn't make explicit in the original post) - that this one may possibly have been a case of a ponerized (but not essentially psychopathic) individual who had been acting more out of self-centered frustration and rage than from a complete lack of conscience. At least I found it telling that his behavior reportedly started to change after he started to 'get a life'.

Are you sure that is the whole truth (or part of it)? I don't disagree with your words. But if we accepted your insightful answer just right now, what are we missing for being just like Lindy and accepting a serial troll on his words alone? This is not a flaw of the victims (Lindy, you, me, others who read and believed the troll without checking), but a possibly serious oversight on us as "students" of these types of events (IMO). I give a LOT of credit to Lindy though as she suffered the most in this case against this particular attack. But I don't want to be so quick to just accept everything she says (well in this case, I don't want to accept the clues she MAY have missed in her haste to "deal" with the problem person). You know what? She may not have missed anything at all and you can "hit the nail" on its head and move to the next lesson... maybe... but would it maybe be just that more satisfying to check up on the troll? We may learn something more (or rather Lindy may have learned something more!). Surprises are in the details I find.
 
nidO said:
...it maybe be just that more satisfying to check up on the troll? We may learn something more (or rather Lindy may have learned something more!). Surprises are in the details I find.

Oh, I can wax cynical, too, and imagine all sort of scenarios. Maybe he was a psychopath who was somehow 'outed' (in a way not made clear in the article), and so spun a tale to pretend remorse and cover his tracks. Even if not a psychopath, perhaps the next time his life spirals down out of control or becomes overly stressful, he'll turn vicious again (perhaps not in the exact same way). Perhaps mechanical habits and/or essential nature made him...'easily useable' by those 'higher up the food chain', so to speak, and he really didn't know why he'd done what he did to Ms. West; just gave her an answer that sounded good, until he himself believed it.

If you think I'm splitting hairs, arguing that this sounds to me like a case of a 'normal' individual's ponerization as opposed to someone who was always a lost cause, then yeah, I am.

We'll never know either way, unless Ms West provides a further update one of these days...
 
Context or environment can play a big role in influencing human behavior. Internet provides a depersonalized environment where one can be anonymous and for many people, that provides an opportunity to show a side of themselves that they would not normally reveal in a one on one face to face encounter. So while essential psychopaths would be essential psychopaths, anonymous behind a screen or as a real person - for people who lack a strong moral foundation and are more susceptible to ponerizing influences, the situation is likely to be more nuanced.

kalibex said:
What happened when one woman did react publicly to an especially cruel internet troll. (Apparently this one wasn't necessarily an essential psychopath). Common sense, I know, but yet another reminder that people who do that type of thing are not Happy people. What is interesting is that he admitted why he did it - and why he stopped.

In this instance, it seems that being confronted and held personally accountable created a relational context which brought out a different side of the "troll". From the data available, I am not seeing a reason to identify this particular person as a primary or essential psychopath. At the same time, I am against drawing a general conclusion that "trolls are essentially unhappy people". Since research suggests that internet trolls score high on sadism, here is some info on sadistic personality disorder.


[quote author=Theodore Millon in Personality Disorders in Modern Life]
Although psychopaths can be instrumentally aggressive and hostile to the point of murder, only when the knowledge that others are suffering gives the individual pleasure does behavior become sadistic . And only when the inflicting of psychological or physical pain becomes the organizing principle for life does the individual become a sadistic personality.
[/quote]

Millon classifies sadistic personalities into 4 sub types.

[quote author=Millon]
The Explosive Sadist

Most persons tend to become aggressive or hostile by degrees. In contrast, explosive sadists are distinguished for sudden eruptions of uncontrollable rage, frequently vented against members of their own family as safe targets. Explosive sadists appear to be coping competently until some unknown threshold is reached, after which they react instantaneously with abusive defiance and possibly physical violence. In contrast to other sadists, their displays of aggression are not used instrumentally to dominate others, but instead release pent-up feelings of frustration or humiliation. Neither do they conduct themselves in a surly and truculent manner. Many are hypersensitive to feelings of betrayal, or they may be deeply frustrated by the futility and hopelessness of life. Physical assaults are often the product of a verbally unskilled individual unable to express a reaction, who feels helpless to respond in any other way.
Periodically under control, but lacking in psychic cohesion and, therefore, vulnerable to impulsive discharge, the explosive sadist represents a combination of the sadistic and borderline personalities.

The Tyrannical Sadist

The tyrannical sadist and the malevolent antisocial (psychopath) are perhaps the most frightening and cruel of the personality disorder subtypes. Some are physically assaultive, whereas others overwhelm their victims by unrelenting criticism , forceful anger, and vulgar and bitter tirades. Tyrannical sadists seem to relish the act of menacing and brutalizing others in the most unmerciful and inhumane ways. More than any other personality, they derive a deep satisfaction from creating suffering, observing its effects, and reflecting on their actions. Violence may be employed intentionally to inspire terror and intimidation. Resistance only seems to stimulate them more. Often calculating and cool, tyrannical sadists are selective in their choice of victims, identifying scapegoats who are easily intimidated and unlikely to react with violence in return. Frequently, their goal is not only to inflict terror but also to impress the audience with their total, unrestrained power. Most intentionally dramatize their surly behavior. Although these individuals are in many respects the purest form of the psychopathic sadist, they also exhibit characteristics of the negativistic or paranoid personalities.


The Enforcing Sadist

Every society charges certain agents with the power to enforce its rules to protect the common good. At their best, such individuals recognize the weight of their mission and balance social and individual needs, consider extenuating circumstances, and dispassionately judge intentions and effects before rendering a final verdict. In contrast, the enforcing sadist is society’s sadistic superego, vested in punishment for its own sake, unable to be appeased. Military sergeants, certain cops, university deans, and the harsh judge all feel that they have the right to control and punish others. Cloaked within socially sanctioned roles, they mete out condemnation in the name of justice with such extraordinary force that their deeper motives are clear. Ever seeking to make themselves seem important, these sticklers for rules search out those guilty of some minor trespass, make them cower before the power of their position, and then punish them with a righteous indignation that reeks of repressed anger and personal malice. Despite their responsibility to be fair and balanced, such individuals are unable to put limits on the emotions that drive their vicious behaviors. Though not as troublesome, many minor bureaucrats also possess such traits. The enforcing sadist represents a combination of the sadistic and compulsive personalities.

The Spineless Sadist

Not all sadists are intrinsically dominant, cruel, and vicious like the tyrannical and enforcing subtypes. Some are deeply insecure, even cowardly. Spineless sadists are a combination of the avoidant and sadistic personalities; their private world is peopled by aggressive and powerful enemies. Attack can only be forestalled by creating an image of strength, a sense of mutual ensured destruction. For spineless sadists, aggressive hostility is a counterphobic act, designed to master their own inner fearfulness, while sending a message of strength to the public that they will not be intimidated. Displays of courage serve to divert and impress the audience with a façade of potency that says , “I will not be pushed around.” Neither naturally mean-spirited nor intrinsically violent, the spineless sadist caricatures the swaggering tough-guy or petty tyrant. Having been repeatedly subject to physical brutality and intimidation, these individuals have learned to employ aggression instrumentally against others who seem threatening and abusive. Fearful of real danger, they strike first, hoping to induce a measure of fearfulness that forestalls further antagonisms . Many spineless sadists join groups that search for a shared scapegoat, a people or ethnic population set aside by the majority culture as a receptacle for hate and prejudice.
[/quote]

Systematic and pervasive internet trolls would more often belong to the "tyrannical" and "spineless" categories - osit. One is happy to do what he does while the other can be driven by frustration and insecurity.
 
Back
Top Bottom