Why Trolls Start Flame Wars: Swearing and Name-Calling Shut Down the Ability to Think and Focus

Zero Hedge ^ | 02/25/2014 | George Washington

[tired&retired]

Psychological studies show that swearing and name-calling in Internet discussions shut down our ability to think.

2 professors of science communication at the University of Wisconsin, Madison - Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele - wrote in the New York Times last year:

In a study published online last month in The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, we and three colleagues report on an experiment designed to measure what one might call “the nasty effect.”

The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself.

In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought.

While it’s hard to quantify the distortional effects of such online nastiness, it’s bound to be quite substantial, particularly — and perhaps ironically — in the area of science news

[gattaca]

bump

[Gene Eric]

Again, what messenger did I attack? Please spell it out.

[SampleMan]

Perhaps, but I think there is a natural human communication issue at play on the internet. Brevity breeds misunderstanding and insult, with little mechanism to defuse it. Normal rhetorical styles such as hyperbole and satire are not always obvious to the reader. And opinion are not minced, as they are at a social gathering or work.

Yes, there is a special kind of trollish person, but I think you have to get thicker skin and develop a different style on the internet. When I first started on FR I needlessly got into flame wars, and that was with like minded folks.

[exDemMom]

While it’s hard to quantify the distortional effects of such online nastiness, it’s bound to be quite substantial, particularly — and perhaps ironically — in the area of science news

I have seen this a lot here on FR. It is predictable that every time someone posts an article about a new medical advance, the anti-science kooks come out of the woodwork. Being a scientist, I do not leave pseudoscience unchallenged. When challenged, anti-science nutjobs nearly immediately jump into name-calling. They will not (cannot) support any of their positions, but seem to think that personal attacks are valid arguments.

Keeping in mind that personal attacks and name-calling are tactics meant to shut off debate, it is best (IMO) to remain calm, avoid name-calling, and stick with the facts while challenging the troll to provide evidence for their claims.

[Coldwater Creek]

It is getting to the point where even on FR, the crude language, jokes and name calling can hardly be distinguished from the liberal sites. I find myself reading less and less post all the way through.

[Coldwater Creek]

I don’t HATE you Alex. In fact, I have personally defended you to Mike Fleming on the air years ago. As I have said before, I just am offended when you give a very wrong impression of my city.

[warchild9]

There’s a few trolls here in FR we could do without.

However, the old rule applies: don’t respond to them (don’t “feed” them), and they’ll go away.

[SoConPubbie]

Again, what messenger did I attack? Please spell it out.

For those reading this interesting interchange, it should be noted, since tired&retired has declined to comment, that the messenger being referred to is Mitt Romney, not a fellow poster.

[SoConPubbie]

There’s a few trolls here in FR we could do without.

Care to name them?

It would be interesting to see your list.

[SoConPubbie]

And Gene’s comment was about Mitt Romney, the notorious Father of Gay Marriage in America, pressuring the Governor of AZ to veto the Religious Freedom bill on her desk that allows shop-owners to refuse service to homosexuals.

[daniel1212]

One group in particular uses this tactic to prevent objective judgment:

While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, After the Ball, is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which two Harvard-trained (homosexual) psychologists [47] Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen (pen name Erastes Pill, who was also schooled in social marketing) advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."

"Jamming" homo-hatred (disagreement with homosexual behaviors) was to be done by linking it to Nazi horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."[48][49] - http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda#Strategies_and_psychological_tactics

[daniel1212]

but seem to think that personal attacks are valid arguments.

And never in any way impugn the Catholic church without expecting it to result in personal insults or an inane image in lieu of an argument.

[bonfire]

Very interesting, Daniel.

[warchild9]

I considered answering this with a brief list

then reconsidered:

I don’t know you

and I may dredge up an ally of a troll

which is the same as feeding one

/nothing personal

[expatguy]

Und I would like very much to see this list of trolls - danke

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

[warchild9]

I stated my reasons why I won’t.

I will say there are four I ignore

and

I, personally, will troll bigots.

[daniel1212]

Good to hear from you!

[laotzu]

anti-science kooks..anti-science nutjobs nearly immediately jump into name-calling

Yeah. I hate it when people do that.

[minnesota_bound]

Britebart sites comments are frequently diverted by trolls. I suspect all are paid by the DNC/Soros. The site could do better by using + / - next to each conversation so you could rollup the posting and then see the rest of the “normal” comments.

[minnesota_bound]

I agree with you and would go to the ends of the earth to support your comments but as the world is flat I might fall off....