Why are trolls online so mean?

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But I would go one step further and say, the nature of the activity itself likely creates transient psychotic events in otherwise normal people.

Temporary psychotic episodes that can be quite severe due to the trio of bad factors (anonymity, disinhibition, dissociation) at play, can get pretty intense in the internets era. And at scale!

Wellllll, "disassociation" probably has a different meaning in a clinical setting. This is different than roleplaying a character in a video game, or even pretending to be that character in real life because you find it fun or comforting

ACTUAL disassociation is extremely rare. Despite kids wanting to be trendy by faking mental illness like multiple personality disorder on Tik Tok, it is rare IRL to the point of some psychiatrists basically claiming D.I.D doesn't even exist. The only time you see it is as some type of trauma response from a severely traumatized individual. We're talking a kid who was molested or abused severely for a large portion of their childhood kind of trauma. There's been extremely rare case studies of those people "disassociating" to a different personality as a defense mechanism of their brain. This is somewhat similar to a soldier with PTSD disassociating to being back in the war, which once again, from working with tons of veterans, is extremely rare to the point of ALMOST never actually occurring anywhere. Although I did read a true life crime case of a vet with PTSD who apparently disassociated that he was back in a warzone and killed his neighbors randomly

This is also different than "when I get really angry or have another powerful negative emotion I just black out". That's not true disassociation in the clinical sense. That just means that the frontal lobe of the brain which is doing the reasoning isn't as active in that moment. But this is different than actual diassociation


And could a video game cause a psychotic break? No. Once again it's extremely rare to have a sudden psychotic break past the age of onset of a psychotic disorder (for women its around 18-20ish, for men it's around 22-24ish). The only reason to have a psychotic break past that point is almost always going to be due to a chemical influence, like taking a strong psychoactive drug. Playing a video game just can't fuck with brain chemicals to make someone psychotic. The worst that playing a video game can do is cause addiction, which would result in psychological withdrawal symptoms such as depression, irritability, insomnia, etc. But not psychosis

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Agree on thinking you can't diagnose a particular individual case w/o having an M.D. b/c this is psychiatric, not just psychological trouble we are talking about here, correct?

Actually rewiring the brain.

I still want to talk about dissociation b/c the structural parameters are there. People undergo or experience highly disordered states all the time but do not notice them as such, b/c they return back to normal, or otherwise are functionally identical.

This is a good point to clarify the idea that people talk about when they talk about "structural" vs. actual. It's the same as the distinction between potential vs actual, but structure in this context, means the more or less closed system in question and what it does or does not incentivize or introduce.

Games like Everquest were and still are potentiator machines, structures, that might very well create or reward "aberrant" behavior and personality.

But I would go one step further and say, the nature of the activity itself likely creates transient psychotic events in otherwise normal people.

Temporary psychotic episodes that can be quite severe due to the trio of bad factors (anonymity, disinhibition, dissociation) at play, can get pretty intense in the internets era. And at scale!

Absolutely. Also, there's compelling arguments from the 90s suggesting violent video games lead to violent behavior.

[Jimjam]

I'm actually just formulating and synthesising some ideas on the impact of violent media, particularly on aggression in adolescents. I'm glad you made this post!

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Absolutely. Also, there's compelling arguments from the 90s suggesting violent video games lead to violent behavior.

This is true, consumption of violent media often precedes aggression.

A big part of the reason for this is the underlying callous unemotional traits that predict a person predisposed to becoming aggressive also predict a preference for violent media. Basically, in these instances, it isn't the media causing the behaviour, rather the underlying cause of violent media consumption and aggressive behaviour is the same.

Obviously it is more complex than that, especially as most people don't score that highly on CU traits. Another influence on a/v behaviour is social norms, so in a society where a/v is perceived as being an acceptable way to resolve conflicts or achieve goals, people are more likely to behave that way. If a person is watching a bunch of violent movies or games (even just 'wholesome' super hero movies are often very violent, and the violence is idealised) then that could be integrated into their norms and influence their behaviour to become more violent.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Absolutely. Also, there's compelling arguments from the 90s suggesting violent video games lead to violent behavior.

Yeah, and there was "panic" about it just like there have been panics about metal lyrics and rap lyrics, but that doesn't mean there isn't an underlying freakin problem.

Some people can mess around with lots of imaginary things. Ronnie James Dio, the Metal Midget himself, Creator of the Sign of Metal, was a sweetheart as a person.

But we are kidding ourselves if we think lots of people -- I would argue most people -- are not "topgun" at policing their imaginations to make sure it does not bleed over into how they "actually" think about the world.

Those folks should be very careful. But of course, since this is an impulse control issue, being careful is also not their strong suit.

And then you have genuine people on the edge like Magnetaress. You ok Maggie!

You know who the real problem is? People who honestly do not know they are damaged and bent out of shape.

So Magnetaress, remember you are always one step ahead of the fools. Chill out and listen to the Grateful Dead and don't do drugs. And watch that blood sugar if you decide to go with the antipsychotics. You develop tremors over time. Key to anti-psychotics is to deny it sugar rushes. Whole grains and cereals, carbs that have to digest are your friend.

A full spectrum post.

[magnetaress]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So, to get back to the science, we got three problems.

1. Anonymity
2. Disinhibition
3. Dissociation

Anonymity ---> disinhibition. But where and how does dissociation come in?

Solving for the Dissociation factor is crucial, because that is where a lot of the mutated but often pointless malice comes from.

In real life, we are kept in check (inhibited) by the fact people can see us, hear us, identify us.

Real life also -- let's assume -- favors stable identity. This is why aberrant personality or cognitive types are aberrant. The normal condition is a more or less "stable self." By "normal" I mean all the drama.

But not psychosis!

Dissociation is not a dramatic person. Dissociation is a psychosis process.

That the online world would create dissociated selves or push already fragile selves over an edge, in quantity, is so predictable it isn't even funny. It's ridiculously predictable.

But so is most of what happens, if you are a technological determinist like all the cool kids are.

Tru

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Stick with aberrant personality types rather than psychosis. I personally don’t like diagnosing based on reading someone’s chat log or online postings, mostly because I’m not credentialed to do it and that’s not the correct way to….but I think it’s a safe assumption that the worst of the worst “trolls” in the world (the ones that go out of their way to torture innocent people online) most likely have some kind of personality disorder

Psychosis just isn’t as reasonable of a guess. Someone actually psychotic may not even be able to manage keeping a computer in working order. Because stimuli in a psychotic person’s brain is constantly being twisted and misinterpreted, often in a paranoid manner, simple mundane computer messages all of a sudden can be seen as “patterns” or “signals” usually resulting in the psychotic person taking their computer apart, screwing up the basic software that runs it, or just refusing to use it. A truly psychotic person would NOT make an effective online troll, IMO

If you can't be a good person online you are basically incapable of being truly moral.

Most of these ppl are just sinners destined for the lake if fire. It's silly to separate online personas from irl ones.

Let em burn.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

Originally Posted by magnetaress [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you can't be a good person online you are basically incapable of being truly moral.

That's a classic philosophical problem. It's really a killer question. Your claim reminds me of how Plato sets up the plot of The Republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


(BTW, The Lord of The Rings trilogy is in part Tolkien's retort to this claim. In his telling, such a kind of rind ring must be destroyed. Socrates was wrong: no one can resist the temptation. Not even reason (Gandalf) or innocence (Hobbits) can withstand its predicament.)

[magnetaress]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's a classic philosophical problem. It's really a killer question. Your claim reminds me of how Plato sets up the plot of The Republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


(BTW, The Lord of The Rings trilogy is in part Tolkien's retort to this claim. In his telling, such a kind of rind ring must be destroyed. Socrates was wrong: no one can resist the temptation. Not even reason (Gandalf) or innocence (Hobbits) can withstand its predicament.)

I was over generalizing butt yes!!! v thoughtful and thankfull for this input

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

I can't play alts for this reason.

Shit's real classic. EQ and then WoW created a lot of damaged brains ya know. I would love to meet the babies that were being "tended to" for hours on end during raids during afk's.

Evercrack babies.

[magnetaress]

Like a truly good person can be anonymous and have zero threat of punishment and they'll still do the good thing. That's the basic minimum standard we collectively need to hold.

[unsunghero]

^
To give an idea of why a person who is psychotic would not make an effective troll is one time we had a client who was frequently using meth and often psychotic believe that a normal typical iphone message (I forget what the message was, he was messing around in the settings) was an indication that his iphone had been hacked by the hologram of his ex-gf who was working with the mafia. He continued to screw around in more phone settings, causing more system prompts and messages to come up, which his paranoid brain continued to believe as more indications that his all-powerful hologram ex-gf was controlling his phone by using some sort of secret technology that the "mafia" has

We had a different guy who was manic with psychosis who saw some option to "hide my email" (or something like that, I forget the exact option) on his phone and believed without a shadow of a doubt, that this was some secret app his wife had put on the phone to have affairs with other men. He then began to accuse his wife of infidelity to the point where she feared for her own safety. When he finally got some sleep (he was going on about a week no sleep) and his brain chemicals returned more to their normal state, he became an entirely different person. He was sheepish, embarrassed, and saying "man, obviously it's just a phone setting. I just don't know how to use an iphone. I can't believe I went nuts like that"

There's been tons of other cases of psychotic people's paranoid brains believing that literally any type of message on a computer, which could be a normal routine message, could be an email, could be anything, is some deeper "hack" or "signal". Part of psychosis is "pattern forming" which is the brain forming patterns that don't really exist. The movie A Beautiful Mind illustrated this idea well

This is why I say most likely a psychotic person is going to believe their computer has been hacked by the some all-powerful entity, or is secretly recording them, controlling their thoughts, all sorts of shit. Then they'll take it apart, or start fucking with the settings and soon their computer won't work

They won't likely be able to sit and continue to post on a message board for months or years at a time while actively psychotic. It could happen, but it's not likely