![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 46. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 12:38:01
We've been over this before but I think we may need a review. How best to deal with "trolls," i.e., people who come to a site to provoke, annoy, and otherwise take out their hostilities on perfectly nice strangers.Isn't the best strategy to just IGNORE THEM? The reason they do it is because they crave attention. If you simply do not respond to them, or let them get to you, they will get bored and go away.
I know this is hard to do. I don't always succeed at it. But let's try it, ok folks? Let's ignore them.
Here is a link if you want to do more reading on trolls:
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htmInput welcome (except from trolls).
Posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 12:53:10
In reply to Dealing with trolls, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 12:38:01
>
> Input welcome (except from trolls).Then that must mean my input is welcome.
Sometimes people might classify others as trolls because they don't understand or agree with the opinions of the other. But careful analysis can sometimes reveal equal or greater interest in controversy by those who classify unnamed authors as "trolls".
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 25, 2005, at 13:45:25
In reply to Dealing with trolls, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 12:38:01
>
> We've been over this before but I think we may need a review. How best to deal with "trolls," i.e., people who come to a site to provoke, annoy, and otherwise take out their hostilities on perfectly nice strangers.
>I think, the troll strategy is rarely effective because there's rarely a unanimous agreement on
who is a troll. I've never been a "do gooder" in that I feel I must be nice to those others dislike, simply because others dislike them. I don't think there's any purpose to that. However, because I've often valued the input of those others find to be generally offensive, I've frequently been seen as one. Conversely, (and not just on this board) I've often found thepeople/things, that most people love, to be extremely distateful.
I think, especially because we do have the civility guidelines, there is room for people to be themselves here.
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 13:47:52
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls » crushedout, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 25, 2005, at 13:45:25
well, i still think it's better the more people ignore them. i actually think that positive feedback, like you might be inclined to give them, is less satisfying, and thus if that's all they get, they might go away anyway.
Posted by partlycloudy on May 25, 2005, at 14:14:19
In reply to Dealing with trolls, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 12:38:01
I think it's an important reminder, too.
And timely :-)
pc
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 25, 2005, at 14:17:01
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 13:47:52
>
> well, i still think it's better the more people ignore them. i actually think that positive feedback, like you might be inclined to give them, is less satisfying, and thus if that's all they get, they might go away anyway.Well, if it works for you, I suppose it's accidental. If I'm giving someone positive feedback, or as I see it, simply valuing/enjoying another persons being, (though I may even frequently disagree with them) I clearly don't consider them a "troll"
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 15:06:45
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 13:47:52
> well, i still think it's better the more people ignore them. i actually think that positive feedback, like you might be inclined to give them, is less satisfying, and thus if that's all they get, they might go away anyway.
I think ignoring them is a good policy in principle, but not in practice. If everyone did ignore them, all the time, without fail, it would probably serve its purpose. But the fact is not everyone does. They might not know to do it, or they may choose not to do it. But whatever the reason, anytime someone doesn't do it (ignore them), you're reinforcing them even more than if everyone responded every time. What's that psychological thing about intermittent (unpredictable) reinforcement? (Or something like that.) It's way more likely to draw repeated behavior than predictable reinforcement. I know I'm botching the terms, but I think I've got the principle.
Posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 15:36:31
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 15:06:45
Another psychological concept widely considered relevant to the context of people colloquially classified according to perceived behavior and motivation is the "fundamental attribution error".
I am surprised a psychiatrist includes in his administrative instructions information about how log affirmative interest specific to his forum about such classifications of people when formally, the classification could tend to impugn the motives of some people, and ...
when widely accepted attribution theory suggests people are often erroneously classified, sometimes in purely colloquial, non-scientific categories, because of attribution errors.
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 15:42:58
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 15:06:45
Actually, that principle only applies when you're trying to extinguish a behavior. So if a troll's undesirable behavior is intermittently and unpredictably reinforced, then when you remove the reinforcement *altogether*, the troll will continue the behavior longer than if you had reinforced it constantly. But since I assume the level of reinforcement will remain the same (i.e., some people will respond and some won't), it's better that more people ignore the troll.In other words, less reinforcement is always better. I wish I could convince everyone to ignore trolls, but I know I can't. (And my guess is that most of us agree on who is a "troll" here, but it's clear not all of us will.)
One last note: in my experience, trolls usually end up getting themselves blocked, making all of this moot.
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 15:44:37
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls » crushedout, posted by partlycloudy on May 25, 2005, at 14:14:19
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 15:47:20
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » Minnie-Haha, posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 15:36:31
Whoa! I got smoke comin' out my ears!
I tried to follow that and almost got it, but I couldn't quite do it. Whether you were agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or simply making an other point, I guess I ought to say I'm not trying to push the idea that labeling someone a troll is OK or not, or that ignoring (or not ignoring) someone is right or wrong. I only meant I don't think it's very effective in practice.
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 15:50:46
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » so, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 15:47:20
I read the post, too, and I couldn't comprehend a word of it. Just in case you were worried it was just you....
Posted by alexandra_k on May 25, 2005, at 16:03:24
In reply to Dealing with trolls, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 12:38:01
I guess if everyone followed that...
And everyone agreed on who the 'trolls' were then it would work.
Eventually they would get sick of it and go away, or they would learn to change their posting style.I think it is a good policy for everyone to implement.
It isn't worth getting blocked over it...
So, some people will respond.
Thats fine by me - leave them to it.
If they really are a troll they'll probably alienate everyone soon enough.
Or maybe...
Maybe...
Some people can reach them.
Best to leave them to it methinks.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 25, 2005, at 16:11:04
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » Minnie-Haha, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 15:50:46
Posted by TofuEmmy on May 25, 2005, at 16:14:52
In reply to Ditto. It's not just you (nm) » crushedout, posted by gardenergirl on May 25, 2005, at 16:11:04
"Fundamental attribution error - A feature of attribution theory, so frequently seen that it has its own name. This refers to the fact that whenever people are making attributions about an action, they tend to over-emphasise dispositional factors about the actor, and under-emphasise situational factors. An example is attributing a friend's recent car accident to the fact that the friend is a poor driver rather than to the fact that another car just happened to pull out in front of her. The former would be a dispositional attribution; the latter a situational attribution."
from: http://www.psybox.com/web_dictionary/fundamentatt.htm
I think this means in labeling a person a troll, one may be overemphasizing qualities about the *person* which one dislikes - rather than basing the judgement purely on the person's actions. Actions are what define a troll...right?
Does anyone ask, "Are you a good troll, or a bad troll?" (think Oz). If you disagree with the person, he/she is a troll? If you agree with them....they are a person who seeks change in order to improve some situation?
I dunno. My head hurts.
em
P.S. When I compare current events to past trollesque situations which have occured here....I see nothing in common.
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 16:18:50
In reply to Re: Dealing with people you feel annoyed by... » crushedout, posted by alexandra_k on May 25, 2005, at 16:03:24
well, according to that link i provided, it's no good trying to "reach" or reason with them. i tend to agree.
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 16:20:27
In reply to attribution errors, head pain, etc., posted by TofuEmmy on May 25, 2005, at 16:14:52
> P.S. When I compare current events to past trollesque situations which have occured here....I see nothing in common.
please say more (when you're head stops hurting).
i'm finding a lot in common, which is why i'm intrigued by your thoughts on this.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 25, 2005, at 16:27:02
In reply to Re: Dealing with people you feel annoyed by... » alexandra_k, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 16:18:50
... Yeah.. Though that is the danger in labelling the person / situation.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 16:40:51
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls » Minnie-Haha, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 15:42:58
Here's what I wrote:
I think ignoring them is a good policy in principle, but not in practice. If everyone did ignore them, all the time, without fail, it would probably serve its purpose. But the fact is not everyone does. They might not know to do it, or they may choose not to do it. But whatever the reason, anytime someone doesn't do it (ignore them), you're reinforcing them even more than if everyone responded every time… It's way more likely to draw repeated behavior than predictable reinforcement…And here's what you wrote:
> Actually, that principle only applies when you're trying to extinguish a behavior. So if a troll's undesirable behavior is intermittently and unpredictably reinforced, then when you remove the reinforcement *altogether*, the troll will continue the behavior longer than if you had reinforced it constantly…Are we agreeing? It seems like we’ve expressed virtually the same idea. But I am feeling a little loopy. I’m just saying that the behavior will not stop with a varied schedule of reinforcement, and if it is virtually guaranteed that there will be reinforcement, then the behavior is going to continue. So as a policy, trying to ignore the behavior is doomed to fail. (Unless there is some way to guarantee that there will be no reinforcement, which I think is highly unlikely. It's like trying to stop urban legends.)
> One last note: in my experience, trolls usually end up getting themselves blocked, making all of this moot.
I haven’t had enough experience yet to draw a conclusion about it in general, but it seems to me that that isn’t necessarily the case in some forums.
Minnie
:)
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 16:51:25
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls » crushedout, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 16:40:51
> ... So as a policy, trying to ignore the behavior is doomed to fail...
... if the objective is to stop the behavior, though it may be successful for individuals who are comfortable with ignoring the behavior.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 25, 2005, at 18:45:00
In reply to Re: Clarification..., posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 16:51:25
My objective...
My objective is to get back to support and education.
To not let certain posters here bug me.Reinforcement schedules are all very well - but there is a problem with respect to people. People can think... People can (to quote the behaviourists though I have no idea how they are allowed to say this...) follow INTERNAL (ie verbal) rules.
Instead of worrying about STOPPING somebody else (which it seems we can't do unless we decide to ostracise them as a group - which I don't think is fair)
I choose to worry about how I respond to them.
And
For me
It is easier for me to just ignore them for the most part
Not let them get to me
Just worry about my behaviour
And try not to get blocked.Back to the purpose of the boards...
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 20:05:49
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls » crushedout, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 16:40:51
No, we're not agreeing because I'm saying that the principle you're talking about only applies when you successfully *stop* all reinforcement. At *that* point, if there has been intermittent reinforcement beforehand, the behavior does not extinguish as easily. But we are positing a situation where we can never stop all reinforcement because we can't get everyone on the site to agree to do that. thus, the fact that reinforcement is intermittent has no negative consequences, and may in fact be preferable.make sense?
> Here's what I wrote:
> I think ignoring them is a good policy in principle, but not in practice. If everyone did ignore them, all the time, without fail, it would probably serve its purpose. But the fact is not everyone does. They might not know to do it, or they may choose not to do it. But whatever the reason, anytime someone doesn't do it (ignore them), you're reinforcing them even more than if everyone responded every time… It's way more likely to draw repeated behavior than predictable reinforcement…
>
> And here's what you wrote:
> > Actually, that principle only applies when you're trying to extinguish a behavior. So if a troll's undesirable behavior is intermittently and unpredictably reinforced, then when you remove the reinforcement *altogether*, the troll will continue the behavior longer than if you had reinforced it constantly…
>
> Are we agreeing? It seems like we’ve expressed virtually the same idea. But I am feeling a little loopy. I’m just saying that the behavior will not stop with a varied schedule of reinforcement, and if it is virtually guaranteed that there will be reinforcement, then the behavior is going to continue. So as a policy, trying to ignore the behavior is doomed to fail. (Unless there is some way to guarantee that there will be no reinforcement, which I think is highly unlikely. It's like trying to stop urban legends.)
>
> > One last note: in my experience, trolls usually end up getting themselves blocked, making all of this moot.
>
> I haven’t had enough experience yet to draw a conclusion about it in general, but it seems to me that that isn’t necessarily the case in some forums.
>
> Minnie
> :)
>
Posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 20:39:34
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » so, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 15:47:20
> Whoa! I got smoke comin' out my ears!
>
> I tried to follow that and almost got it, but I couldn't quite do it.These rules can encourage one to write with such clarity, meaning can be as clear as glass and sometimes no more evident. Mostly I was agreeing that psychological concepts can be relevant here. I would agree the practice of ignoring people to nullify unwanted contributions has limitations -- it can be comprimised by the very act of announcing a plan to ignore some one or some thing. I could have said more about the application and limitations of reward theory in behavioral analyis, but I wanted to avoid futher confusion.
If it helps, the "fundamental attribution error" is a phrase for an identified tendency for people to attribute behavior to character traits rather than to interactions in a particular environment. The concept finds more acceptance in psych departments than in jury rooms, I might add.
Posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 20:48:46
In reply to attribution errors, head pain, etc., posted by TofuEmmy on May 25, 2005, at 16:14:52
> I think this means in labeling a person a troll, one may be overemphasizing qualities about the *person* which one dislikes - rather than basing the judgement purely on the person's actions. Actions are what define a troll...right?
The concept is right, but no, it's not actions that define a troll -- usually its others who proffer the definition, though some people and groups of netizens have defined themselves as trolls.
> Does anyone ask, "Are you a good troll, or a bad troll?" (think Oz).Seldom.
>If you disagree with the person, he/she is a troll?
I could suggest examples of that, if I thouroughly searched Usenet archives
>If you agree with them....they are a person who seeks change in order to improve some situation?
Or maybe even one who seeks understanding without change, though the move from lack of understanding toward understanding would be change.
>
> P.S. When I compare current events to past trollesque situations which have occured here....I see nothing in common.
I don't see any trolls around here, either. I'll keep my eyes peeled, though.
Posted by Phillipa on May 25, 2005, at 20:51:38
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » Minnie-Haha, posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 20:39:34
From now on when I see an argumentative Thread I am refusing to read or respond to it. It's like trying to deal with a person who is out of touch with reality. Like when I worked in psych. Ignore them or go along with them for the sake of sanity. Just my opinion of course. Fondly,Phillipa
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.