![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 22 to 46 of 46. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 20:58:10
In reply to Re: Dealing with people, posted by Phillipa on May 25, 2005, at 20:51:38
not only will it possibly discourage the troll but it's probably the healthiest thing for *you* (or me, for that matter).
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 21:18:23
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls » Minnie-Haha, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 20:05:49
> 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?OK. I think I understand what you're saying now. I haven't thought it over enough to say if I agree or not, but I can definitely see the difference in what you're saying. Thanks.
Minnie
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 21:21:30
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls » crushedout, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 21:18:23
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 21:22:03
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » Minnie-Haha, posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 20:39:34
> 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.OK. I think I understand what you're saying a little better now. So are you a legal type?
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 21:26:29
In reply to cool (nm) » Minnie-Haha, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 21:21:30
Posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 22:32:39
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » so, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 21:22:03
>
> So are you a legal type?
>Funny that way. I learned to admire law, and learned some about it. As a young person, I didn't hold much regard for law.
Posted by Deneb on May 25, 2005, at 23:24:49
In reply to Dealing with trolls, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 12:38:01
I think this is a very tough issue. It seems like the definition of who is a troll is very dependent upon the views/culture of the majority. There is a certain newsgroup I sometimes frequent...people get labelled as trolls there if they try to talk people into living life. Those same people would probably be very welcome here at Babble.
Deneb (used to be Shy_Girl)
Posted by gardenergirl on May 25, 2005, at 23:29:57
In reply to Re: Dealing with trolls » Minnie-Haha, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 20:05:49
>
> 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.This is called an "extinction burst", and it's why folks often give up on schedules of reinforcement because they think it's not working. But once the extinction burst dissipates, extinction usually follows quickly if you continue to not reinforce the behavior.
And it does take a concentrated effort to avoid all reinforcement.
gg
Posted by TofuEmmy on May 26, 2005, at 8:20:55
In reply to Re: attribution errors, head pain, etc. » TofuEmmy, posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 20:48:46
You're welcome.
Posted by justyourlaugh on May 26, 2005, at 23:25:35
In reply to Re: Dealing with people, posted by Phillipa on May 25, 2005, at 20:51:38
where else can someone type their reality..because it is reality to them..
Posted by justyourlaugh on May 26, 2005, at 23:29:35
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » Phillipa, posted by justyourlaugh on May 26, 2005, at 23:25:35
i would not have imagined your thoughts would be so conformed...i will always respond to another if asked..where is your understanding?...have you misplaced your compassion? love hurts...
Posted by Phillipa on May 26, 2005, at 23:53:36
In reply to Re: Dealing with people, posted by Phillipa on May 25, 2005, at 20:51:38
Actually that was poor wording on my part. I answered the post while angry at the poster. I never treated any of my patients by ignoring them. Their let's say abusive language while they were not thinking straight is more what I meant. And then once their meds were working and they were able to converse normally we would never bring up any bad behavior that might have happened while they were out of reality. No I'm definitely not uncompassionate. I hope this makes more sense. If not Babble me and we'll talk more. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by justyourlaugh on May 27, 2005, at 0:01:10
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » Phillipa, posted by Phillipa on May 26, 2005, at 23:53:36
okay that was not fair...
i have come to understand i am difficult..
yet it sure would have been nice if someone along the way listened to me..
Posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 0:01:47
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » Phillipa, posted by justyourlaugh on May 26, 2005, at 23:25:35
Who me? Reality? Whose reality shall I play? I know several. Can you hum a few bars?
Posted by justyourlaugh on May 27, 2005, at 0:05:14
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » justyourlaugh, posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 0:01:47
i was just saying ..we all should be respected..regardless of our progress..regardless of our set backs..
Posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 0:15:05
In reply to so... » so, posted by justyourlaugh on May 27, 2005, at 0:05:14
> i was just saying ..we all should be respected..regardless of our progress..regardless of our set backs..
I know, I know. I wouldn't go as far as to should about it, but I am just humming along with you, my monotone melody droning to a beat of the realization that there is nowhere to go. Throbbing orbs of mud, bouncing on the surface of a slowly cooling rock to which we are bound, spinning around a dying mass of fusing hydrogen. Any melody, any beat makes the song seem so much more real.
Posted by justyourlaugh on May 27, 2005, at 0:19:21
In reply to Re: so... » justyourlaugh, posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 0:15:05
i sing like no one is listening..
loud...i am covered with mud..rolling rolling naked prints on endless trails of cotton..
Posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 0:27:28
In reply to Re: so..., posted by justyourlaugh on May 27, 2005, at 0:19:21
> i sing like no one is listening..
> loud...i am covered with mud..rolling rolling naked prints on endless trails of cotton.."but that's behind you now?" the interviewer asked.
"Maybe if you hire me and treat me fairly," I hummed to myself as I nodded an affirmative lie intended to avoid breaking the expensive vase in which he stored his songs.
Posted by justyourlaugh on May 27, 2005, at 0:30:30
In reply to Re: so..., posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 0:27:28
my feet expelled alot of blood from the broken glass..i will apply pressure..i will sibmitt..or maybe i will just pretend..
Posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 0:37:33
In reply to Re: so..., posted by justyourlaugh on May 27, 2005, at 0:30:30
> my feet expelled alot of blood from the broken glass..i will apply pressure..i will sibmitt..or maybe i will just pretend..
I can apply pressure, if it will stop you from bleeding on the new carpet. Or you could go bleed outside.
Posted by Phillipa on May 27, 2005, at 16:55:24
In reply to Re: Dealing with people » Phillipa, posted by justyourlaugh on May 27, 2005, at 0:01:10
Justourlaugh, In what way did noone listen to you? What happened? I would always listen to you. I might need some clarification of what you mean at times but I would try to understand and help in any way I could. Fondly, Phillipa
This is the end of the 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.