Don't Feed the Trolls!

[AncapFTW]

I was concidering creating a "don't feed the trolls" topic too, but you did a way better job then I could have. Thank you.

[J. D. Stembal]

This article is related...

 

"How To Spot A Sociopath"

http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath

 

Thank you for posting this, Nathan. I find this resource valuable. Do you know who wrote it?

[_LiveFree_]

Thank you for posting this, Nathan. I find this resource valuable. Do you know who wrote it?

Considering it's a wiki article, I'd imagine lots of people did. There are resource links at the bottom of the article.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath

 

I found this one to be an interesting read.

[Kevin Beal]

There is still a problem, however. Though the rep system may have blocked trolls from having their posts viewed, some of these individuals are still allowed to post, and new and/or curious members might engage one of these trolls unknowingly, allowing whatever behavior the troll was ostracized for to spread. While some users might achieve a relatively small amount of negative reputation, it should be obvious that some users will never come back from their poor reputation, as it is well deserved. What do you think about allowing the system to permanently ban certain accounts and/or IP addresses once they have reached a certain level of negative rep?

Yea, that's an interesting problem.

 

On the one hand, there is the strong possibility of sucking people into exactly the kind of situations that got the person's posts hidden in the first place, which is really shitty. That kind of stuff can easily ruin a person's day.

 

However, and this is just a thought I have and is proof of nothing, but I wonder if maybe it's a good thing to have trolls around..? Trolls, not altogether unjustly point out what people may be avoiding talking about. I think it's an opportunity to learn more about ourselves and each other. Dealing with trolls on the boards, and confronting things I didn't like about myself is what got me thinking about and developing the ideas for the article. When things are totally easy and there are no sources of considerable frustration, then I think we only get a certain side of people.

 

I actually feel a whole lot of compassion for the trolls and the people feeding them, at least, when I really think about it objectively. I actually appreciate seeing the more snarky or less-than-noble aspects of the personalities of the people on these boards who share my values and are a lot like me in a lot of ways. People are much more interesting when you get a bigger picture of their personalities. I like seeing that people have weaknesses, insecurities, challenges of their own, and I'm really proud to see people explore these things honestly.

 

It's prompted me to ask myself important questions, like:

• How do I handle admitting fault with people I loathe?
• In terms of the interactions I seek out, tolerate and reject, what do I tell myself and what do my actions actually show?
• How do I deal with being slandered?
• How do we help other people who are stuck in exchanges with trolls?
• How much control do I really have with someone who is in denial?

Maybe what people need to do is engage the trolls themselves and hit their heads against the wall repeatedly until they drop unconscious or they learn to stop hurting themselves in that way. Maybe that's the best way for them to learn that lesson.

 

If someone advocates violence, or is just the worst kind of person, then my personal opinion is that they should get banned from the forums, but people who are dishonest, provocative, hypocritical, I don't think so. Perhaps I'll change my mind about that in the future; just some thoughts I had.

[Brad Sherard]

Another issues with engaging a troll to set the record straight for others sake is others reading it will not just read the explicit words one writes to refute a troll. These readers will notice that fact that the writer of the rebuttal is participating with a liar as if they are not lying. To engage in debate with someone is to acknowledge a common shared goal, an interest in truth and a willingness to use the proper means to achieve it, namely reason and evidence. The very act of participation betrays those who would pretend as if there was an actual debate.

 

When one engages a liar in a "debate", one is accepting their lie, that they are not in fact using people as a pawns in their deception. So to act in the interest of what is true, anyone who contests them in any way other than to point out that they are a liar is to participate in their illusion, accepting the lie that the troll is not a liar.

 

People reading this interaction may not consciously see this but they will get it deep down. They will see that two people are engaged in a dishonest discussion. They will see the troll's victim claim defense of truth while ignoring truth.

 

What will people think of this blind "defender of truth"? Will they bother to consider the arguments of a person willing to participate with a liar?

[J. D. Stembal]

Considering it's a wiki article, I'd imagine lots of people did. There are resource links at the bottom of the article.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath

 

I found this one to be an interesting read.

 

I'm extremely interested in the term "predator stare", which is uninterrupted eye-contact. I don't think I've ever seen this other than in drunken people and in that case I could tell they aren't focused on me, but at a spot in mid-air between us. Most people immediately look away when they see that I am looking right in their eyes. Heck, some people won't even acknowledge my presence when I am looking directly at them while standing in front of them, walking toward them. In public, I generally do a radar scan of my surroundings so I can make eye contact with the people looking in my direction. Awareness of your surroundings is a great skill to have. It's an instinctual survival mechanism.

[NumberSix]

This article is related...

 

"How To Spot A Sociopath"

http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath

 

I doubt a true sociopath would post an attack online.  My experience with sociopaths is they project a friendly persona in public.  They will play the victim to gain sympathy.  The ugliness comes out in private.

[_LiveFree_]

I'm extremely interested in the term "predator stare", which is uninterrupted eye-contact. I don't think I've ever seen this other than in drunken people and in that case I could tell they aren't focused on me, but at a spot in mid-air between us. Most people immediately look away when they see that I am looking right in their eyes. Heck, some people won't even acknowledge my presence when I am looking directly at them while standing in front of them, walking toward them. In public, I generally do a radar scan of my surroundings so I can make eye contact with the people looking in my direction. Awareness of your surroundings is a great skill to have. It's an instinctual survival mechanism.

 

What interests you about it?

[thebeardslastcall]

I wonder not just about the issue of feeding trolls, but with those that are fed by trolls. People give away money because they get something out of it. People feed trolls because they think the troll is going to give them something they aren't getting elsewhere. What does this troll feeder need that non-trolls aren't giving to them? Is it a healthy or unhealthy desire that drives the engagement? It's easy to say don't feed the trolls and to make a case for why feeding trolls is bad, but what happens to the troll feeders and their needs that led them to such feeding tendencies? Do they simply not know better or do they long for some level of interaction, even if it's totally nonsensical, that they feel they aren't getting from others? How can we feed the troll feeders to stop them from feeding the trolls and to help them engage in more "healthy" or productive activities and to solve any issues they may have?

I can hear the troll whispering into my ear now "Well if he wasn't feeding my trollism he'd be feeding an even worse troll, I'm doing people a favor by engaging the troll feeders with a higher level of trollism".

Evil socialist then whispers "This is discrimination against trolls, oh the injustice!"
Evil political libertarian then whispers "The evil anarchists are trying to take away our right to feed trolls!"
Evil conservative then whispers "We should imprison all the trolls for their sins!"
Evil religious person then whispers "But if we don't feed the trolls, how will they eat? What you do to the least among us you do to Jesus himself."

[David Ottinger]

Great post Kevin.  I think you nailed the pattern quite accurately.  

 

 

Some thoughts I had on the topic:

When I find I'm dealing with a troll, there is a strong desire to mock their position, unless they're the type of troll that is purposely utilizing Poe's Law for their own joke.  e.g. Going to SJW forums and pretending to be trans just to tell feminists to check their privilege before they talk about how they're victims of the patriarchy.  Essentially, that troll is pointing out the hypocrisy within a group.  Other people see this and realize just how absurd the paradigm is, thus the lurkers head for the hills to get as far away from that train wreck of an ideology.   But, those sort of trolls are rare.


Overall, my point is that comedy is a good outlet for presenting different perspectives in a fun way.  And sometimes the jester needs the towns fool to make a point.  

Of course, it can get out of hand and just turn into a mud slinging contest.  
 

[Kevin Beal]

Lol.
 

I wonder not just about the issue of feeding trolls, but with those that are fed by trolls. People give away money because they get something out of it. People feed trolls because they think the troll is going to give them something they aren't getting elsewhere. What does this troll feeder need that non-trolls aren't giving to them? Is it a healthy or unhealthy desire that drives the engagement? It's easy to say don't feed the trolls and to make a case for why feeding trolls is bad, but what happens to the troll feeders and their needs that led them to such feeding tendencies? Do they simply not know better or do they long for some level of interaction, even if it's totally nonsensical, that they feel they aren't getting from others? How can we feed the troll feeders to stop them from feeding the trolls and to help them engage in more "healthy" or productive activities and to solve any issues they may have?

Yea, great questions.
 
Thinking about it now, in order for someone to keep feeding a troll they have to be getting something out of it. And if their stated goals (e.x. "setting the record straight") don't get achieved, but they continue anyway, then the real reason must be something unstated, presumably something subconscious.
 
I don't know, right? But at the risk of projecting, I think that for most people, it's a compulsion repetition sort of thing, or a 'Simon the Boxer' in Real-Time Relationships lingo.
 
From the book (page 80)

Why is it that we are so inevitably drawn to re-create that which we most fear?

To understand that, let us look at the parable of a boxer named Simon.

As a child, Simon is subjected to physical abuse. He is slapped, pushed, punched and beaten.

Since he is a child, he is helpless to resist these attacks. How, then, can he survive them?

Well, since clearly he cannot master his environment, or those who are abusing him, that leaves only one choice for poor Simon.
Simon must master himself.

He cannot master his attackers – or their attacks – he can only master his reaction to their attacks.

He has no control over the external world – he can only have control over his internal world.

All children take pleasure in exercising increasing levels of control over their environment. If control over their external environment is impossible, however, they have no choice but to start exercising increasing control over their internal environment: their thoughts and feelings.

This is all quite logical, and something that we would all wish for, as the best way to survive an impossible situation.

If we cannot get rid of the source of our pain, what we most desire is to get rid of the pain itself.

 
Absolutely brilliant book. If you haven't read it, then do it already or else I'm going to continually harass you until you do!
 
Bullies and trolls exist in many families, and if not there then almost certainly in public school. If it's an impossible situation (double bind) then as a kid who can't practically avoid these situations, (s)he would have to master their internal state.
 
Continuing from page 82

Simon has access to a drug that can instantly make all of his anxiety go away. This drug can restore his sense of control, eliminate his bottomless terror of voluntary interactions, and place him right back in familiar territory where he feels efficacious, powerful and in control.

That drug, of course, is violence.

Simon finds that when he leaves the world of voluntary interactions and re-enters the world of violence and abuse, his anxiety vanishes. His sense of efficacy and control returns, and he feels mastery over his own world again.

Like an army that does not want to be disbanded, in the absence of external enemies, Simon must create them.

 

Doing battle with the trolls offers people a sense of control, and in order to feel a sense of control, they seek it out, perhaps subconsciously.

 

I used to provoke people who I knew were trolls in the youtube comment section of videos I liked so that I could flex my considerable rational (and snarky) muscles and feel a sense of control. So, at least in one case (mine) this goes some way into explaining the draw that people have to feed trolls.

 

As for what we can do to help people who have that draw, I think it's complicated. However, I believe I can speak from some experience.

 

I think the first thing is that they need to recognize that they feel anxiety or dread or angst. Some people are so used to feeling that way that they are unaware that they are even anxious. Having an awareness of where the tension is in your body, and reminding yourself to relax is important. I don't think you can get very far without developing that sense first.

 

Then when they are aware of their own anxiety, I think they need to explore what the anxiety reveals about the core beliefs they hold. The beliefs they have about themselves and the world that they are not even aware that they believe. For example, if I really ought to apologize or admit to making an error, and I have a core belief that doing so makes me bad in some way, like it's shameful or admitting defeat in some catastrophic way, then the mere thought of needing to apologize will fill me with anxiety. "oh crap! That troll may have just gotten checkmate!" I think to myself.

 

Through exploring that stuff, preferably with other people who are invested in your success as a thinker and a person (a therapist?), will get you thinking more objectively about these things, thereby gaining perspective on how you are using your most vital resource: your time.

 

It may be helpful to connect with the child they once were who was originally in this situation, but could not avoid it. To feel the anger, grief, whatever they need to see the situation for what it was, and have absolutely no desire to put themselves through that again.

 

Also, I think that the positive interactions that you have available to you, the kind where you actually connect with other people in a real way, the less interesting trolls are.

 

That is my opinion. I'm interested to hear what other people think about this.

[J. D. Stembal]

What interests you about it?

 

Did I not already explain? Very few, if any, people will look at me when I make eye contact with them. If I catch them looking at me, they will, almost without fail, look away immediately. I have never seen the predator stare in the wild, so to speak. In one on one conversations, if someone looks away or turns away from me, I know that they wish to disengage from the conversation or are uncomfortable in some way with what I am saying. Eye contact belies interest and curiosity.

[Lingum]

By "troll", I mean a person who speaks with the intention that you believe they are interested in the truth and personal integrity in order to advance an agenda which is anti-rational. Someone who benefits from your commitment to the truth while making up the rules of a debate as they go along (i.e. a philosophy counterfeiter).

This is not what troll means. Here is an accurate definition of how the term is popularly used today:

 

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

I find it fascinating that you should choose to redefine the term troll, but make no mention of it. Trolling has no relation to philosophy. Notice also, there's nothing inherently anti-rational as it is described above. It's devoid of moral content. What defines trolling is its intent and the deception required to achieve it.

 

I always become skeptical when I see people redefine terms. It's a common tactic used to take advantage of a terms emotionally loaded nature, without the rigorous standards necessary to apply the term; a sleight of hand. In this case, what is described, is what this community has formerly called sophistry. Hence, fascinating. I can't help but wonder whether this new interest in trolls is directly related to recent forum events. If the standard for branding someone a troll is anti-rationality, you should be upfront about who you consider trolls so that others can judge their arguments on the merit of their rationality alone.

 

Furthermore, what seperates your definition of trolling from someone who has defenses? You state that you've engaged in these behaviors yourself. I think many people here have that same experience, and were lucky enough that someone was willing to engage with them despite this, to help them out.

[Kevin Beal]

I find it fascinating that you should choose to redefine the term troll, but make no mention of it.

Actually, that was the first thing I did. I paid special attention to making it clear that this was how I was using my terms. Specifically I said:

 

 

By "troll", I mean a person who speaks with the intention that you believe they are interested in the truth and personal integrity in order to advance an agenda which is anti-rational. Someone who benefits from your commitment to the truth while making up the rules of a debate as they go along (i.e. a philosophy counterfeiter).

I was not claiming to use the popular definition. I'm not attached to the word "troll" itself, but with the definition I provided. I don't care what we call it.

[_LiveFree_]

Did I not already explain? Very few, if any, people will look at me when I make eye contact with them. If I catch them looking at me, they will, almost without fail, look away immediately. I have never seen the predator stare in the wild, so to speak. In one on one conversations, if someone looks away or turns away from me, I know that they wish to disengage from the conversation or are uncomfortable in some way with what I am saying. Eye contact belies interest and curiosity.

 

You're stating your experiences. You didn't ask any questions, so I'm not sure what you're looking for. And just to be clear, the article wasn't talking about "eye contact". It was referring to an intense and sustained eye contact, which is fairly creepy. 

[MysterionMuffles]

Engaging trolls is a strange form of cruelty for the narcissistic troll themselves. Because by enabling their crappy behaviour and letting them believe that they're ACTUALLY having fun trolling you, you let them become worse and worse as a human being.

[_LiveFree_]

 

referenced around the 1 hour 12 minute mark

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/10/internet_trolls_dark_tetrad_personality_defects/

 

 

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

[LibertarianSocialist]

Hey guys, just climbing out from under my bridge.

 

But seriously, we should define trolling by the presence of illogical & erroneous arguments. Upon request, a person should be made to substantiate his claims with empirical evidence or logical proofs. If he cannot do so, he may be deemed to be trolling.

 

The presenting of inflammatory arguments, if backed by objective fact, should under no condition be considered trolling. Any labeling of such dissent as 'trolling' amounts to little more than the suppression of antagonistic ideas.

[Danske]

Reasons 2 and 3 seem pretty legitimate for me. They've been good sparring practice for moi.

[Kevin Beal]

Reasons 2 and 3 seem pretty legitimate for me. They've been good sparring practice for moi.

Are you presenting a differing opinion for consideration, or are you simply thinking out loud?

 

Maybe I'm not included in the number you would like to consider your opinion, but if I am, I provided some reasoning as to why I included reasons 2 & 3. If you would like me to consider your counter opinion, I'd just ask that you make at least some reference to that reasoning.

 

Otherwise I'm inclined to think you are simply thinking out loud without any real purpose. Nor can I use any of what you are saying to arrive at my own conclusions.

 

Does that make sense?

[kathryn]

Great post!

 

You are not going to convince a troll that they are wrong.

 
But it's worse than that, because now they have developed sophisticated rationalizations in response to your arguments, fantastically false premises that make them more effective trolls in the future. It may even be that the better your arguments, the worse they get. The sharks now have developed the taste for humans.

 

Absolutely. You may be familiar, but this phenomenon, the backfire effect, has been studied, and it's so dangerous. 

 

 

Punishment

 

There are infinitely better things to do with one's time than engage in something futile and endlessly frustrating, so why then? I think it's because we want to punish them.

 

It reminds me of dysfunctional romantic relationships where they claim it's over, but the more they want to punish their partner, the more you get the sense that it's not over. Or when you go on a date with someone fresh out of a breakup and they want to talk about how terrible their ex was. You immediately get that something there is unresolved. When you are truly done with a relationship, you are just simply done, and that's all there is. You have no desire to enact punishment.

 

When we engage trolls, I don't think we are really seeing the person on the other end of the internet. Maybe we are displacing our anger, just the same as the troll. And maybe are at risk for our own rationalizations.

 

I notice that for myself, I have a loud part of me that would love to just say "to hell with admitting fault! Not if I'm dealing with a troll!"

 

As soon as you start justifying your own lack of integrity, I don't think there is any meaningful difference at that point. And there is a lot of energy pulling a lot of people in that direction. If you were raised in a family that had bullies and trolls, then I think it's something you need to be especially careful of.

 

This part really resonated with me. In RTR, Stef makes the analogy of going to a bad restaurant. If the food is terrible, and you are unhappy with the service, you don't yell and scream about it, you just never go back. It's the same with one's parents. If they abused you and refuse to discuss, apologize, or even recognize that something was wrong, the only way to "punish" them is to walk away. It's removing the reward, which is the earned privilege of your company. The reward for the troll is attention, acknowledgement, and being seen. Take that away, and they no longer have any power. 

[Danske]

Are you presenting a differing opinion for consideration, or are you simply thinking out loud?

 

Maybe I'm not included in the number you would like to consider your opinion, but if I am, I provided some reasoning as to why I included reasons 2 & 3. If you would like me to consider your counter opinion, I'd just ask that you make at least some reference to that reasoning.

 

Otherwise I'm inclined to think you are simply thinking out loud without any real purpose. Nor can I use any of what you are saying to arrive at my own conclusions.

 

Does that make sense?

 

2 it's an open forum. You always engage them in public. Maybe the troll replied in a fallacious way that caused someone else (a viewer) to think they had 'won' (i.e. made a good point), by replying until they reduce themselves to the nonsense at the bare bones of their argument. You may enlighten others to their tactics.

 

3. You compare troll battles to chess. Well, If another person breaks the chess rules, they are disqualified. They don't win, the people watching the chess match don't think the guy who cheated 'won', he is ostracized. If the aim of a troll is to cause confusion and spread lies (which they can do, as the rules of engagement are totally different and open-ended compared to a chess match), you spray them with the truth. Which is important because as I mentioned before, it's a public forum.

 

A little tip, if you want reasoning, ask. Be curious. Don't do this weak dancing around the point trying to put me in a box as someone who just thinks out loud when we've never communicated before.

[DaVinci]

Number 3 is interesting to me. Sparring with trolls. I have two thoughts that pop into my mind about this idea. One is that it is probably unhealthy and pointless. It's time spent better somewhere else. Especially given how much time I know I have wasted debating people who have no interest in truth, or what I'm going through in life, or who really care about me. 

 

The second thought, and I know this might sound strange, but I can't learn certain concepts as easily without the challenge of opposition. In other words I can read a statistics book, or be taught statistics by a teacher, but I won't "get it" till I run into the statistics problems and challenge them, and conquer them. I learn more this way than just passively listening to a teacher or reading a book. 

 

So in certain instances trolls actually challenge me to understand my position better. Their unrelenting-ness raises questions I wouldn't have asked myself and I have to reexamine my views on a subject. 

 

Now of course I would prefer a teacher to a troll, but sometimes there are no teachers. There aren't even any peers to turn to who may be in the same boat as you, or have the same thoughts or confusion on a particular subject. I guess you could say it's like, "Well, I need a hammer, but I don't have that. But I do have an old soup can. I can use that!" I'm in the wild and I have to use what I've got.

 

I think trolls, in a market sense, are filling a niche. There aren't enough teachers and peers to engage with and challenge us in an empathetic, honest, way. At least not ones that are in the open and easily accessible. I think trolls as a whole are a challenge to get better at communicating with each other.

 

Just my thoughts on this. I'm open to what anyone thinks about what I'm saying.  

[shirgall]

Because the cultural narrative requires them to live under bridges and therefore subject to continual oppression, it is no longer inoffensive to use the term "trolls". We are now require to refer to them as "cognitive dissidents".

 

Please make a note of it.

 

[Puck2.0]

Great article Kevin, thought I'd add this

 

 

Great article Kevin, thought I'd add this

 

Do you also have a map of how Trolls interact?

Clearly our friend wasn't talking about humans.

[Puck2.0]

I only know trolls from tairytails, i thaught this was supposed to be a serious philosophers site.

I obviously have not understood something. That means i have an opportunity to learn something.

Could you please give a more detailed description of a ''troll''?

So that i may recognize one when confronted with since i never actualy met one.

 

Thank you for your confusing, post and succes with investegation of the subject.

Please keep us informed in case of progress of your investegation.

 

[Kevin Beal]

I only know trolls from tairytails, i thaught this was supposed to be a serious philosophers site.

I obviously have not understood something. That means i have an opportunity to learn something.

Could you please give a more detailed description of a ''troll''?

So that i may recognize one when confronted with since i never actualy met one.

 

Thank you for your confusing, post and succes with investegation of the subject.

Please keep us informed in case of progress of your investegation.

Hi Puck! Thanks for the question

 

The definition of a troll that I'm using is not necessarily one that other people use, so thanks for the opportunity to clarify!

 

The definition of a troll that I'm using is kinda like being a concern troll, or an intellectual bully, to give you a rough approximation. This being in response to events that were occurring on the boards at the time of my post. I wanted to describe a particular kind of personality, and I used the term "troll" so that I could use common phrases that people already know and can relate to – specifically: "don't feed the trolls", being that the conclusion I wanted people to draw was that they ought not engage. My thinking has developed some since posting, but I still think the description and the conclusion are still mostly right. And I think it does belong under the category "troll".

 

To actually answer your question, I mean a person who appeals to shared values in order to advance an ulterior agenda in order to frustrate people. This is a person who appeals to your dedication to truth and integrity – to take a typical example – by saying that their perspective is a more responsible approach to gaining clarity or achieving virtue (e.x. "if you cared about philosophy, you wouldn't think that"). That alone is good and is what you would want out of a forum whose primary topic of interest is philosophy, but some people aren't actually interested in the truth of what they are saying, but are meeting some emotional need. The trolls I'm talking about taking advantage of other people's commitment and interest in the truth in order specifically to relieve themselves of certain negative emotions in the short term.

 

There is a psychological phenomenon which may have a name that I haven't yet learned, but it's possible to cause other people to feel the way you do by denying yourself that emotional experience. For example, when you feel anxious but do not acknowledge your own anxiety, the anxiety doesn't just go away; it just goes out of conscious awareness and manifests as anxious cues, like avoiding eye contact, fidgeting, things like that. When other people see the mixed signals, picking up on their calm front and their subtly anxious behavior, it causes them to feel uneasy and anxious, unsure of what's going on. The same thing happens with other negative emotions like irritation that comes out as passive aggressive slights at your expense, which are obviously irritating to get from people.

 

The reason I bring it up is because there is a particular result that comes about from interacting with the kind of personality I'm trying to describe. Specifically, the result is frustration, irritation and futility. If people were only engaging each other with reasoned arguments, evidence and due consideration, it would make little sense that people would end up frustrating each other. If it's true, it's true. That's not anybody's fault or to anyone's credit that a fact is a fact. So, why then does it end up this way? I'm trying to answer that question.

 

I think the answer is that if someone persists, over and over and over, despite not getting anywhere in terms of changing minds, then the goal is almost certainly not to change minds. So what is the goal? If the goal is to frustrate people, then it would explain that.

 

It's like how you sometimes hear that some troll is just trying to make everyone else feel as miserable as they do. It's similar to the way that babies get their needs met: by provoking their own distress in the parent via crying.

 

I do take several premises for granted, without establishing that they are grounded in empirical reality. I expect that other people will take issue with them if there is a problem. Specifically, I take the personality itself as a given and then draw conclusions from that. How that relates to philosophy is establishing a metaphysics (the properties and features of objects) with regard to the issue, offering an epistemology (how to determine truth from falsehood) and drawing conclusions about how people ought to act with that knowledge (aesthetics). I don't however provide syllogistic proof of my claims, and I rush through some of the rigorous philosophical work necessary to provide a full account. My secondary goal was to start a discussion where errors and grey areas can be sussed out.

 

It certainly would be a shame if a group focused on philosophy just indulged in confirmation bias in order to explain the world around them. Ironic too.

 

Does that help you to understand where I'm coming from?

[Puck2.0]

Yes it says exactly were you are coming from and i think that you are very fortunate in this life to be able to express yourself in such delicate and sophisticated ways.

In my opinion people like you are voices of reason that should be respected and listened to, one must take his own approuch of understanding such knowledge and should always be open to discuss a subject without presumptive ideas.

 

Now my question is when you comparise a troll with a baby and call its behavior distress, should one say a troll is in distress by needs of survival and help or is it in distress by not being able to carry the abundance of needs to survive?

 

Thank you for your honest responce and i would appreciate if you could share an answer to my question.

Since i have a feeling this might be the root to the problem of the subject.

[Kevin Beal]

Now my question is when you comparise a troll with a baby and call its behavior distress, should one say a troll is in distress by needs of survival and help or is it in distress by not being able to carry the abundance of needs to survive?

I don't understand the question, unfortunately. I didn't see the connection between trolls and babies, and neither did I see the difference between both options you gave. Hopefully I can still answer your question:

 

I am convinced that trolls are depressed people and are frustrated with their lives. Experiencing enough irritating and disappointing events can contribute to a sense that life is stacked against you, that you can't get what you want out of life and feelings of impotence, despair and angst. Some people do not respond to this situation in a healthy way. By that I mean that they are avoiding their emotional distress and the beliefs which contribute to that distress. This is what I mean by meeting emotional needs: they are denying the disappointment, despair and impotence that they feel, and in so doing provoke those feelings in other people. (The need is "I must not feel this").

 

This is how I think it works:

 

They put themselves in situations where they must defend untenable positions. A person interested in the truth would recognize when they are holding false beliefs and make a course correction, but if admitting fault could contribute again to their feelings of impotence, then they don't want to do that, so they will double down or manipulate or do whatever they can to avoid the frustration of being wrong again about important issues. In their avoidance, they provoke that feeling of impotence in people who engage them and would otherwise correct their errors for them, because their reason and evidence won't work to change the person's mind.

 

Psychological projection is the emotional equivalent of the bronze age tradition of putting the tribe's sins into a sacrificial goat that they drive into the wilderness to die. Projection is a step up from denial in terms of sophistication. It takes the form of taking the things you deny about yourself and attributing those qualities to other people who you then reject. They can maintain a certain amount of distance from their feelings that way. When they provoke their own feelings of impotence in other people, they can then reject their own impotence that they see in other people.

 

I believe that this is actually so common as to warrant generalizations like "crazy people want to infect sane people with their crazy so that they feel less insane by comparison" and "they want to make sane people ineffective since their interests are diametrically opposed and that's the only way they can win."

 

Does that answer your question?

[Puck2.0]

Yes it does and i will try to take it to the absolute efficiency level of my PoV.

 

When progress is the psycological source of excistance it is imposible not to be confronted with obstacles.

To overcome them one must project them to be able to take an objective PoV and take the progressive subject after delicate evaluation.

 

Could you say i have been succesfull in underlining your post with pure level of integrity and efficiency?

[Kevin Beal]

When progress is the psycological source of excistance it is imposible not to be confronted with obstacles.

To overcome them one must project them to be able to take an objective PoV and take the progressive subject after delicate evaluation.

 

Could you say i have been succesfull in underlining your post with pure level of integrity and efficiency?

Honestly, I couldn't tell you.

 

You seem to be using terms I'm unfamiliar with, and the ones I am familiar with are difficult to parse without more context. Specifically, I have no idea what a "psychological source of existence" or "progressive subject" could mean, or how you are using the term "project" here.

 

I don't know the reason, but I've had a very difficult time trying to understand your writing. I would really appreciate it if you spoke to me as if I were a child, not relying on technical jargon – just speaking plainly and simply.

 

I take it from a previous reply that you see an error in my thinking. I'm happy just granting that you perfectly understand my position, if you wanted to move forward with that.

[Puck2.0]

I'm sorry but i find this ''fantasy'' subject rather time consuming.

And seems to be a bottomless pit that can absorb an endless amount of energy that could better be projected at more realistic subjects.

It brings me joy to see that we have 1 opinion in common, we can laugh about it so apparntly we share a certain level of energy concerning the fantasy subject.

With that stated i'd love to end the conversation and look forward to maybe even a bigger accomplishment in the future when this common energy is applied.

Farewell and take care. 

[Kevin Beal]

I'm sorry but i find this ''fantasy'' subject rather time consuming.

And seems to be a bottomless pit that can absorb an endless amount of energy that could better be projected at more realistic subjects.

It brings me joy to see that we have 1 opinion in common, we can laugh about it so apparntly we share a certain level of energy concerning the fantasy subject.

With that stated i'd love to end the conversation and look forward to maybe even a bigger accomplishment in the future when this common energy is applied.

Okie doke!

 

Before you go, I was just curious – because of you ambiguous word choice – did you actually think that the topic was about the kind of trolls from fairy tales who live under bridges and are similar to ogres? Or do you mean to draw a comparison, for effect, suggesting a similar level of relevance to philosophy that actually talking about trolls and ogres would have? Or have I misunderstood completely?

 

I keep wondering if you mean to offend when you describe my writing as unphilosophical, using phrases like those I've highlighted above. You keep getting down votes on your posts and I find engaging you increasingly confusing, rather than clarifying, so perhaps your intentions are to undermine me or my approach to philosophy. In which case, I wish you would just state it openly. Having to guess is just kind of annoying.

 

If I've misunderstood, I apologize. I've become a bit cynical over the years.

 

Take care

[Puck2.0]

Thank you 

 

It's not that i'm disturbed by ''cynism'' i just couldn't catogerise it.

Maybe you could enlighten me with the opposite description of cynism?

[Carl Green]

I only know trolls from tairytails, i thaught this was supposed to be a serious philosophers site.

 

I knew just from this line that I wasn't really gonna care for Puck's input.

 

"oh, i thought you were better than that"

 

BS approach to connection, I'll pass.