Study: Internet Trolls are not nice people
By Chris Mooney, Slate
In the past few years, the science of Internet trollology has made some strides. Last year, for instance, we learned that by hurling insults and inciting discord in online comment sections, so-called Internet trolls (who are frequently anonymous) have a polarizing effect on audiences, leading to politicization, rather than deeper understanding of scientific topics.
That’s bad, but it’s nothing compared with what a new psychology paper has to say about the personalities of trolls themselves. The research, conducted by Erin Buckels of the University of Manitoba and two colleagues, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).
It is hard to underplay the results: The study found correlations, sometimes quite significant, between these traits and trolling behavior. What’s more, it also found a relationship between all Dark Tetrad traits (except for narcissism) and the overall time that an individual spent, per day, commenting on the Internet.
Most notably are the lies of the GorBots that man made global warming is a fact. It is not a fact, it is not settled science.
Then America’s Liar and Chief comes out the other day and said it is settled science.
It is not he lied again.
This is where much of the division comes from, the Brown Shirt tactics of the Gorbot liberal extremists.
Agreed CJ, the Warmistas post some of the nastiest comments out there to any discourse whatsoever.
“Brown Shirt tactics of the Gorbot liberal extremists.”
Invoking Nazi imagery.
CJ, you are a troll.
I believe this article was placed here by Kaye as a not so subliminal hint for some of the posters here at the News.
CJ McCoy has a serious iron-y deficiency. It’s hilarious! Psst… They’re talking about YOU! ;)
This study didnt have to go far to find the subjects (people) to test their hypothesis. There is some serious mental health issues out there amongst the contributors to this blog.
Instead of “Comments”, this section should be called the “Ad hominen Attack Free For All”, i.e.:
-brownshirts
– Gorbots
– warmistas
– libtards
-teabaggers
etc.
WOW , Are people this down in this town, I understand feelings, but not necessary to call people names,LETS GET ALONG ,WERE ALL ON THIS PLANET TOGETHER,Lets work together ,and solve the problem, FOR every problem ,there is a solution,TOGETHER WE STAND,HAND IN HAND,
This article caught my eye so I decided to scroll down to see what people were saying, as I rarely read the comments anymore because it is always the same people sparing against each other trying to puff themselves up. It doesn’t matter what the article is about, all they want to do is put someone else down if they don’t agree with what they have to say. Pretty sad if you ask me. If people would find a good cause (organization) and volunteer for it, they might see that there is good in life and it might change their attitudes and life.
Hey CJ & AB! That’s all you have… “GorBots?” “Warmistas?” Really, still just calling people names and spreading your hysteria? You know that is the sign of a loosing argument, right?
“Ignorance is bliss, unless you’re surrounded by it”…
so much for the peace, quiet, and serenity of mountain life. . .
Mountain life is a life to get, as in “get a life”. . . and Kae is not spelled Kaye. . .
rock4tahoe, do you not read?
Or are you a liar by omission of fact?
Whichever, you are accountable for your deceit.
AS CLEARLY STATED – The climate computer models, all of them that you ‘believers’ point to. All of them are wrong.
If that is not the case, produce one. Or shut up with your deceit.
You’re right Gary. I knew it was not spelled Kay, so I just shot from the hip on the spelling of her name when I posted.
CJ, just because the article is about you, doesn’t mean you can change the subject.
Cj, climate is complex, models do not account well for all variables. However, anthropogenic climate change is the universally accepted explanation for observed climate patterns for the past century. it seems you disagree, so can you name a national or major scientific institution to back up your position?
Read:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
I answered your question.
Now answer mine. Define climate, using a number and a unit of time.
CJ. Still with the name calling? Try the comprehensive global climate models at: The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Oxford, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in British Columbia, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton. And there are more.
cosa,
I’ll give you credit – you sent some interesting info. I’m going to study it tonight.
Cj and cosa. There is more to climate models and co2 than described in cosa’s link.
Here is a paper by Hans von storch, he is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg
http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
Gordon. Storch says, “Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more — and by the end of this century, mind you.” He is also very concerned about the acidification of the Oceans due to CO2.
2013 was the 4th Warmest year on record.
Great, I hope you start with the definition of climate.
Rock, In my opinion, Dr. Storch is one of the more objective non-political scientisits discussing climate change. He may be pointing out some issues with the climate models, but in 2013 he also stated that “We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it.” I saw his comments on acidification of the oceans, frightening.
Gordon. CJ is a proponent of fossil fuels and status quo.
just the two things our atmosphere needs less of