Interesting post. One of the most surprising aspect of trolling is how some of my favorite Substackers are overly sensitive to or tolerant of trolls - they either engage with them or take what the trolls say seriously or even personally - as if they don’t understand they’re being trolled.
Perhaps, from a reader’s point of view, the worst type of trolling is when the troll makes dozens of comments, usually in response to other people’s comments (as if he’s walking around a room, bumping into random people, looking for a fight).
But I think the worst result of trolling is how it prompts some substacks to surreptitiously censor their comment sections (ie TFP).
Will have to check out this Greenwood and his book - ta for the tip.
Personally, I virtually never know if I'm being trolled or - worse - I'm the one trolling.
The reason for this, barring intentions, is that the techniques described are just more vulgar and simplified forms and descriptions of classical rhetorical ones.
(Appeal to authority: I've taught rhetorics & speechcraft.)
The problem is of course that I can claim the above, you can't check, I can't really prove or convince (barring doxing) and virtually any challenge put to me I can solve using a search engine/AI to dig up the terminology or some snippet of factoid about Gorgias or Cicero or whomever (do we count name-dropping as a variant of appeal to authority?).
Tangential thinking:
I fear that the term trolling has been overused to the same point of absurdity, so that now all kind of text that's not a hymnal of praise may be accused of being trolling; I see it a lot in our domestic political debates over here. Politicians, old media and pundits all accuse people commenting or opposing their claims for being "Russian bots" or "paid trolls", instead of responding to being challenged.
It's very reminiscent of how Abrahamic clergy of all three branches may respond with "Heresy!" or "Apostasy!" to being challenged (Christians not so much these days, for better and worse), and there's a very strong argument to be made that modern propaganda, rhetorics and thus also trolling all draw upon the old inquisitorial manuals on how to interview suspects.
I wonder if teaching ethics, logic and rhetorics would improve debate, or just create better trolls.
Maybe the progression of things is the key. I've seen a discussion go from nice, civil replies, to you're a complete idiot.
I vaguely remember having a disagreement with you a long time back, but it was just that: we disagreed and moved on, like real human beings.
Do I know for sure you're not a troll or an AI engaged in some very subtle troll guidance? No I don't. Not 100%, but I have a good hunch you're genuine, though having a beer together would solve that question. That's where we are.
Greenwood says, in the beginning of trying to change someone's mind, it's better to be nice than right. Because being right, when someone isn't ready for it, is not going to work, it's only going to anger them.
That is true, I'd say. I've been lucky enough to have good teachers when it comes to subjects relating to communication and one "golden rule" they all taught was to listen/read in an honest and charitable manner (the translation is a bit clumsy, but that's the closest I can make it in English).
If one misunderstands on purpose, even sub- or unconsciously then there's no chance of either learning anything, nor of the discussion itself creating some kind of improvement of anything.
That's in part why I never went into law - I could never try to make a case for something that may be technically legal, but immoral; I can't partition my ethics the way one must to be a lawyer (and I don't mean that as a smear against lawyers - if no-one was to defend even alleged monsters, then we'd have even less justice than today).
The bit about what Greenwood says on changing a mind is interesting to me: a huge problem for HFAs (used to teach high-IQ "Aspies" as the jargon was only ten years ago) is their inability to differentiate between being correct/right, and "winning".
I think trolling is similar: the troll wants to "win" according to its own set of conditions. Honest people wants to argue their side but also learn other ideas, because that is a good and cheap way of making your own side all the stronger.
Heck, just look at how they completely bungled the Covid-thing! Perhaps we ought to be glad they did, but still - a lot of the propaganda from people with titles and money and so on was below reddit-levels of bad.
Whih is what happens when one does not engage in an honest fashion, I suppose.
Interesting post. One of the most surprising aspect of trolling is how some of my favorite Substackers are overly sensitive to or tolerant of trolls - they either engage with them or take what the trolls say seriously or even personally - as if they don’t understand they’re being trolled.
Perhaps, from a reader’s point of view, the worst type of trolling is when the troll makes dozens of comments, usually in response to other people’s comments (as if he’s walking around a room, bumping into random people, looking for a fight).
But I think the worst result of trolling is how it prompts some substacks to surreptitiously censor their comment sections (ie TFP).
I try to ignore them.
Will have to check out this Greenwood and his book - ta for the tip.
Personally, I virtually never know if I'm being trolled or - worse - I'm the one trolling.
The reason for this, barring intentions, is that the techniques described are just more vulgar and simplified forms and descriptions of classical rhetorical ones.
(Appeal to authority: I've taught rhetorics & speechcraft.)
The problem is of course that I can claim the above, you can't check, I can't really prove or convince (barring doxing) and virtually any challenge put to me I can solve using a search engine/AI to dig up the terminology or some snippet of factoid about Gorgias or Cicero or whomever (do we count name-dropping as a variant of appeal to authority?).
Tangential thinking:
I fear that the term trolling has been overused to the same point of absurdity, so that now all kind of text that's not a hymnal of praise may be accused of being trolling; I see it a lot in our domestic political debates over here. Politicians, old media and pundits all accuse people commenting or opposing their claims for being "Russian bots" or "paid trolls", instead of responding to being challenged.
It's very reminiscent of how Abrahamic clergy of all three branches may respond with "Heresy!" or "Apostasy!" to being challenged (Christians not so much these days, for better and worse), and there's a very strong argument to be made that modern propaganda, rhetorics and thus also trolling all draw upon the old inquisitorial manuals on how to interview suspects.
I wonder if teaching ethics, logic and rhetorics would improve debate, or just create better trolls.
Maybe the progression of things is the key. I've seen a discussion go from nice, civil replies, to you're a complete idiot.
I vaguely remember having a disagreement with you a long time back, but it was just that: we disagreed and moved on, like real human beings.
Do I know for sure you're not a troll or an AI engaged in some very subtle troll guidance? No I don't. Not 100%, but I have a good hunch you're genuine, though having a beer together would solve that question. That's where we are.
Greenwood says, in the beginning of trying to change someone's mind, it's better to be nice than right. Because being right, when someone isn't ready for it, is not going to work, it's only going to anger them.
That is true, I'd say. I've been lucky enough to have good teachers when it comes to subjects relating to communication and one "golden rule" they all taught was to listen/read in an honest and charitable manner (the translation is a bit clumsy, but that's the closest I can make it in English).
If one misunderstands on purpose, even sub- or unconsciously then there's no chance of either learning anything, nor of the discussion itself creating some kind of improvement of anything.
That's in part why I never went into law - I could never try to make a case for something that may be technically legal, but immoral; I can't partition my ethics the way one must to be a lawyer (and I don't mean that as a smear against lawyers - if no-one was to defend even alleged monsters, then we'd have even less justice than today).
The bit about what Greenwood says on changing a mind is interesting to me: a huge problem for HFAs (used to teach high-IQ "Aspies" as the jargon was only ten years ago) is their inability to differentiate between being correct/right, and "winning".
I think trolling is similar: the troll wants to "win" according to its own set of conditions. Honest people wants to argue their side but also learn other ideas, because that is a good and cheap way of making your own side all the stronger.
Heck, just look at how they completely bungled the Covid-thing! Perhaps we ought to be glad they did, but still - a lot of the propaganda from people with titles and money and so on was below reddit-levels of bad.
Whih is what happens when one does not engage in an honest fashion, I suppose.