Why Trolls Start Flame Wars: Swearing and Name-Calling Shut Down the Ability to Think and Focus

Zero Hedge ^ | 02/25/2014 | George Washington

[tired&retired]

Psychological studies show that swearing and name-calling in Internet discussions shut down our ability to think.

2 professors of science communication at the University of Wisconsin, Madison - Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele - wrote in the New York Times last year:

In a study published online last month in The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, we and three colleagues report on an experiment designed to measure what one might call “the nasty effect.”

The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself.

In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought.

While it’s hard to quantify the distortional effects of such online nastiness, it’s bound to be quite substantial, particularly — and perhaps ironically — in the area of science news

[longtermmemmory]

this would explain some of the ridiculous threads that “pop up” over and over when serious matters at hand. IE when healthcare debate was going full steam, all of a sudden we have creationist and birther threads. When we talk about presidential candidates, huckabee’s name appears as viable.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk

[tired&retired]

“Exactly — the comment was addressed to Romney, and tired&retired knew it, but went on to cast me as a sociopathic troll in post #12. I wasn’t offended.

Too bad he didn’t have the grace to apologize.”

Whether the statement is about Romney, his mother, another FR member, or even your mother does not matter. Name calling does not add facts or information to the point you are making. It is meant to stir up emotions and manipulate people who can’t understand the facts or circumstances of the situation at hand.

Ad hominem is usually used by people who attack the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments when they cannot refute the merits of their argument.

Am I to apologize for your inability to understand my statements? If so, I apologize. However, I will not call you a name to paint a derogatory word picture upon your image.

As to the use of the descriptor “sociopathic,” the word has a traditional meaning that is not within the characteristics you exhibit in your posts. Your use of the word “sociopathic” to describe my perception of you is a “straw man” argument imposed upon me by you that again has no merit. It is merely another common fallacy of logical argumentation.

[SoConPubbie]

Whether the statement is about Romney, his mother, another FR member, or even your mother does not matter. Name calling does not add facts or information to the point you are making. It is meant to stir up emotions and manipulate people who can’t understand the facts or circumstances of the situation at hand.

Actually it does, all your self-defense not withstanding, because it paints an entirely different picture of the original poster as someone willing to simply emotionally attack another Freeper Poster, which Gene Eric does not. He post usually provide enough context to clearly provide a cogent and reasonable reason for the use of derisive language.

So, your original post, implied that Gene post was a perfect example of the diatribe being presented on this thread, and clearly, if you had either done your own research and read a little more you would have known that it was not a perfect example. But no, you gloss over that and then try to continue to defend your misguided post.

Finally, the use of strong language when referring to Mitt Romney is necessitated by the utter and complete deceit of Mitt Romney and his progressive liberalism.

If you had been paying attention, you would have known that.

And yes, you do need to apologize to Gene Eric. Be honest, don't lie about having correctly pegged Gene with your first comment.

Don't do a back-handed apology about how we did not understand your comment.

[bmwcyle]

Trolls always have to have the last word.

[SoConPubbie]

And yes, you do need to apologize to Gene Eric. Be honest, don't lie about having correctly pegged Gene with your first comment.

That should have read:

And yes, you do need to apologize to Gene Eric. Be honest, don't lie about having incorrectly pegged Gene with your first comment.

[tired&retired]

I would never call the individuals whom I was addressing “Trolls.” They are good people who are passionate about their individual values which are very parallel to mine.

I respect them and always welcome dialog. Most of the time our discussions on this forum are like preaching to the choir. I just try my best to keep to the logical and stay away from the emotional when dealing with people who are parallel with me. (But I also slip up too often.) When dealing with an irrational individual who does not have a solid realistic reality, the rules sometimes change.

I’ve often ask myself, “When Jesus flipped over the money changers tables, was He really angry or just doing what was necessary to make the impact of His point upon them?” Does it matter as long as the intended behavioral response was achieved?

[tired&retired]

“Actually it does, all your self-defense not withstanding, because it paints an entirely different picture of the original poster as someone willing to simply emotionally attack another Freeper Poster,...”

I, nor the article limited the context of the ad hominem to attacking a person posting a comment.

Excerpt from article:
“Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought.”

Comment posted by Gene:

“Not your state, a-hole.”

The article nor my comment does not state whether the ad hominem attack was against the author or another person posting comments on the article. An “ad hominem” attack is merely an attack on the person rather than their argument. It’s a logical fallacy of argumentation used to emotionally bias. You are merely making a misstatement of my comment in order to discredit it.

[bmwcyle]

Trolls are several types. One are designed government agents. Two, they are people who just like to play mental games with people. Three, they are people who have mental disorders. All three are not worth the time of day.

[SoConPubbie]

The article nor my comment does not state whether the ad hominem attack was against the author or another person posting comments on the article. An “ad hominem” attack is merely an attack on the person rather than their argument. It’s a logical fallacy of argumentation used to emotionally bias. You are merely making a misstatement of my comment in order to discredit it.

You are leaving out the context of FreeRepublic (Knowledge of the perfidy, deceit, and Progressive Liberal record) and the known history of Mitt Romney whom the thread that Gene Eric posted on was all about. You are still being dishonest.

Courtesy post to Gene Eric, since he is whom we are really talking about.

[tired&retired]

The problem is, all three have been given the right to vote and freedom of speech which has an influence upon our children and our government.

[Gene Eric]

You described me as the type of troll depicted in the article. And as a compliment to the article, you elaborated in your initial post the following:

It's easy to underestimate how many of these types of sickos are out there: There are millions of sociopaths in the U.S. alone.

You were careless in making me an example, and went too far out of your way to discredit my objections to the article's assertions.

Furthermore, I don't criticize the family members of politicians, and that includes Romney's mom. Of course this is something you incorrectly surmised by reviewing my posts on other threads.

I didn't ask you for an apology. And I don't need nor want your demonstrations of forum decorum. I appreciate, however, the consideration.

[Gene Eric]

>> I, nor the article limited the context of the ad hominem to attacking a person posting a comment.

@ post #17, you, tired&retired, said I attacked the messenger clearly limiting the context:

   You attacked the messenger by calling him/her a name rather than stating your valid argument.

Of course my argument was valid concerning Romney's attempt to subvert the will of AZ.

[tired&retired]

Gene,

The first post was merely a continuation of the article, verbatim.

My apologies for any mis-communication. I had noticed the post you made in the other thread and was mentioning that it was an ad hominem. No more than that..... I was not trying to label you a troll. If I did, my apologies as that was not my intent.

[Gene Eric]

I'm not offended. So no need to apologize, but I appreciate the gesture.

I want to underscore my objections to the article. You made the following statement to me @ post #15:

  By your last two posts you would fit the description in the article.

Why didn't you make a similar comment regarding post #8?

[Cyber Liberty]

Is this more justification for mainstream publications shutting down their comments? Sure sounds like that’s the conclusion, and the arguments are straight out of Popular Science’s announcement of their shutdown of comments.

[Cyber Liberty]

I’m late to this thread, so I’m reading your exchanges after-the-fact...

I don’t know what history you and others have, but I can tell you from my experience on FR that FReepers don’t much appreciate being psychoanalyzed remotely. It pisses them off, and is a good way to guarantee there will be a s***storm of bad reaction.

[Gene Eric]

And here's my point concerning the validity of the article:

My first comment (#12) to this thread included the statement objecting to the article:

  And I think it’s interesting that opinion affecting the credibility of the news story is essentially deemed as hostile to discourse and understanding.

And in response to my post, you made the following remark(#15):

  By your last two posts you would fit the description in the article.

So in my being critical of the article, you referred to posts I made elsewhere to discredit the opinion I provided here. You didn't criticize the "bull$hit" comment in post #8, but you criticized mine.

In my disagreeing with the article you posted, you attacked my credibility. Given the subject of the article, I found this quite humorous.

[Cyber Liberty]

The irony is ironic.

[Gene Eric]

Exactly.