Having just discovered the existence of so-called trolls who join
e-lists for the explicit purpose of disrupting them, provoking or
exacerbating antagonistic postings and flame wars, and maybe even
actually bringing the lists down--for their own perverse entertainment
and to win the acclaim of other trolls--here is what I'd like to know:
 where, what, and who were trolls before the Internet?  What a subject
for a dissertation, isn't it?  Whatever human traits drive the trolls
to do what they do and cause the destructive havoc they create, how
did it find expression before?--politics and palace intrigue, war,
workplace machinations, con games?  I don't want to hear "all of the
above."  I want to know if there has been any actual (presumably
psychological) study of the troll phenomenon that linked it to
equivalent behavior outside the electronic medium and in what form it
manifests itself otherwise, both in history and literature and right
here and now.

---

Request for Question Clarification by lisarea-ga on 18 Aug 2002 08:21 PDT

Hi, Apteryx,

Could you define 'troll' for me as you're using it?

I'm familiar with what I believe is the original definition of
(Usenet) troll, but it seems different from what you're talking about.

Originally, trolls were people who would disrupt newsgroups by naively
stating something false, and pretending to be thick enough that
attempts to clarify only made things worse. This type of trolling can
be traced back to Socrates at least, with his practice of Socratic
irony, where he would adopt a naive and incorrect viewpoint to get his
students to defend their own perceptions.

But I'm pretty sure this isn't the variety of troll you're talking
about. Are you talking strictly about hostile and abusive postings
that overrun a given medium simply by starting and feeding flame wars,
or are there additional criteria?

Thanks,
Lisa.

---

Clarification of Question by apteryx-ga on 18 Aug 2002 12:15 PDT

Definitions:
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213222, 00.html
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm

apteryx...

I'm gonna give you a freebie...

All aberrant behavior stems from a desire for
attention, be it negative or positive.
Additionally, those seeking negative attention
have a way of attuning to the 'shadow' side
of 'normal' humans, meaning, they feed on the
parts of ourselves which are supressed and 
which we reject as conflicting with the 
'proper' masks we like to wear. Unfortunately,
repressing these darker attributes beneath our
masks only makes them more potent, and a very
real source of energy for those who choose to
play the role of the shadows we reject. When
they manage to upset us, it only proves that
we are conflicted with a repressed shadow
which is feeding them strength via the
attention we cannot help but give them.
When we, ourselves are free of such internal
conflicts with our 'shadows', we will be
unaffected by such beings, and they will die
of starvation, having noone to feed upon.
One evidence of this is in live chatrooms, 
when there is the option to put the offender
on 'ignore', yet some people cannot bring
themselves to utilize this option, and 
continue to argue and debate and trade
insults with them, rather than eliminating
them and resuming peaceful chat.

Prior to, and in addition to the internet,
these people show up in our lives as the
ones who ruin the party, or our day at
work, or at the grocery store, etc...

See this page on Carl Jung's concept of 
the shadow:
http://www.shadowdance.com/theshadow.html


Searches done, via Google:

shadow + jung
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=shadow+%2B+jung

sublime1-ga

Well, particularly with the broad definition of trolling here, this is
just a little too much for me.

However, if you or another researcher are interested in pursuing this,
here are a few places to start:

"socratic irony"

http://www.str.org/free/studies/socratic.htm

Description of the characteristics Socratic irony, and how it is used
to create controversy and cause people to examine their own beliefs
through professions of ignorance.

"andy kaufman" "i'm from hollywood"

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilm/product/film_info/0,3699,2354738,00.html

Most of Andy Kaufman's work could be useful, but the his wrestling
career was probably the most illustrative of the concepts employed by
what I'll call the 'artful trolls,' or those who went beyond simply
starting flamewars for the sake of flamewars. It's also a wonderful
example of the sheer entertainment value of a well-crafted troll,
which might go toward an explanation of the motivations behind
trolling. See the convoluted storyline created by a hoax such as this,
and how it plays out in real life, constantly adding new facets and
characters, and expanding as it goes along.

Other angles to explore might include the following:

Shakespeare's Richard III (and perhaps the real history of Richard
III, although Shakespeare's version is probably more compelling, at
least for these purposes).

A gentleman whose name I can't recall who made a career of launching
writing letters and launching hoax campaigns in attempt to get media
coverage. He published a few books, I believe, including exchanges of
letters to companies on topics such as Mr. Clean's sexual preferences,
and he was responsible for campaigns such as a decency initiative to
get people to put underwear on their pets, which was picked up by
various media outlets. (I think his name is "Allen" or "Alan"
something.)

Also see the history of the newsgroup alt.syntax.tactical, which was
allegedly the original stomping grounds of those who initiated such
campaigns such as the infamous recipe posting barrage on
rec.pets.cats.

You might also want to look into "culture jamming" and other related
topics.

Good luck finding what you're looking for.

It all boils down to self-validation through power and control.  In a
nutshell, trolls are among the most insecure of folks, and they have a
compulsion to control other people to feed their own self-worth.  In
my book, they are to be supremely pitied.