A study by psychologists headed by Dr John Synott identifying what they call the behaviour of 'on-line trolls' is published in the June 2017 edition, Pages 70–78, of 'Computers in Human Behavior'.
The 'highlights' are as follows:
The abstract is as follows:
Source and where the full paper can be ordered: http://ift.tt/2pm3yOS
A rebuttal has been written by manfromatlan here. He also sent a rebuttal to WASHINGTON POST who wrote an article surrounding this issue, highlighting the psychologists apparent lack of professional ethics in how they carried out the research.
In addition he makes the following points:
[extract]
The whole issue came up after the suicide of a so-called 'troll':
[extract]
ibid
What I would like to debate here, is not whether or not the McCanns were culpable, but trather the wider implications of the study.
Somebody elsewhere on ISF called me 'sweepyface' (the twitter username of Brenda Leyland) simply because I had a different view than him of the Meredith Kercher case as to the guilt or otherwise of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It was redacted.
Another forum user twice tried to bring up the subject, but within the wrong thread.
I am fascinated by the loaded assumptions of the psychologists concerned and their value-laden labels.
Is taking a different view from the mass media 'trolling', or is it healthy scepticism and genuine concern?
Did 'sweepyface' do anything to merit the label 'troll'?
The 'highlights' are as follows:
Quote:
|
Highlights • Case study analysis of Anti-McCann internet Trolling Group. • The role of language, group identity and in group cohesion is examined. • Language is central to Anti-McCann group in the construction of identity. • Several strategies were employed by Anti-McCanns to provoke outsiders. • Support for previous research linking trolling to western media culture and ASPD. |
Quote:
|
Abstract Despite the sustained media attention surrounding internet trolling, academic studies investigating its occurrence are rare. This study aimed to provide a case study analysis of the behaviours and strategies of a group of alleged Twitter trolls referred to as the anti-McCanns due to their continual abuse of Kate and Gerry McCann as well as those who support them and thus identify as pro-McCann. The way in which language was used to construct the anti-McCanns group identity, enhance in-group cohesion and facilitate out-group disassociation from the pro-Mccann group was additionally explored, given that previous research has implicated group processes in the propagation of aggressive online conduct. A multi-method approach involving a combination of ethnographic observations and the collection of online commentary was employed. The data was then analysed using quantitative content analysis and discourse analysis, which indicated that language was utilised in a variety of ways by the anti-McCanns to construct a salient group identity and negatively stereotype and disassociate from the pro-McCann group. Findings additionally revealed that several strategies were employed by the anti-McCann trolls to provoke and derogate members of the pro-McCann group, supporting previous findings which have linked trolling to both western media culture and the characteristics of anti-social personality disorder. The implications of these findings both theoretical and practical are discussed, alongside recommendations for future research. Keywords Online trolling; Online abuse; Missing persons; Social media; Cyber psychology |
A rebuttal has been written by manfromatlan here. He also sent a rebuttal to WASHINGTON POST who wrote an article surrounding this issue, highlighting the psychologists apparent lack of professional ethics in how they carried out the research.
In addition he makes the following points:
[extract]
Quote:
|
The psychologists hid their tweets so their data couldn’t be verified but actively tried to locate individuals who wished to remain private. They deliberately provoked by quoting a bad ‘scientific’ report to get the response they wanted, and used other underhanded methods to prove their thesis. I was able to obtain copies of their work which shocked me. Psychologists already have a bad reputation for writing papers supporting torture (enhanced interrogation), posing for the media, and attaching unfounded opinions about the psychology of celebrities, or even, Donald Trump. You simply can not use your credentials to diagnose a pathology without examining the individual. Diagnosis by tweet is bad enough, but their assessment didn’t even match up with the people I came to know. |
[extract]
Quote:
|
Brenda Leyland: She was an English woman who made thousands of tweets discussing the case, none of which were abusive. (I know, I saw them). Complaints were made but the police found nothing wrong with them. Gerry McCann called “for an example to be made” so Brenda Leyland was confronted at her home by Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News reporter Martin Brunt and her picture published on the front page of UK newspapers as “The Face Of A Troll”. Hounded by the media, this vulnerable woman committed suicide. When confronted, the reporter Martin Brunt I wouldn’t say who gave him the report filed with the police, then, “A group of ‘concerned’ internet users”. (The McCann group of not trolls). |
What I would like to debate here, is not whether or not the McCanns were culpable, but trather the wider implications of the study.
Somebody elsewhere on ISF called me 'sweepyface' (the twitter username of Brenda Leyland) simply because I had a different view than him of the Meredith Kercher case as to the guilt or otherwise of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It was redacted.
Another forum user twice tried to bring up the subject, but within the wrong thread.
I am fascinated by the loaded assumptions of the psychologists concerned and their value-laden labels.
Is taking a different view from the mass media 'trolling', or is it healthy scepticism and genuine concern?
Did 'sweepyface' do anything to merit the label 'troll'?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2p54Dhs
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire