Internet Trolls Are Horrible People

[Ryujin]

As Oscar Wilde said, "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

Or as Brother Silence said, "Only in concealing one's identity, can one truly be known. (Whatcha!)"

 

[Janx]

As Oscar Wilde said, "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

Or as Brother Silence said, "Only in concealing one's identity, can one truly be known. (Whatcha!)"

True, except the problem is that we find out which people are jerks, have to suffer those jerks and can't identify them so we can kill them in their sleep and rid the world of jerks in a single Night of 1000 Blades

 

[Umbran]

I think this article sums up the value of Peer Reviewed

I'm sorry, Frank, but you have just made yourself a prime example.

The article you cite fails to point out the really meaningful bit:

They speak of 120 papers that have issues, between Springer and IEEE. Do you have any idea how many papers those two publish in a year? No? Do you even know over what timespan the errant articles cover? No? Then how can you tell if it is a major issue? You don't know what kind of failure rate this represents! Until you know the failure rate, you do *NOT* know the value.

This, right here, is an example of peer review. An error in reasoning has been revealed by someone who knows a bit about the subject. Now comes the second step - correction.

You can continue to hold your opinion, or you can realize the error, and recognize that maybe more research is needed before you can publish something on the topic.

Yeah, they conducted internet surveys on trolls. Kinda stands to reason that the trolls would give trolling responses when given the opportunity.

No it doesn't. Trolls feed on the reaction of the target. Surveys do not generally give the trolls feedback or reaction, and so do not feed their hunger.

Did you read the original study? No? Then you don't know much about their methodology or statistical controls (the effects of systematic lies can be controlled for, you know), and maybe you should withhold comment.

 

[Janx]

IDid you read the original study? No? Then you don't know much about their methodology or statistical controls (the effects of systematic lies can be controlled for, you know), and maybe you should withhold comment.

Maybe we could ride the middle ground here.

I don't think the study should be slammed because some other papers were crap. But I also don't think it's fair to say somebody should "withold comment"

If Mr. Phd can't speak to the issue, what right have I got? I didn't read the article AND I've never taken a psychology course.

Can't we all just make slightly more productive comments, observations and questions?

For instance:
I already knew Trolls are bad people. The paper implies that they really are bad people.

Is it possible that there was confirmation bias? meaning if the researcher had the same conclusion I did, did they design their research to prove that same conclusion? Or is there another way to test the conclusion (how does one identify trolls and test them for bad personism)?

From a science perspective, maybe the point an the paper is that team A found this conclusion. It's up to another Team to verify or disprove it. Until then, this study is more research and info on the topic than existed before.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Um, doesn't peer review also include correcting the information? What span do those papers cover? How many articles are published? what proportion does that represent?
I'll throw that open to anyone.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Um, doesn't peer review also include correcting the information?

No. Peer review journals do not correct information. The peer reviewers haven't run the studies themselves, so they don't know what the real numbers are. What they do is give suggestions to the study authors regarding a better or more acceptable methodology, statistical analysis, or what have you. Peer review journals address the acceptability of a study, not the validity.

What span do those papers cover?

Depends on the study and the journal, I guess. Some have been around for many years. They may cover studies from 60 years ago, or longer. Some may be relatively new, and you may only have 15 - 20 years.
As far as studies, they also vary. You could have a study that took a few weeks to run, or a longer study that took several years.
One of the benefits of journals is that they are able to publish studies faster than, say a book publisher. Still, there isn't as much consistency on the quality of studies in some of the longer lived journals, especially in psychology journals. I've seen published studies in peer reviewed journals dating back from the 60s that where terrible. One of the ones that stands out was a one page study. If I had turned in something like that to one of my professor in graduate school, I would probably have been kicked out of the program. Still, it was published.

How many articles are published?

That depends on the journal, and how often they publish. Some only publish once a year. Others publish quarterly.

what proportion does that represent?

Not really sure, but the real problem is how many get by and are never discovered? The percentage of bad studies may be higher or lower, depending on a lot of things. The problem is that we have been sold this idea that peer reviewed is some sacred process that gives credibility and validity to a published study. The truth is that peer review only addresses acceptability, nothing more. In psychology, this more the case. You publish these studies in a peer reviewed journal, and everyone feels that the study is valid. It's not. It's only acceptable by the standards of a small group of people in the same field with similar interests.

 

[Ryujin]

True, except the problem is that we find out which people are jerks, have to suffer those jerks and can't identify them so we can kill them in their sleep and rid the world of jerks in a single Night of 1000 Blades

I think that ostracism is the better choice over murder, no matter how much we may be tempted to perform the latter.

 

[Felon]

Like studies on the harmful effects of salt or diet sodas and so many other things, it cannot distinguish between correlation and causation.

Having said that, most people are jerks. For every mean-spirited, there's a passive-aggressive Princess Unikitty. If you don't have a Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling, you have a Henny Penny who will insists everything is fine and dismisses any criticism directed at anything. Go to the D&D 5e forum and suggest that something about a class or a rule or a spell or what have you might be out-of-whack, and you'll get no shortage of people who clearly just don't want to hear that anything in 5e is anything less than sublime.

We in the first world are becoming a people who are not ashamed to reject reason in favor of impulsive gut reactions. There's a filter of rational scrutiny that fewer and fewer people can be bothered with.

 

[Felon]

Like studies on the harmful effects of salt or diet sodas and so many other things, it cannot distinguish between correlation and causation.

Having said that, most people don't know how to react to things that run contrary to what they want to hear. For every mean-spirited troll, there's a passive-aggressive Princess Unikitty. If you don't have a Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling, you have a Henny Penny who will insists everything is fine and dismisses any criticism directed at anything. Go to the D&D 5e forum and suggest that something about a class or a rule or a spell or what have you might be out-of-whack, and you'll get no shortage of people who clearly just don't want to hear that anything in 5e is anything less than sublime.

We in the first world are becoming a people who are not ashamed to reject reason in favor of impulsive gut reactions. There's a filter of rational scrutiny that fewer and fewer people can't bother to apply.