The Trolling Disease

Trolling is a relatively new term used to describe online behaviour that is disruptive, offensive and hurtful toward other internet users.


Almost half the population of the planet now has access to the internet, with about one in three of those people regularly active on social media.
Unfortunately social media has spawned a new disease, often with devastating consequences – trolling.


Trolling is a relatively new term used to describe online behaviour that is disruptive, offensive and hurtful toward other internet users. Trolls intend to provoke a reaction from others that allows for an escalation in their abusive behaviour. The extent to which they participate in negative behaviour can range from annoyance to extreme cruelty, such as posting abusive messages on memorial pages.

Are trolls ordinary people living ordinary lives until they are online? And why do some people behave in a more aggressive, disrespectful and hurtful way online than in a face-to-face interaction? So what makes a troll tick?

Trolls must have an audience to witness their antics – and this aspect appears to play a major part in the pleasure they experience. Trolls use a baiting tactic to find victims who will provide them with the most entertainment. People who take the bait are then considered fair game by the trolls.

Trolling has been explained by a psychological concept called the “online disinhibition effect”.

Sometimes people share very personal things about themselves. They reveal secret

emotions, fears, wishes. They show unusual acts of kindness and generosity, sometimes going out of their way to help others. This is benign disinhibition.

On the other hand we witness rude language, harsh criticisms, anger, hatred, even threats.  This is toxic disinhibition.

Whether benign, toxic, or a mixture of both, what causes this online disinhibition?

 With the exception of webcams, people on many social platforms are invisible to one

another, there is no eye  contact. The gaze of a person’s eyes has been shown to inhibit negative behaviour. Eye contact increases self-awareness, empathy and the awareness of other people’s reactions to what is being discussed.

The cover of anonymity allows the troll to treat the internet as their personal playground, throwing provocative comments into forums like stun grenades into a crowd.

A 2014 study found that people with higher levels of sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism were more likely to engage in online trolling behaviour. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behaviour. Therefore cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism. Such individuals are likely to enjoy inflicting psychological pain and distress on others.

What motivates individuals to engage in trolling behaviours? The rewarding feelings and social pleasure derived from creating social discord, through selfish or self-serving behaviours and interactions, and knowing that others are annoyed by it. The more negative social impact the troll has, the more their behaviour is reinforced. If behaviour is rewarding, an individual is more likely to do it.

Happily, this discovery suggests an easy way to deal with trolls: ignore them, rather than giving them the satisfaction of an angry reaction. If they don’t receive that negative social reward, then their motivation to engage in this behaviour will likely diminish.

So it appears that the classic internet adage really does hold true: don’t feed the trolls. Deny them the pleasure of an angry reaction, and they’ll probably leave you alone.

Trolling is different from Cyber-bullying, but that is another story.

This BLOG was first published in the Franklin County News on Tuesday 30 January 2018

First solution not usually the right one

This BLOG was first published in the Franklin County News on Thursday 11th January 2018.

How often have you attended a meeting where creative thinking was met with, ‘it won’t work’ ‘we don’t work like that here’ ‘you are new and don’t understand’? Similarly, how often have you seen the first idea being the best idea, or only idea?
In meetings looking for solutions to problems or in brainstorming creative sessions, we have an unfortunate tendency to seize, and often in an act of group think, on the first best solution that presents. And even worse, if on analysing further, it is not sufficient to solve our problem, we try to modify the solution rather than consider alternatives.

Research has shown that the first solution is seldom the most creative and only occasionally the best. The first solution is usually the most commonplace solution, and the one most people and your competitors would adopt in the same circumstances.

There is a scientific reason why your first idea isn’t usually your best one. Our brains are lazy. The first idea we have is usually the handiest rather than the best. To get your brain to your best idea, Neurologists will tell us, the key to innovation is to distrust the first answer and send it back. Once we have cleared our minds of the obvious, we must push our minds further to come up with new ideas. This is when creativity kicks in and powers our thinking.

I think some people get involved in committees so they can indulge their predilection to rain on everyone’s parade. They have never met an idea they liked.   Their perspectives are perpetually negative, their commentary destructive, hurtful, and non-productive. In fact their ongoing criticism, cynicism, and negativity can single handedly bring down a group leaving a string of casualties along the way.  Research indicates that people who do that probably don’t know what a creative idea looks like.

Creative ideas are by definition novel and that can trigger feelings of uncertainty that make people uncomfortable. Uncertainty makes us less able to recognize creativity, perhaps when we need it most. People dismiss creative ideas in favour of ideas that are purely practical – tried and true.

By and large, we tend to be threatened by creativity, and are eager to shut it down.

Neither intelligence of the smartest member, nor the average intelligence of the group, influences the overall group intelligence. Instead, social sensitivity, the ability to understand the feelings and thoughts of others, is the most important factor that influences the overall group intelligence.

There is always an opportunity hidden within a problem. And rather than being a problem solver we should look to become solution creators. The process of having original ideas that add value is individual and individuals in a group situation will only contribute in a positive, encouraging environment. If people are scared of being mocked then they are going to be reluctant to step forward with new ideas.

Encouraging multiple perspectives, diverse viewpoints and out of the box thinking increases dramatically the chance of finding not just the best idea but the right idea.