Trolls - The Online Disinhibition Effect

Hello All,

OK, either I’m lazy - too many NY Times postings - and not enough original posts - or a shill for the NY Times.

I read a few newspapers and other pubs each morning while I eat my gruel … and when I see something interesting I have this overpowering urge to share, being overcome with online disinhibition effect.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15257832

Rather than thinking of disinhibition as the revealing of an underlying “true self,” we can conceptualize it as a shift to a constellation within self-structure, involving clusters of affect and cognition that differ from the in-person constellation.


And, since we do not have trolls on ST, this posting may be rated low on the scale of improving your racing speed … be forwarned and move on now if your time is scarce today.

Actually I don’t think we have many trolls on ST … even threads like - ‘which is better? sewups or clinchers?’ usually present some useful information and have a comforting efffect of being something we expect like an old soft easy chair. Same with power cranks. In fact I think I am having power crank withdrawl.

================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a212

Excerpts:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/11/30/opinion/30oped1/30oped1-popup.jpg

Trolling, defined as the act of posting inflammatory, derogatory or provocative messages in public forums, is a problem as old as the Internet itself, although its roots go much farther back. Even in the fourth century B.C., Plato touched upon the subject of anonymity and morality in his parable of the ring of Gyges.

That mythical ring gave its owner the power of invisibility, and Plato observed that even a habitually just man who possessed such a ring would become a thief, knowing that he couldn’t be caught.

Morality, Plato argues, comes from full disclosure; without accountability for our actions we would all behave unjustly.

Psychological research has proven again and again that anonymity increases unethical behavior. Road rage bubbles up in the relative anonymity of one’s car. And in the online world, which can offer total anonymity, the effect is even more pronounced. People — even ordinary, good people — often change their behavior in radical ways.

There’s even a term for it: the online disinhibition effect.

Many forums and online communities are looking for ways to strike back.

At Facebook, where I’ve worked on the design of the public commenting widget, the approach is to try to replicate real-world social norms by emphasizing the human qualities of conversation. People’s faces, real names and brief biographies (“John Doe from Lexington”) are placed next to their public comments, to establish a baseline of responsibility.

===========================

Cheers,

Neal

Neal
I love your post but damn dont yo ever make them smaller ? At least keep it to a paragraph. I just lost 20 minutes I can never recoup ;o)

Come on, he warned you it would be long at the beginning.

Maybe the problem is not trolls but rather how people react to them. A lot of people - including me - get overly emotional about some on-line posts. I have to constantly remind myself to cool it. What trolls have to say really isn’t that important. It’s just someone you don’t know and probably will never know writing something which you can simply ignore.

Maybe the problem is not trolls but rather how people react to them. A lot of people - including me - get overly emotional about some on-line posts. I have to constantly remind myself to cool it. What trolls have to say really isn’t that important. It’s just someone you don’t know and probably will never know writing something which you can simply ignore.

Maybe what you see as a troll might be someone asking a real question. Simple as you think that question maybe.

Agreed 100%
.

Hello bmanners and All,


“Neal
I love your post but damn dont yo ever make them smaller ? At least keep it to a paragraph. I just lost 20 minutes I can never recoup ;o)”


Thanks for the kind words.

Sorry 'bout that … the too long post.

**

For my part I will try to make my posts shorter and/or provide a word count, estimated time to read, and an executive summary when I have time. (maybe)

For your part I invite your attention to: http://www.readingsoft.com/

Excerpt:

Reading is becoming more and more important in the new knowledge economy and remains the most effective human activity for transforming information into knowledge.

If top readers read at speeds of above 1000 words per minute (wpm) with near 85% comprehension, they only represent 1% of readers. Average readers are the majority and only reach around 200 wpm with a typical comprehension of 60%. This seems surprising since most readers, actively reading work documents, newspapers, magazines, books or the contents of a computer display are practicing daily for at least one hour. With such an intense training everyone should be close to top performances.

Unfortunately, this is far from the real situation. The average reader is five times slower than the good reader. Things are even worse if we consider reading efficiency as well as speed. Reading efficiency is reading speed weighted by comprehension rate and it amounts to 200 x 60% or 120 efficient words per minute (ewpm) for the average reader and to 1000 x 85% or 850 ewpm for top readers. Thus, an efficiency ratio of seven divides these two categories.

Compare the results of the average reader to other areas. We may imagine a sprinter practicing every day for several years on the running track and then just calmly walking for a race. We can also picture a racing driver never exceeding 30 mph or a pianist playing every day of the week for 20 years and only able to play music like a beginner.

Unfortunately, since the age of 12, most readers do not substantially improve their efficiency and never reach their full capacity.

==============================================

Keeping in mind that ST is all about speed …

I don’t mean to be critical but 20 minutes for 444 words is painfully slow (nearing brain dead) and can harm your comprehension and damage your life. HTFU … :wink:

Cheers,

Neal

Hello bmanners and All,


“Neal
I love your post but damn dont yo ever make them smaller ? At least keep it to a paragraph. I just lost 20 minutes I can never recoup ;o)”


Thanks for the kind words.

Sorry 'bout that … the too long post.

**

For my part I will try to make my posts shorter and/or provide a word count, estimated time to read, and an executive summary when I have time. (maybe)

For your part I invite your attention to: http://www.readingsoft.com/

Excerpt:

Reading is becoming more and more important in the new knowledge economy and remains the most effective human activity for transforming information into knowledge.

If top readers read at speeds of above 1000 words per minute (wpm) with near 85% comprehension, they only represent 1% of readers. Average readers are the majority and only reach around 200 wpm with a typical comprehension of 60%. This seems surprising since most readers, actively reading work documents, newspapers, magazines, books or the contents of a computer display are practicing daily for at least one hour. With such an intense training everyone should be close to top performances.

Unfortunately, this is far from the real situation. The average reader is five times slower than the good reader. Things are even worse if we consider reading efficiency as well as speed. Reading efficiency is reading speed weighted by comprehension rate and it amounts to 200 x 60% or 120 efficient words per minute (ewpm) for the average reader and to 1000 x 85% or 850 ewpm for top readers. Thus, an efficiency ratio of seven divides these two categories.

Compare the results of the average reader to other areas. We may imagine a sprinter practicing every day for several years on the running track and then just calmly walking for a race. We can also picture a racing driver never exceeding 30 mph or a pianist playing every day of the week for 20 years and only able to play music like a beginner.

Unfortunately, since the age of 12, most readers do not substantially improve their efficiency and never reach their full capacity.

==============================================

Keeping in mind that ST is all about speed …

I don’t mean to be critical but 20 minutes for 444 words is painfully slow (nearing brain dead) and can harm your comprehension and damage your life. HTFU … :wink:

Cheers,

Neal
Neal in my defense I was pacing myself, because i was expecting much more. You gave us a half Mary when I expected the full Mary. Therefore my slower reading :o) So the word count will comein handy.

So, should I use tubies or clinchers on my bikesdirect frame that I never got fitted on?

FWIW, I use it to commute to my job at WTC, where I cook up new and interesting ways to rip off the triathlon community, and at lunch I ride to the weight room where I get faster bike splits by squatting.

Im also a MOPer, but I usually draft my way up to the podium, and then take multiple Kona spots per year, keeping hardworking STers out.

And I use fins on the swim.

What was this thread about?
Igot

agreed, neal, about reading speed and etc, but you could certainly make things easier on us by, say, using fewer than 4 colours, 2 fonts, bold, and italics in those few hundred words . . .

in the interests of not being an online disinhibited troll: my name is mike and i live in switzerland.

-mike

But on the run are you a forefoot striker? Because if not, all attempts at glory are in vain.

Everyone who posts in this thread sucks
.