Study Suggests Assholes Online Are Routinely Assholes Offline

from the mirror-mirror-on-the-wall dept

A new study published in the American Science Review found that that if you’re an asshole troll online, there’s a pretty good chance that you’re the same way in the brick and mortar world. The researchers used representative surveys and behavioral studies from the U.S. and Denmark to try and figure out if it the novel and relatively new internet was somehow making normal human beings more hostile. But as the researchers point out on Twitter, they found no real evidence for that:

In short if you’re a hostile person online, you’re probably a hostile person offline. And while Facebook has a lot of obvious problems on a wide variety of fronts, it’s not inherently responsible for somehow creating human dysfunction that already existed. The researchers told Engineering and Technology that online debates seem more hostile because the hostile players simply have a bigger bullhorn, and the resulting chaos they create has much broader visibility than it would in the offline world:

“Our research shows that the reason many people feel that online political discussions are so hostile has to do with the visibility of aggressive behaviour online. Online discussions occur in large public networks and the behaviour of an internet troll is much more visible than the behaviour of this same person in an offline setting,? said Michael Bang Petersen, professor of political science at the university.”

Obviously none of this is to say online platforms don’t have responsibility to do a better job protecting users from violence, hostility, racism, or general jackassery. Nor does this mean the ad-based internet ecosystem — be it the press or social media — doesn’t have a problem with amplifying inflammatory bullshit, resulting in numerous business models where inflammatory bullshit is more profitable than boring old factual reality.

But it does suggest that terrible people are inherently terrible, in contrast to the claim on some fronts that the internet is magically creating them. As Gizmodo notes, research fairly consistently suggests “toxic online political discussions are disproportionately driven by malicious individuals taking advantage of the megaphone offered”:

“One study published in the Personality and Individual Differences journal in 2017 found that the most aggressive online trolls may tend to be high in cognitive empathy, which allows them to identify when they?re pushing someone else?s buttons, but low in affective empathy, enabling them to avoid feeling bad or internalizing the suffering they cause. Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard affiliate and data engineer Devin Gaffney wrote for Bennington Magazine that as platforms have ?optimized for connectedness, they have negligently optimized for the growth of mob-like communities connecting around noxious yet identity-defining goals.? One 2018 study in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research found a bleed-over effect in which nasty online comments ?increase perceived bias in a news blog post to which they are connected,? essentially dragging down the whole discussion with them.”

Again, the internet clearly creates a wide swath of new problems we’ll need to overcome through scientific and democratic processes with the hindsight of experience. And it’s abundantly clear that process is going to be downright ugly at times. But again, it’s not the internet mystically creating armies of assholes; it’s just a broader window into — and amplifier for — the parades of assholes that were already there.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Study Suggests Assholes Online Are Routinely Assholes Offline”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
38 Comments
Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: suggests

… then you should not make unsupported assertions about use of the word ‘confusing’.

‘Confusing’ in this study context means poorly written and edited, requiring substantial effort by the reader to eventually discern the author’s meaning.

Meta-Analysis statistical studies are inherently flawed due to lack of uniformity in the individual methododologies being bunched together. Cherry-Picking the studies in the meta-analysis is a major problem, as in this Danish study.
Self-Reporting and totally non-representative sampling are also huge methodology problems in this Danish study.

James Burkhardtsays:

Re: Re: suggests

It seems you are dismissing the findings of Alexander Bor, one of the authors of the study and the cited basis for the claims of the article, and have come to differing conclusions. Perhaps you could elucidate where you think the paper goes wrong in its analysis, given the above article cites the author telling you the conclusions of the paper? Important quote below:

Surprisingly, we found no evidence for this hypothesis. Across four representative samples, we find remarkably high correlations between self-reports of online and offline political hostility. The people hateful on Twitter offend others in face-to-face conversations too

Your actual analysis that results in disagreement with this finding by one of the study’s authors would be helpful. You clearly have the background to know and things like pointing out contradictory studies not selected for use or noting where the chosen studies differed in methodology in material ways would certainly help give your analysis credit, rather than relying on the generic issues with meta-analysis. One way to dodge those issues is to pick and choose well-regarded studies that have similar methodologies to reduce noise from bad studies or those with conflicting methodologies. You’d almost have to pick and choose methodologies to find compatible data, and so barring both would almost seem like an inability to compare studies at all.

James Burkhardtsays:

Re: Re: suggests

Also need to question, why do you keep calling it "this Danish study". This study already identifies your subject. Why does its country of origin matter? Is there something about danish people that changes the results? Maybe danish Homogeneity?

Finally, your issues with self reporting…..are exactly why the word suggests is being used. It isn’t proof. What it is, is an avenue for further study that challenges assumptions about what drives negative behavior. They aren’t misrepresenting this study as "proving" anything, which seems to be how you are taking it.

Anonymoussays:

I must say, not convinced by this… let’s look at the psychology of fetishes, people act out in a way that let’s them indulge in something they can’t experience in the real world, usually because they are constrained by something beyond their control. I

I am not a dick in the real world, but the only outlet I have is to shout at dumbassss online because thats the only way I can feel like I have… something, I don’t know what.

The entire premise of this study is that its self reported. When an aspect of emotional psychology is under a microscope, who answers honestly? You may get 10-20% of factual answers, but you’ll never know which percentage is accurate.

But thats just my opinion. And qm i saying stuff to garner opinion? Do i potentially know what im saying? YOU DONT KNOW, so who am I to say this is wrong, but who are they to say this is right?

Anonymoussays:

I must say, not convinced by this… let’s look at the psychology of fetishes, people act out in a way that let’s them indulge in something they can’t experience in the real world, usually because they are constrained by something beyond their control. I

I am not a dick in the real world, but the only outlet I have is to shout at dumbassss online because thats the only way I can feel like I have… something, I don’t know what.

The entire premise of this study is that its self reported. When an aspect of emotional psychology is under a microscope, who answers honestly? You may get 10-20% of factual answers, but you’ll never know which percentage is accurate.

But thats just my opinion. And qm i saying stuff to garner opinion? Do i potentially know what im saying? YOU DONT KNOW, so who am I to say this is wrong, but who are they to say this is right?

Anonymoussays:

The internet exposes you to people and viewpoints you may never actually come across in real life so it leaves a lot more opportunities to to end up arguing with an idiot. For every stupid ass arguments I participate it in in person I don’t even want to know how many I have online. It really is an excellent outlet so you don’t carry that shit around waiting for someone IRL to argue with and maybe destroy a relationship in the process.

Anonymoussays:

The internet exposes you to people and viewpoints you may never actually come across in real life so it leaves a lot more opportunities to to end up arguing with an idiot. For every stupid ass arguments I participate it in in person I don’t even want to know how many I have online. It really is an excellent outlet so you don’t carry that shit around waiting for someone IRL to argue with and maybe destroy a relationship in the process.

James Burkhardtsays:

Re: suggests

It seems you are dismissing the findings of Alexander Bor, one of the authors of the study and the cited basis for the claims of the article, and have come to differing conclusions. Perhaps you could elucidate where you think the paper goes wrong in its analysis, given the above article cites the author telling you the conclusions of the paper? Important quote below:

Surprisingly, we found no evidence for this hypothesis. Across four representative samples, we find remarkably high correlations between self-reports of online and offline political hostility. The people hateful on Twitter offend others in face-to-face conversations too

Your actual analysis that results in disagreement with this finding by one of the study’s authors would be helpful. You clearly have the background to know and things like pointing out contradictory studies not selected for use or noting where the chosen studies differed in methodology in material ways would certainly help give your analysis credit, rather than relying on the generic issues with meta-analysis. One way to dodge those issues is to pick and choose well-regarded studies that have similar methodologies to reduce noise from bad studies or those with conflicting methodologies. You’d almost have to pick and choose methodologies to find compatible data, and so barring both would almost seem like an inability to compare studies at all.

James Burkhardtsays:

Re: suggests

Also need to question, why do you keep calling it "this Danish study". This study already identifies your subject. Why does its country of origin matter? Is there something about danish people that changes the results? Maybe danish Homogeneity?

Finally, your issues with self reporting…..are exactly why the word suggests is being used. It isn’t proof. What it is, is an avenue for further study that challenges assumptions about what drives negative behavior. They aren’t misrepresenting this study as "proving" anything, which seems to be how you are taking it.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: suggests

… then you should not make unsupported assertions about use of the word ‘confusing’.

‘Confusing’ in this study context means poorly written and edited, requiring substantial effort by the reader to eventually discern the author’s meaning.

Meta-Analysis statistical studies are inherently flawed due to lack of uniformity in the individual methododologies being bunched together. Cherry-Picking the studies in the meta-analysis is a major problem, as in this Danish study.
Self-Reporting and totally non-representative sampling are also huge methodology problems in this Danish study.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow