Internet trolls, jesters, squares and worms, and real-life creepy clowns

Not so long ago I ran across a really interesting short summary of character types related to internet communications, related to authenticity and seriousness:

The article is well worth a read, probably much clearer than anything I'm going to add to it in commentary.  There are no references.. It would seem odd that guy came up with that just based on writing a one page blog post, but likely that he did.  Nice!

The terms seem obvious enough, especially given that "troll" is already familiar, but I'll go through the spelling it out here anyway:

squares:  sincere and serious, they say what they actually think.  The categories don't assume that they are actually nice but it somehow seems that might connect, just not always.

trolls:  insincere and unserious (not serious), they just say whatever will get a reaction.  Some of it might actually be based on what they think but that's not the point.

jesters:  sincere but unserious, they're just being silly, not provocative.

worms:  serious and insincere, seemingly the worst combination, essentially, someone out to deceive others but more likely to seem genuine as a result of being serious.

A lot of the rest in the article is about how to tell who is who, how each changes to express a "diagonally" corresponding character, as in that diagram:

Trolls, when cornered, often excuse themselves as Shakespearean fools of the modern age, as jesters, serious and sincere...

He goes on to explain why their own explanation doesn't work, why that's a different category, and why when pressed they revert to the straight or "square" type instead:

So, when scrutinized in ways that require sincerity, they stop being unserious as well... Instead of proving themselves to be Jesters, they become Squares... 

Maybe that doesn't come across well in brief citation, but the point is that trolls tend to equate themselves with someone who is just joking (the "jester" type), but unlike them they are not sincere.  When pressed they revert to being both serious and sincere to defend and explain themselves.  Not really all the time, but maybe.

Does it work?  I'm not so sure, but at a glance it might.  It would seem that just as people are complex and vary according to what they express in public they might also not follow such a clear pattern in reverting to a secondary type when pressed.

I'm somewhat active on Facebook groups and forums related to being an expat (I'm American but live in Thailand) and I see people communicate in different ways, but never really that reverting to another communication paradigm, changing type.  In one rough-edged Facebook Bangkok expat group members find ways to steer almost every subject to comments that the poster should kill themselves, relating to suicide being common among expats, or deaths arranged to look like suicides.  They never say anything like "I was just joking."  To a large degree the kidding around is good natured, with everyone clear on nothing being serious, but typical subjects of ladyboys / transvestites, prostitution, and expat suicide wouldn't be for everyone, as that style of discussion also might not be.

In the main Thai expat website-based forum, Thai Visa, "flaming" other members is really common, but again people explaining that behavior is unheard of.  If someone objects to being insulted they tend to just get insulted again.  All the same there really could be something to it, that explanation about the types, and this doesn't necessarily refute that someone who is "trolling" there couldn't revert to being serious and sincere if pressed.  Any online groups have limits, even those that seem to be set up for people to insult each other, and the other spin-off groups for banned members can really be rough-edged places.

The deeper issue seems to be why people move off being serious and sincere so readily.  Joking is one thing, and a bit of the "jester" approach makes sense, but how did that "troll" behavior get as common as it is?  And what about those "worms"?  Surely there are deceitful people out there, but so many they can be seen as a common internet-interaction type?  Perhaps.  In the case of internet trolls, definitely.

I've read that in the early history of the internet, before the world wide web, before file conventions that enabled use of graphics came into play, trolling meant something else altogether.  This article examines the origins of the modern form, people just insulting others, often using irrational statements or insults to do it.  But there is another origin story cited, related to trolling starting from a reference to fishing, with a version described in a Wikipedia article:


Commonly, what is meant is a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone that only a new user would respond to them earnestly. For example, a veteran of the group might make a post on the common misconception that glass flows over time. Long-time readers would both recognize the poster's name and know that the topic had been discussed a lot, but new subscribers to the group would not realize, and would thus respond. These types of trolls served as a practice to identify group insiders.


So not at all what we mean today.  What a nice online world that must have been, although per reading up on the history of trolling "flaming" did also start up pretty early.  I'm not sure when comments sections became the wasteland they are today.

Why troll?  

Another post in the main blog I write about tea, about labels tea drinkers give themselves, reminded me of this subject.  People can see themselves as tea specialists, or enthusiasts, even connoisseurs or sommeliers, and take on any number of nicknames.  But no one ever claims to be a "tea troll," and the actual behavior is limited.  In general people don't insult others just to get a reaction.  Maybe that's just what one would expect, that anyone taking that particular beverage so seriously wouldn't be adopting the same antagonistic role one sees in discussions of politics or sports.  Some few people are still genuinely unpleasant and insulting but at least they're sincere and consistent about it, so they'd be a "square" on that types-listing, just not so nice.

Odd as it might seem to be interested in a completely unrelated subject, along with following tea and Buddhism I like to watch mixed martial arts fighting (UFC and such).  This subject of types reminds me of ideas on this subject by the main MMA commentator and podcast host interviewer, Joe Rogan.  His theory is that internet trolls lead unsatisfactory lives, and they take that out on everyone else by being as negative as possible about any subject that comes up.  It's also obvious enough that behavior is about seeking attention, essentially part of the general type definition for being a "troll."  But then really, they could be just like everyone else, working in a cubicle doing whatever, or higher level professionals, just inclined to be unpleasant.

I suspect that he's right though, that if you meet those people that are at their worst in a comments section posts they'd seem that type, coarse and unpleasant in real life too, in general living out unfulfilling biographies.  It might be more interesting if they were really living out a complete split in relating to others, nice in real life and horrible online, and that does seem possible.

In a recent podcast segment Joe Rogan explored another unusual idea related to people "trolling," that they might pass on ideas they know are false, not just insults or unlikely opinions, such as the flat earth theory.  The idea is that the earth is flat, not round, and some people actually believe this.  According to his theory some of the most outspoken advocates may not actually believe it, but may only express the idea to put people on, or to draw Youtube traffic to videos on the topic to earn revenue.  This video drew 1.7 million views; the creator earned money speculating that maybe the earth isn't a sphere, and then others copied that and did the same.

"proof" the earth is flat; NASA pictures vary  (photo credit)

It's interesting how anonymity might change things related to being genuine, or actually does.  In the Facebook groups related to tea people tend to really be who they are, in profiles.  In other places where tea is discussed they're not, like Steepster, a review site and forum.  On expat forums related to Thailand people are generally careful to isolate their online personas from who they really are, going well beyond not posting a real picture or name, and never mentioning details that link to them.  The separation enables distance from responsibility for online comments, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the reason for the practice.  In Thailand free speech isn't quite the given that it is in the US, so that could be one reason, that someone could speak more freely hidden behind an alias.  Of course one wouldn't want to test the limits of that, finding out how well an alias works as protection related to breaking the law.

Self-expression in the internet age, extended to real life

I probably deal with some degree of personal repression, completely aside from any concerns about free speech limitations.  I live within the narrow confines of being an employee, within a family-life role, all in a foreign country and culture.  In part I deal with all that by taking up hobbies, a lot of that online, by discussing tea, or less so through writing about Buddhism.  Arguing or being insulting online is a completely different thing, but that is still a form of self-expression, or in an odd sense entertainment.  The general point is that I do intentionally extend what I experience in real life in a different online direction, just not in any negative form, nothing to do with insulting people or misleading them.

like an alien clown (photo credit)

But lets go a step further, considering how someone might extend acting out a character "in real life." This relates to a recent bizarre series of "scary clown" incidents, in the sense that people extend a break with reality and antagonizing others to dressing up in costumes.  WTH, really?  That can't end well.  An article about someone dressing up as a clown to scare people, and then getting shot, ended with a catchy observation:


People better take those clown masks off… before the coroner does


Maybe it's not surprising that a few people that spend half their waking lives on the internet are finally losing touch with reality.  Maybe now it's not just the odd person that snaps and shoots up a movie theater, but the separation of behavior from reality could finally become more mainstream.  This is where someone might link a connection to watching too much television, or to the reality distorting effects of video games, but those sorts of linkages would be hard to determine.

real risk, or more trolling?  (credit)

On a different subject, I just happened across a comic-con convention a couple weeks back, at a local university; that seems another way the two mix, fantasy life and real life.  But then maybe these subjects really do span some sort of continuum.  Ordinary online discussion with strangers could naturally transition to some people being rude online, or leaving social conventions behind, then somehow on to dressing up in costumes (although that last connection isn't so clear).


Dressing up as a Star Trek character or Japanese anime character among other fans or stalking people in parks dressed as a clown don't necessarily seem closely related, but they may somehow connect.  Reality itself somehow seems more changeable now, more whatever someone defines it to be.  People were making that claim about television long ago, before trends seemed to actually bear out any risk, but maybe we're somehow finally getting there.

Back to Buddhism; not so related

To get back to the theme of this blog, we are way past Buddhism actually being able to help these people.  Even among people interested in Buddhism it seems to me that few enough get headed in any direction remotely connected to original teachings, but these people using insults as a hobby have taken many steps in a different direction.

This being a blog that's supposed to be about Buddhism, if there were some remotely common ground, what would it be?  Living any sort of fantasy life doesn't seem to overlap with Buddhism much; it's all about being grounded in immediate reality, not adding layers to that.  Even video games or online chatting may or may not sync well with such an approach to immediate experience.  Or then again maybe there is no conflict with the latter; there was never really any limitation on verbal discussion in Buddhism, until an outlier sect like Zen added that, a good millennium or so after Buddhism first came up.  Of course video games and television are new as well.  It doesn't seem a stretch to claim that Buddhism advocates being sincere and serious, a "square."  It also tends to reject mixing with people of opposite inclinations (not that I'm going to cite a passage in support of that), so a recommendation to avoid a lot of online negativity might be stated clearly enough, it would just take some interpretation to extend it to internet scope.

A Buddhist monk once gave me some interesting advice relating to how to avoid negativity in ordinary life, just not within the scope of online concerns.  He said don't read the newspaper; it's all just bad news, stories about crime and disasters and such.  His point was that in reading that you just take on mental noise; soak up negativity.  Related to something like the US elections this would seem a bit odd, since a lot of Americans will vote for the next President, and he would be advising they do so without closely following debate points and such.  Of course being a monk it seems unlikely he was voting in Thai elections.  The conventional equivalent might be unfollowing people that post in support of Trump, or Trump supporters doing the opposite.

There's really no conclusion for all this.  Buddhism probably does imply that people shouldn't be wasting time online, chasing random ideas and looking at pictures of attractive women or men and whatever they want buy, building up a sense of lacking things.  But it's not so obvious how to firm up that connection, to cite that link from early teachings.  I guess a case could be made for Buddhism advocating being sincere and "unserious," so maybe the part about needing to be a "square" isn't even a given.  It seems clearer that people shouldn't be a troll or a worm, or dress up as a clown to scare people, or shoot someone for being dressed as a clown, but then all of that is just common sense.