In my last contribution to the EvoPsych thread I referenced the following paper:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/aristotle-on-trolling/540BB557C82186C33BFFB61E35A0B5B6/core-reader and accused him of "Socratic Trolling". I of course, meant that in the kindest of ways. From the Excerpt: /One might wonder whether there is an art of trolling and an excellence; and indeed some say that Socrates was a troll, and so that the good man also trolls. And this is in fact what the troll claims: that he is a gadfly and beneficial, and without him to ‘stir up’ the thread it would become dull and unintelligent. But this is incorrect. For Socrates was speaking frankly when he told the Athenians to care for their souls, rather than money and honors, and showed that they lacked knowledge. And this is not trolling but the contrary, exhortation and truth-telling—even if the citizens get very annoyed. For annoyance results from many kinds of speech; and the peculiarity [//idion//] of the troll is not annoyance or controversy in general, but confusion and strife among a community who really agree. And since the one who does this on every occasion must act with knowledge, and on the basis of practice and care, he has a kind of art—just as one might speak of the art of the hack or of the grifter. But it is not really an art, being without any function; and it belongs not to the serious person to be a troll but to the one who lacks education./ /What the troll is, and in what way he trolls and for what, has now been said. And it is clear from this that there can be trolling outside the internet. For every community of speakers holds certain goods in common, and with them the conversation [//dialegesthai//] as an end in itself; and the troll is one who seeks to damage it from within. So a questioner can troll a political meeting, and academics troll each other in committees when they are bored; and a newspaper columnist may be a profit-troll towards a whole city. But blogs and boards and forums and comments sections are where the troll dwells primarily and for the most part. For these are weak communities, and anyone may be part of them: and so their good is easily destroyed. Hence the saying, ‘Trolls <are> not to be fed’. But though everyone knows this, everyone does it; for the desire to be right on the internet is natural and present to all./ I have long been aware that what we often call "trolls" can be beneficial to a group, and appreciate the description provided above. I have seen very little *if any* real (destructive?) trolling on this list which I believe remains > 600 strong despite the vocal subset only being roughly a few dozen. I also wonder at the relation between a "Troll" and a "Trickster <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickster>"... where the Trickster is credited with having both secret knowledge and even sometimes powers. The Trickster is more ambiguous in his/her good/evil role, but the above description of the possibilities within a Troll suggests that a Troll might well have an aspect of Trickster built in. The most obvious shared feature is the ambiguity of in-group/out-group status... which is one of the things that defines a Shaman. In all cases, one must be "insider" enough to understand the in-group well enough to be relevant but "outsider" enough to be capable of having enough perspective and motivation to operate outside of the group norms. - Steve
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove