[FRIAM] Socratic Trolling

[Steven A Smith]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20180221/2ecad755/attachment.html>