Of Trolls, Types, and Turning the Tide

A further conversation with Dr. Carol Jasper and Dr. Jonathan N. Stea

In their prior interviews, Dr. Carol Jasper(@DrCarolJasper), Dr. Jonathan N. Stea(@jonathanstea), and I delved into the psychological and ideological drivers of trolling. This time, we explore how different types of harassment play out in practice, the challenges of addressing trolls, and whether understanding their motivations can lead to meaningful change. This conversation unfolded on X/Twitter and had been reformatted for readability.

Any similarities to living psychologists or psychotherapists is purely coincidental.

Trolling Patterns and Personas

Carol: I’m wondering, Paul, if different types of posts or posters elicit different types of trolls. For example, does Jonathan attract the same types as I do?

Paul: Well, based on what I've seen—which is a very unrepresentative sample—I’d say you (and me) all attract instances of all the types: rage-baiters, concern trolls, sealions, masked torturers, deluded martyrs, etc. But the proportions might vary.

Much trolling is ideologically driven, but some is pure sadism with ideology being secondary. With male trolls, precarious manhood features a LOT—either outright in rage-baiters or lurking with sealions to emerge later. That shows in misogyny towards you and homophobia for us.

Jonathan might get more deluded martyrs due to the anti-psychiatry/alt-medicine patient advocate 'pool,' but you seem to get your fair share too with anti-vaxxers/conspiracists. I get possibly more gender-critical women sealions due to my trans ally-ship.

But I’m leery of the amount of selection bias in this summary. Gender is definitely a big factor here. It would be interesting to do a full discourse analysis or grounded theory coding of our respective Twitter feeds. That would be a fascinating piece of social science research.

Carol: It feels gendered often, but maybe that’s too easy an analysis. I’d love to do a study, but I’m pretty sure I can’t analyse my own trolls. 🤦🏻‍♀️

Paul: It’s an interesting research ethics issue. I think you would need to have multiple people coding the tweets, possibly with others coding yours and vice versa. This is not uncommon practice in discourse analysis to get coding consistency.

It’s also not lost on me that we are bound by and rightly concerned about research ethics and fairness with human subjects, and the trolls don’t seem to be—but so it goes.

Carol: Good point! I’m always thinking about the ethics or bias of a study—would it be reliable or valid? It’s literally what we’re trained to do!

Would be interesting for sure. I think you’re right, though—the topic seems to attract certain types. Something to observe, perhaps?

One thing I find fascinating about people who troll Jonathan is how often they comment on his appearance. I rarely get personal comments—more discrediting my professional role. I’d have predicted I would receive more hate being female, so that’s an interesting divergence.

Paul: Yeah, that is rather fascinating. I think the man bun seems to give precarious manhood dudes conniptions, and for others, it’s just such a lazy rage-baiter jab.

Maybe you attract more of the Machiavellian trolls—i.e., sealions—who aren't quite so lazy or insulting to begin with?

Carol: Possibly. Plus, I guess they can’t really see me in my pic. 🤷🏻‍♀️ It’s almost reassuring to be tackled for my professional role instead of my appearance. That that is progress is alarming, though!

Jonathan: Indeed. I think it’s an unsophisticated form of tribalism.

Carol: Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad not to have to deal with it. And I love how anyone assumes you’d care about their ideas on how you should wear your hair!

Jonathan: I hear you, my friend. Lol. To their credit, the man-bun haters don’t even pretend to be the “good guys” when trolling in that way—they’re explicit about their abuse. I appreciate the honesty. In contrast, the “deluded martyrs” believe that their abuse is justified.

Carol: It’s truly an ugly life, right? I mean, I know my faults and try to work around them, but mostly I just accept I’m a flawed person, just like everyone else.

Except, unlike the deluded martyrs, I’m trying to be a better person. They think they’re already there and have to live that lie.

Jonathan: Exactly. Well said.

According to my most ardent harassers, for example, I’m the “face of evil”—but I’m not the one who engages in defamation and online abuse every day. The narcissism veil is thick and overshadows their science illiteracy.

Carol: You’re evil because, to them, you undermine their attempts to derail psychology? Never mind that you have a client list who need help and support—which they never provide?

It’s all “take a walk by the sea,” “buy this supplement.” It’s never “come talk to me; I’ll listen,” is it?

Paul: No, it never is. Actual empathy is not their strong suit—it’s the polar opposite of sadism.

Carol: Indeed. Sad existences they lead.

Jonathan: Truly sad. The “deluded martyrs” seem to be the most obsessive in their harassment campaigns—at least with me.

Carol: Which tracks. They’re perhaps believing they’re on some ideological journey, whereas mine just tend to hate me having a platform at all—or a voice, or an opinion. And plants. Darn those plants! 🌱

Jonathan: Ugh. I’m sorry.

Yes, mine indeed believe they’re on some ideological journey that takes them to wonderful and exotic places like the other end of their couches. Lol.

Carol: That’s it. Social media platforms, for some, seem to serve as some sort of accreditation process, whereby their ambitions are realized in the absence of the hard graft of studying or gaining practical experience.

And they genuinely believe themselves to be equivalent experts.

Jonathan: We know they’re watching this very exchange and probably nodding along with your point, “Yeah, that’s right, I’m accredited.” Lol.

Carol: How they cozy up to any expert who holds a similar view is most telling, also. Complete sycophancy. Constantly craving validation in the most obsequious manner.

To their discredit, said “experts” lap it up.

Jonathan: So well said.

In my case, I’ve noticed that the leaders and players of the anti-science movements, who my most ardent harassers worship, don’t even acknowledge their existence—which pierces the “deluded martyr” fantasy and stings the narcissism even more. 👍

Carol: At least they are not inflating the ego or accrediting the perspective of the troll in question. At the very least.

Jonathan: That is true. I think they would seize that opportunity if the harassers had anything whatsoever to offer.

Carol: The negativity can be overwhelming, but moments of connection make it all worthwhile. It reminds me of why I keep speaking up. For every troll who attacks me for my vegan beliefs, there’s someone who might be inspired by my advocacy.

I was recently honoured to have been featured in this character study as a vegan inspiration to a truly admirable young activist. Humbled. It’s those positive, real-world interactions that highlight how irrelevant the trolls’ opinions really are.

Jonathan: Toiling in irrelevance ain’t easy for those folks. 😊👍

Carol: Ain’t that the truth. Love it when the positives outweigh those nasty negatives.

Jonathan: Truly! It ain’t easy for our most ardent harassers to toil in irrelevance, insecurity, lack of validation, and narcissistic injury/rage when reality pierces their grandiose fantasies. Behavioural karma has delivered—with a sting—what they deserve for their well-documented history of years of abuse. Frankly, I’m glad they’ve failed to accomplish their pseudoscientific goals. I find that worth celebrating. 🤷🏻‍♂️😊🙌🎉

Carol: Indeed: which is partly why I shared this. It was a beautiful experience and rooted entirely in the very reason trolls despise me.

It’s the ultimate recognition that their anonymous opinions are completely irrelevant when there are so many positive real-world interactions.

Jonathan: So true. Harassers don’t know what it’s like to actually improve health outcomes, to receive overwhelming messages of support, to have their work reach the public, and to join patients in their health journeys.

Instead, they sit at home seething, adding to their human stamp collection of abuse, and continuing to realize that no one cares what they say or do, and continuing to realize that their fantasies just feed their narcissism but have no basis in reality. Let them keep up the great “work.” Lol 🙏

Carol: I don’t help health as directly as you do, but I hope I help people to see that we can listen even to those we disagree with and try to understand them in order to make positive changes in society.

I really hope that helps them long-term to lead healthier, happier, peaceful lives.

Jonathan: Well said—you absolutely do help people in that way.

And it’s sad that our harassers don’t understand what they’ve done to themselves. They don’t understand their “behavioural karma.” Their constant defamation and dog-pile attempts and screenshots of our posts won’t transform their narcissistic fantasies into reality. That takes work. It takes expertise, and clinical experience, and training, and skill development, and above all, healing on their part to solve their abusive behavioural patterns.

Because they can’t help people or revolutionize health care or be useful at all when all their time is spent harassing health professionals and scientists on the internet, or retweeting misinformation from people who they worship and who don’t even know who they are or acknowledge their existence.

Some of our harassers consider that “work.” It’s not work. It’s nothing. And they have nothing else to show. It’s very sad. Pitiful, even. 👍

Can Trolls Change?

Carol: I don’t know about you, but I’d love to sit down with them and really talk through their motivations. I’d really like to have them face us and tell us exactly what they thought they were doing—are doing. It would be a wonderful opportunity to show them what kind people we are.

Jonathan: That’s laudable, my friend. To be frank, though, I would choose not to do that because I’ve been experiencing compassion fatigue toward them for a long time.

For several years I’ve requested that they leave me alone. And for several years they’ve regularly violated my boundaries via incessant defamation, purposeful dog-piling, involving my family, regularly attacking my friends and colleagues, bizarre forms of cyberstalking and covert harassment like quoting me and my supporters, calls to retract my articles about topics they’re unqualified to understand, collecting my photos and posts, etc.

They’ve had plenty of opportunities to make amends and to cease their abusive behaviour. They voluntarily choose to continue with those abusive behaviours.

Good people don’t do what they do. And in my view, they don’t deserve to sit down with me—I wouldn’t give them that satisfaction and to pretend they matter just because they’ve chosen to take up an abusive hobby.

I’m here to sit with patients every day as they navigate the ravages of addiction and mental illness, and I’m here to help protect people from pseudoscientific grift and the harms of anti-science movements. I’m not here to be a punching bag for harassers.

That is why I’m quite pleased that the majority of them are toiling in irrelevance and deep insecurity and failure. They don’t deserve my compassion and kindness until they choose to heal and make the necessary changes. I’m not here to help them with that endeavour because patient care is my priority, not their bruised egos, self-importance, and narcissistic fantasies. 😊👍

Carol: And you’re quite right. I haven’t had the same level of sustained attack as you. And I hugely admire your forbearance. We all have to practice self-care, and it’s different for you in that you are patient-facing, and that’s an enormously demanding role.

I get to pontificate in my ivory tower. It’s not at all the same.

But, as someone whose work involves intergroup conflict and inequality, I’d really like to understand why people do what they do. I’d love to interview such people and explore the ‘why.’ Thing is, these types would never do just that.

And why? Well, essentially they’re all terrible cowards. As we’ve discussed at length, they are essentially jealous and spiteful creatures who refuse to acknowledge our status because it lays bare their lack thereof.

But, to paraphrase the great Michael Billig, if we truly want to understand those who attack us, those who seek to create division, those who practice discrimination and exercise prejudicial views, and even violent intent, we have to look at what they say—either online or engage in person.

I’d happily do the latter, with full recognition that it’s easier for me. Firstly, I’m not as famous as you. Secondly, I don’t have the range of trolls you do. And thirdly, I don’t have patients who deserve my time far more than any harasser.

But I’m still piqued to get to the bottom of their behaviour.

Jonathan: Thank you for your kind words, my friend. I too am fascinated by their motivations (e.g., my piece below), and we’ve both had the wonderful opportunity to participate in Paul’s fantastic work.

In working clinically with those who experience narcissism, I’ve seen different kinds of responses to a victims support network. Some, as you’ve mentioned, are too cowardly to share their insecurities out of fear of being exposed for their jealousy, resentment, etc.—and we especially see this on social media when our harassers choose to hide their identity, so they shy away from these opportunities opting instead to harass from a distance. Others, however, relish the opportunity for manipulation and to further violate their targets boundaries via indirect harassment.

Personally, I’ve seen this happen to me right here on social media, whereby my harassers will (creepily) watch who I engage with and then contact my supporters in an attempt to involve themselves in my support systems. Countless supporters have sent me screenshots of such boundary violations that often appear unsolicited in their DMs. It’s yet another narcissistic attempt for harassers to try to control their targets and impose their presence through a boundary where it’s not wanted.

The causes of online trolling:

Paul: I’ve had a few rare online conversations with trolls who’ve dropped the mask. For one, the envy and rage were palpable—sadism was their primary motivation. For another, their humanity was visible, and face-to-face we might have gotten somewhere. But their anti-trans ideology was primary, and a year or so later, they were back trying to sealion and moralize as before.

I guess I’m in-between the two of you in the amount of trolling and personalized harassment aimed my way, so I get where both of you are coming from.

Essentially, committed trolls are helpable in much the same way other addicts are—only if they want to face themselves. For the more Machiavellian malignant narcissists, worming their way into your support system to recruit ‘flying monkeys,’ they are a lost cause and only want to learn from mental health professionals how to be more effective abusers.

This has been an awesome conversation here with two of my favourite online friends and colleagues. Thanks again for sharing your experiences and insights. I’m sure it will offer people a lot of food for thought.