So, as one of our (probably) few SMPS experienced/knowledgeable people here, what exactly is wrong with Faringdon's, SMPS threads/questions?
Compared to the unknown newbie?
Answer(s) could be:
E.g. They make too many such threads over a short space of time, don't always respond for more detailed information, waste of time, question is too silly or obviously made up, their technical idea(s) are too far fetched (wrong), too little/vague details etc.
If you want me to walk through my entire perception / thought process and decision tree, I suppose I could do a "worked example", but suffice it to say: the title is often attractive / topical / "bait" (for those of us looking for SMPS questions), and the content is just... intellectual cringe. Besides that, the decades (yes, plural) of experience knowing that these topics (usually in variations, but still not deeply understanding the inner workings) come up time and again by the author, and the answers to which have never been well internalized.
The more obviously political ones of course stand apart, and may be worth a peek just for context, and maybe some perverse amusement, maybe even to share thoughts with others, on a topic that's rarely discussed (and somewhat short of officially prohibited), but, when one is, perhaps, bold enough to break that curtain, it can be interesting to see what others are saying behind it.
And there's the, even if the OP isn't asked in good faith, there can still be useful discussion, and I have contributed to treez threads on occasion.
I think what's actually going on is that kind of bull-headed frustration; where intellectual curiosity is required in this field, yet one proceeds in spite of themselves. That internal disagreement (the
resistance to learning) is reflected externally as if arguing with the replies. One way or another, the information manages to seep inside, a design is completed (in, uh, whatever sense "complete" might mean here), but lessons aren't learned, and the process starts over.
It's surprising I guess, given the scope of the internet (even just the English speaking internet, and even just in the subject of electronics), that his case is unique; sure there have been others, there have been far worse trolls (and much stronger intentioned), especially going back to the Usenet days say (those who remember Phil Allison, or RSW), and there have been the ignorant and stubborn coming through from time to time, but rarely sticking around for anywhere near so long.
Not to get too into psychoanalysis, of someone I haven't even met face-to-face -- but more to provide useful context on related situations, and
perhaps some explanation in this case -- if I had to guess, the pattern of behavior seems to be: chronic self-interest, a lack of empathy (and perhaps theory of mind) for the "other", a resistance to learning implies an overpowerful ego that resists all possible change, a lack of introspection, etc. Symptoms that very much cluster around the NPD type -- but keep in mind, these are just symptoms, and they can be related to many things. NPD in particular has a strong "learned" component, whether directly (by example), or as a survival mechanism in a stressful environment -- abuse and trauma are often involved.
It doesn't have to be intentional, a troll. A
very similar interaction might result, but it can happen subconsciously, without intent. And if one lacks introspection, there's no reason to re-read, edit and compose something else. (And even then; y'all can see what I write sometimes, and I often edit meticulously. Whether those cases slip by due to hasty/skipped editing, or are missed even after significant editing, who knows...
) One might still (and perhaps rightly) accuse such a person of acting badly, but what's interesting is the cause behind it: a classical troll consciously revels in the chaos, the NPD-symptom-sufferer may not intend it at all, or even feel regret for having done so (but, of course, expressing that as such is a challenge).
And circumstances like that, when it includes trauma from an early age, it's... understandable; kids are just trying to survive, and if they're forced into presenting an unassailable ego-wall, that's going to imprint on them a lifelong resistance to any kind of change, inside or out. Later development issues, difficulty learning complex topics, etc. is practically a given. How can one change their understanding of reality itself (say, learning the sciences) when it's been so deeply beaten into them, from such an age, to resist any force of change?
And there's overlap with ADHD, whether neurochemically (it's starting to look like there's more in common here than we thought, and. we're slowing teasing apart genetic influences), or by necessity (e.g. punishment for "acting up", etc.)
This article and comments are kind of fresh in my mind, so, take it as inspiration for these last few paragraphs perhaps, or perhaps even more sharply as a bias, but it may be related reading of interest:
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1ekjzna/a_new_study_found_that_a_notable_proportion_of/As for my... general demeanor I guess, with respect to, well people in general, but here as much as any other case -- I do try to keep a neutral, distanced perspective, while looking for aspects to sympathize with, to understand.
Usually if someone is acting out, and it's intentional, they'll telegraph it. Like, uh, in one online-friends group, I know someone who expresses persistent interest in "chaos", is as much an absolute gremlin as you would expect, and "steals" everyone's "fridge". Silly fun. (There has been some drama, but it's been dealt with promptly (to the credit of those modding the space), and, in time, a warm apology given. 10/10 would virtual-hug again. Wish I had a fridge though...)
Okay, maybe that example's too in-the-open to be a troll per se, but comedy includes a sliding scale between self-interested sadism and broad collective amusement, and one can imagine the same kind of energy, turned inward and inverted outward, trolling others for personal amusement. This may've been a bad example; but maybe it's also a positive example -- I don't know her history, if, like, behavior used to be worse, I don't know, and certainly not making any assumption or accusation to that effect -- just that, I can imagine someone starting out that way, but maturing towards a more wholesome outcome. And I mean, teenagers, we've all been one, we probably know (or have known) at least several who were
full of shit to mince no words, but matured into okay people in the end, life is a journey, who you are now doesn't dictate who you'll be in the future. Especially at a young age when experiences are new, and in stages where the environment changes suddenly.
In other cases, it may be telegraphed more subtly, or can be recognized as manipulation (as is the penchant of [full, proper] NPD) given close enough observation, or establishing a pattern over time. But there is always a tell, or an affect on others (even if the victims might not consciously realize it, or be willing/able to say so).
Whereas if it's subconscious, it may very well and truly be more accidental. The person might not bring themselves to apologize, or to even hint at their wrongdoing, but they may still understand it. Again, I'm not talking full-blown NPD here, just clusters of symptoms. It is of course hard to tell the difference between intentional, unapologetic rudeness, and accidental, regretted but still unapologetic rudeness, but that difference does matter.
In general, people
deserve sympathy; that's... the human condition, that's, literally what makes us human, makes us cooperate, able to build complex social networks, civilization itself. Some people may not choose to seek it out, or resist it even when offered, but people in general deserve a sympathetic and understanding approach, and even if someone is clearly behaving in bad faith, there is still some good-faith outcome to be hand. Even if it's as basic as staying out of it -- like, I know a few people for example who are going through a toxic phase, and, it's a saturation of information sort of thing, I would dearly love to help them but I can't afford (or frankly, bear) to spend nearly enough time with them to counter the negativity; the next best option, I think, is to just step aside. Maybe they'll come around in time -- in which case they'll likely invite you back warmly. And if they never do, you're probably better off without anyway. That's just life, relationships come and go, nothing need be forever. And friendship isn't a state of being; it's a recurring affirmation!
So too, one never needs to express negativity, in person or on the internet. A sharp remark once in a while might be justified, but is still never
required. (And yup, read that with a bit of
do as I say not as I do self judgement!)
If nothing else, just step away. We can all see who has the bigger ego by who replies last; you don't need to
broadcast it to the world.
(There is only one exception: when someone chooses to break the social contract, and proposes violence as their solution, then violence is a justified, and in the last resort necessary, response. There are many degrees of violence, mind, but even just calling the cops / tipping the FBI / etc. regarding a violent comment, is ultimately invoking, potentially, the entire system of legitimized violence that is the state;
calling the cops is 100% an act of violence, whether it's appropriate for the situation or not, whether it has a
good just outcome or not.)
(That last bit is an important distinction. Justice isn't
good per se. Justice is just. It's rare enough that we have
just justice in this world, anyway, but it's rarely if ever a mutually-consented "good" to all parties involved. Particularly in our western, adversarial system. Even more particularly so, in that the Justice System enforces law, but law is, by itself, amoral; a court may accept moral arguments, but they are generally weak, or a "hail-mary" for a party to invoke. Thus, neither is the Justice System as we have it, moral per se.)
So, yeah. I hate that this has gotten so long (well, kinda not really,
'tism go brr, but, I wish there were more concise ways to convey these topics; but they're complicated, not often discussed/unfamiliar, and highly sensitive and delicate too), and I hate to armchair-lecture you all
except when it's about electronics, and obviously I'm far from a therapist, I just know some things, and probably not very well at that. But change is possible, given an openness to find it. This goes both for readers, who should strive for understanding, and for posters who might be tempted to snap back at something objectionable -- but for which an explanation can be found.
When one needs change, has been told of it, but still refuses to seek it -- don't antagonize. That just looks bad. It doesn't help anyone: worse, it reinforces the target's need for an armored defense. Let it be known, kindly, once in a while, then leave it be. The ideal situation (in this thread, to get back on topic for a moment) is to just ignore the problem, and it either goes away on its own, it intensifies into antagonism (moderation steps in; this is perhaps the current outcome), or it seeks appropriate treatment.
I will say one final closing comment, to treez, if you are reading this at all:
And, again if I haven't
completely cocked up my analysis, even as tenuous as the above is -- you can seek help. You don't have to shut people out forever, change is possible. I might even say
economically justified, given the challenge of your jobs, I mean it's clear you've met many challenges, frustrations. Why is it so easy for some of us, but so hard for others? Who knows, but there may be options. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy can't undo a lifetime of -- well, whatever, again I'm not going to assume your background, there are possibilities I could list but only you know for sure and that's all that matters -- but with a concerted and willful effort, it can make life better, you can be more productive, but most of all you can just be... happier, and that's what matters the most.
Cheers, and good luck (to all),
Tim
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
