Online trolls are strange. On the one hand, it seems clear what they’re up to. Whether they are insecure, or bored, or confused, they want to pick fights and annoy people because it makes them feel powerful.

But how does this really work for them? How do they interpret the act of trolling as a personal accomplishment, or evidence or their superiority? Especially when trolling strangers, and even more oddly, when deliberately misinterpreting the statements of random strangers, in order to create a straw person with whom to have nonsensical arguments.

The most reasonable explanation is that they are projecting, in some way. They need to find enemies, even if those enemies are illusory, because they need someone, anyone, to fight, in order to compensate for their fears of inferiority. I don’t know. Psychology is weird. Trauma, and the struggle to deal with it, does all kinds of weird things to people.

Unfortunately, it takes some interaction to expose someone as a true troll, as opposed to merely a victim of misunderstanding. Except that some people are too embarrased to admit a misunderstanding. So they will assume the role of the troll to protect themselves from that embarrassment. Self-defense impulses are powerful.

But this raises questions. What is the best strategy for addressing misunderstanding? How do you distinguish between real misunderstanding and the troll’s game of gotcha?

We have to accept that the Internet is full of trolls, and other people with alternate agendas. They are looking to use online conversation for other than sharing information. They are looking to improve their self-esteem, and gain status, at least in their own minds.

If this is their only purpose, then there will be no getting through to them.

It’s not only trolls who abuse the conversational medium, however. Anyone with an agenda, a belief system to promote, is not online looking to build bridges and improve understanding. They are looking to sort people out: into supporters and enemies.

They are a strange lot, especially the ones who claim to be “on the left”. Political categories—especially self-applied labels—are next to useless, of course. Many “progressives” would gladly use regressive techniques to acquire and use power, no less than so-called “conservatives”. Many people are drawn to progressive causes as much for the moral outrage, and the moral justification to identify and persecute enemies.

Ideology (and its supernatural sibling, religion) is a form of belonging. Belonging is a form of power. The tenets of ideology are secondary to the power potential of being in a group. And the power potential is increased by conformity and the imposition of dogmatic purity. Conversation is antithetical to dogma. So the superstitious and ideological avoid real conversation.

It’s always disappointing when you meet a person who feigns an interest in conversation, when their true intention is only to identify in- and out-group members.

I find tribalism tedious. It is not an effective means of coping with our current challenges. But it is part of our innate wiring, and many people cannot overcome it. So we have to work around them.