student analysis of theglimmerman
- From: "Dr. Robert Mulcahy" <dr.robertmulcahy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 12:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
I teach a class on the impact of expanding social media influence on
society at a respectable university that shall remain unidentified
because I wish to keep my job in this choking economy (I use a yahoo
id for that same reason). One of the projects chosen by one class
team was the extreme positions adopted by anonymous individuals on
Usenet. Their project keyed on locating a rabid user who delivers a
constant stream of material that is found objectionable by others in
the group and woring out why it is happening. The analysis consisted
of delving into the participant’s psyche and the reaction of others to
him/her (respondent sex cannot be positively determined from writing,
although sexual orientation is sometimes possible to assess with
reasonable certainty under these circumstances) over a period of time
sufficient to develop reasonable hypotheses.
There are over 100,000 individual groups on Usenet. The group
selected for this project is sci.electronics.design. The selection of
a study subject in that group was immediate, but was rendered complex
by the fact that the selected individual was posting (and continues to
this day) under over fifty different names (called nyms in Usenet
jargon). One of the more recently utilized nyms is TheGlimmerMan.
Because of these many nyms and sometimes differing personalities, the
analysis included some spillover of the individual into other Usenet
groups. The subject appears to be male, and suggestions about his
sexuality are raised oftentimes because of his apparent loner status.
The subject first appeared on the Usenet scene in 2007. This is
something that he would undoubtedly dispute as he claims to have been
participating in the group “for years”. However, the archives for the
group do not support his participation under any nym prior to 2007.
There are a number of major items of contention associated with the
subject as follows:
1. He frequently claims intellectual superiority over others in the
group, but appears to not have never stated any advanced educational
credentials. While he appears to be in a technical vocational area,
it is more likely as a laboratory technician/ worker as opposed to a
college graduate and degreed engineer. He clearly has no management
responsibilities.
2. He states that he had highly significant, major accomplishments in
his life at an early age. Some of these are technical in nature
(e.g., rebuilding an automobile engine at age 11) and are indicative
of having hands-on experience. There is little reason to doubt that
he may well have done some of the things claimed. However, he moves
quickly into tangential claims of vastly improved abilities in far
more esoteric topics (ballistics, aviation, space exploration,
military, etc.).
3. At one point he was accused of sexually deviant behavior. This
seemed to rattle him considerably and he reacted with a strong
denial. He made a specific point of telling one of his accusers that
the charges are unfounded because he is celibate. This is a claim
that he had refused to acknowledge in recent encounters with
detractors in the group. He has not denied the statement, but he has
not confirmed it either.
4. He expressed violent anger towards another participant who claimed
to have violated the articles of war during a period in which the
participant was supposedly engaged in active combat in a war zone. In
so doing the subject repeatedly cited his own military service as
honorable and denigrated the offending individual as a criminal.
Needless to say, anything posted on Usenet must be taken with a grain
of salt as it is easy to type ones fantasy instead of truth. It is
quite possible that his adversary has never seen any military action
and has fabricated a tale of bravado to goad our subject into anger.
At the same time, we must also be cognizant of our subjects response
as potentially false as well.
5. Our subject was challenged to solve a numerical puzzle that was
created by the challenging individual. Without hesitation, our
subject has refused to take the challenge and has been subjected to
the ridicule of others for this refusal. This is typical of one who
enjoys claiming superiority over others but who fears exposure if it
is not true.
6. Our subjects’ postings are full of vindictive and vulgar language
that attacks his adversaries with impunity. This behavior is evident
from the very beginning in 2007 and is not, therefore, due to any
increased pressure from current day participants.
After fully reviewing the subjects’ participation in the group
sci.electronics.design (plus a few diversions into other groups owing
to the many nyms utilized) from 2007 to 2009, the team has come to a
number of conclusions as follows (note that these are the students own
conclusions; I have encouraged them to take it to the next level and
engage the subject on sci.electronics.design):
1. The subject is a lone-wolf individual, probably in his late 40’s or
early 50’s, who works in a technically-oriented environment, most
likely in a technician-level assignment wherein he may do manual
assembly operations. He likely has no familial ties and it is assumed
that his biological parents are no longer living. His education is
likely complete at the high school level with some college or
vocational/technical job-related courses thereafter. It is doubtful
that he ever completed a formal baccalaureate degree level program.
2. His multiple chosen identities and constant utilization of vulgar
language, coupled with his rapid denigration of others in the group
are indications of a severely constrained personality disorder that
forces him to see others as a threat to his ability to survive. He
must remain at the top of the pile with respect to perceived
intellectual levels or (he fears) he will sink to the bottom and
become irrelevant – and that is something he finds intolerable.
3. His obsessive need to be at the top is rooted in his childhood
where he was most probably put down by his biological parents and
acquaintances outside the home. We have seen such treatment of a
child most often where the child has developed with physical
attributes rejected by the parents. Such physical conditions include
extreme obesity, deformities, poor skin conditions and speech issues
that impede communication abilities.
4. His claim of being a celibate individual is telling as it flies in
the face of another claim of having extreme romantic abilities such
that women swoon over him. This is the classic homosexual response
for one who has not yet come to grips with his own orientation and
place in the societal fabric.
5. Subject has great difficulty meeting with and developing any
meaningful relationships with women. He views them merely as objects
and, depending on the degree of his homosexuality that has been
allowed to surface, objects to be desired not so much for any
potential sexual gratification, as for his own acceptance by his
peers. He feels a need to portray a “normal” lifestyle for others to
see in order for him to be accepted. Naturally, this is a constantly
evolving situation. As he accepts and discloses more of his
homosexuality, the need for this posturing will diminish.
6. There is an unrecognized danger that the subject, when exposed to
increasing levels of scrutiny and humiliation in the group, will see
more and more participants turn against him and will eventually lash
out at the nearest available source at the time for venting his
frustration. This could, unfortunately, result in harm being wrought
upon innocents. It is for that reason we feel it appropriate to
recommend our subject take time out and not participate in the group
for a period of at least thirty days and seek counseling in the form
of anger management. This is a recommendation that cannot be made
directly owing to the anonymous nature of Usenet. It is, however, a
necessity to avoid the potential disaster that may occur without
intervention.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: student analysis of theglimmerman
- From: Richard Cranium
- Re: student analysis of theglimmerman
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: This is why there are "denialists"...
- Next by Date: Re: ADC Converters (General Clocking Question)
- Previous by thread: Firefox 3.5
- Next by thread: Re: student analysis of theglimmerman
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
