Editorial Comment: The Abnormal Psychology of Angry "Crank" Commenters

Published by Jimmy Oldsun, Editor

Date:  1/30/2011
Post:  1,599

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ..... 

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.  A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task.

Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief. Similarly, the word quack is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective; this term however does not imply any deep belief in the idea or product they are attempting to sell. Crank may also refer to an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood.

The second book of the philosopher and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1992 UseNet post, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a "checklist", the Crackpot index, intended to "diagnose" cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.

According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

I have found the Wikipedia information about "cranks" to be most helpful.  Sometimes we get "cranky" commenters here at Hermann Hearsay.  It's not that often, but it does happen from time to time.  When it does happen, it can be most discouraging to my junior staff writers.  Many times, I have had to step in to address the "cranky" commenter myself.  When I do, it has not always gone well even though I have tried to be polite and civil with the complaining person.

It seems to me that cranks have no interest in learning about the subject or person which they harshly criticize.  They simply have no respect for listening to a differing point of view. 

They will not read books (or any other kind of written material) on the topic they argue.  To do so would require them to expend some time and energy.  They will not talk to the individual they criticize and smear in an effort to learn his/her side of the story. Their motivation is only to speak (most often loudly) and be heard.

When cranks get into a defensive mode, I think it helps them more in the long run to be ignored.  I am currently ignoring one such crank who has come to this site repeatedly to accuse an innocent man of wrongdoing.  This crank no longer cares whether or not he has his facts correct.  He simply seeks to maliciously smear an innocent man and use the good name of Hermann Hearsay to help him do it.  That's why I am ignoring him!

Hermann Hearsay does not tolerate angry cranks, and we will NEVER allow them to use our blog site to publish and amplify maliciously false accusations about innocent people.

The longer debates with cranks rage on in the Comment Section of our blog site the more likely it is for the crank to write or imply any one or more of the following:

1. They are a genius on the matter under debate, a genius on the scale of Albert Einstein.
2. My staff writers who've researched the topic they have written about or the matter which the crank raises in a comment  are ignorant and don't have the gift of seeing the "real" truth and are unwilling to perform investigative due diligence. 
3. My staff writers and I are or ought be afraid of them for some reason or another.
4. They (and others) are watching me and my writers, implying that we should be concerned for our own physical safety.
5. And so on to include cursing, threats and intimidation of every kind imaginable.

Obviously, the more they say stuff like this the less likely they are to have an "oops, I was wrong" moment.  Consequently, I think elongated debates reinforce their resistance to being educated in the facts of the matter which they haven choosen to argue.

Thus, it often seems that the only choice which I am left with is to just ignore them.

Reciprocal Links: http://www.DSchaefer.Vemma.com (Nutrition For A Lifetime), http://www.Heart2HeartLyrics.blogspot.com (Song Lyrics Seeking Singer-Songwriters), http://www.HermannMoNews.blogspot.com (The 'Drudge Report' of Hermann), http://www.RivertownRecipes.blogspot.com (Great Local Recipes)

Other Recommended Links: http://www.AccuWeather.com (Weather Forecasts), http://www.DorasSpinningWheel.com (Embroidery), http://www.HermannAdvertiserCourier.com (Gasconade County's Newspaper of Record), http://www.MUTigers.com (Official Website of the Missouri Tigers), http://www.RushLimbaugh.com (Conservative Talk), http://www.Time4Pie.com (Great Pie, Coffee & Conversation), http://www.ToedtmannGrosse.com (Obituaries), http://www.WatkinsOnline.com (Watkins Natural Products)