Are You a Keyboard Warrior? A Self-Assessment for Digital Behavior

Over the past 15 years, I’ve written hundreds of articles, recorded hundreds of podcasts, made hundreds of videos, and posted tens of thousands of times. Just in the last year alone, nearly 200,000 people have read this newsletter, and my posts have received over 600,000 impressions. That’s a lot of eyes on my content.

With that kind of reach, you’d think I’d be drowning in negativity - criticism from every corner of the internet, anonymous trolls taking shots, and debates spiraling into chaos. But here’s the reality: I can count on two hands the number of times someone has come at me with a confrontational comment. Not two hands this month. Not two hands this year. Two hands in over a decade.

And when it happens, the pattern is almost always the same. They just skimmed a post and fired off a comment - they didn't read the full article, watch the video, or listen to the podcast. Or they took something I said completely out context. So their comment never quite aligned with what I actually said or the point I was making. It was as if they needed to find something to argue about. And here’s the kicker: in most cases, they were wrong.

They had also never liked, commented positively, or engaged constructively with anything I had ever put out. And folks, I've put out thousands of posts! In short, they weren’t regulars who followed my work or appreciated the insights I share. More often than not (not always), they were academics, positioning themselves as the intellectual authority, taking a public jab instead of sending me a private message. Now, this is a small sample, so I do not judge academics here as I know quite a few very humble and helpful ones I greatly respect.

Now, let’s contrast that with the two times - just two - when individuals reached out to me privately to highlight an actual mistake I made. One of those two times it was about an article where I had misrepresented a concept related to the science of behavior. Instead of blasting me in the comments, they DM’d me with the source and their thoughts. They weren’t trying to ‘win’ - they were just looking for accuracy. And you know what? They were right. I corrected it immediately and even invited them onto my podcast to discuss it further. Now imagine if they had taken a more confrontational approach - how different that exchange would have been. I was grateful. I respected the fact that they took the time to approach me with honesty and professionalism.

This is an important difference in online behavior. Some people seek to elevate themselves by tearing others down in public, believing that by making someone else look wrong, they will somehow appear smarter. But the truth is, I believe it usually just makes them look bad.

Correction vs. Confrontation: When Is Public Criticism Necessary?

Now, don’t get me wrong—I’m not saying you should never correct things publicly. Sometimes, it’s absolutely necessary.

• When misinformation could cause harm. If someone is spreading false information that could impact people’s decisions, health, or safety, a public correction might be warranted.
• When the discussion is already public. If a misleading statement is made in an open forum, correcting it publicly ensures that others see the clarification too.
• When private outreach is ignored. If you’ve tried to reach out constructively and the person refuses to acknowledge a mistake, a public response may be the only option left.

However, the key is how you do it. If the goal is to educate, improve understanding, or move the conversation forward, a well-placed correction can be powerful. But if it’s about proving a point, taking someone down a notch, or feeding an ego, that’s when it shifts into keyboard warrior territory.

So, this got me thinking: What kind of digital citizen are you? Do you engage in thoughtful discussion, or do you find yourself typing out snarky rebuttals for the world to see? Are you adding value to conversations, or are you just trying to score points?

It’s time for some self-reflection. Let’s find out - are you a keyboard warrior?

Are You a Keyboard Warrior? A Self-Assessment for Digital Behavior

Answer the following questions honestly. Keep track of your answers, and we’ll tally them up at the end to see where you land on the keyboard warrior scale.

1. Do you find yourself replying to strangers online?

• A) Only when I think my expertise is needed.
• B) Yes, when their opinions are just wrong.
• C) Rarely. I prefer to observe from the sidelines.

2. What’s your ratio of positive comments to corrections or criticisms?

• A) At least 4:1 - I praise or support more than I correct.
• B) It’s about even, or I correct more than I praise.
• C) I don’t comment much either way.

3. How do you feel when you see a post you strongly disagree with?

• A) I consider whether engaging will be productive before responding.
• B) I immediately start typing my rebuttal.
• C) I keep scrolling - no need for extra stress.

4. How do you handle people who are clearly trolling?

• A) I ignore them - they’re looking for a reaction.
• B) I go in full force. No way I’m letting that slide.
• C) I block or mute them and move on.

5. What’s your approach to correcting misinformation online?

• A) I only correct when it’s a serious issue and do so respectfully.
• B) I make sure to call it out whenever I see it - people need to be held accountable.
• C) I don’t engage. Arguing online rarely changes minds.

6. When you do comment on posts, what’s your usual tone?

• A) Encouraging or constructive, even when I disagree.
• B) Direct and often sarcastic - I like making my point sharp.
• C) Neutral or observational, if I comment at all.

7. Have you ever regretted something you posted in the heat of the moment?

• A) Rarely, because I think before I post.
• B) Yes, but I still think I was right.
• C) No, because I barely post.

8. Do you comment publicly on a post when you disagree, or do you reach out privately?

• A) If it’s a minor issue, I might send a private message instead.
• B) I comment publicly - it’s important for others to see the correction.
• C) I usually don’t engage unless it’s a big deal.

9. Have you ever been blocked, muted, or unfollowed by someone after an online argument?

• A) Not that I know of - I try to keep discussions civil.
• B) More than once. Some people just can’t handle the truth.
• C) No, I avoid online arguments altogether.

10. What’s your main goal when engaging in online discussions?

• A) To contribute to meaningful conversations and learn from others.
• B) To correct misinformation and ensure people aren’t misled.
• C) To connect with others or just have fun.

Scoring Your Results

• Give yourself 1 point for every A, 2 points for every B, and 0 points for every C.
• Add up your total and check your results below.

Results

0-5 Points: The Lurker

You prefer to stay on the sidelines of digital conversations. You rarely jump into debates, and when you do, it’s usually constructive. You’re here for the content, not the conflict.

6-12 Points: The Diplomat

You strike a balance between engagement and restraint. You add to discussions without making them toxic, and you know when to walk away. You’re thoughtful about your words and keep a healthy ratio of positive to corrective comments—something the internet could use more of.

13-20 Points: The Keyboard Warrior

You’re quick to engage, eager to correct, and you’ve probably had more than a few heated exchanges. While your passion for truth and accuracy is admirable, it’s worth considering: Are you adding value, or are you just looking to win? If your correction-to-praise ratio is off, try reinforcing good behavior instead of just calling out the bad.

Beyond the Score: A Critical Question to Ask Yourself

Regardless of how you scored, there’s one question that can instantly reveal whether your online behavior aligns with your values:

"Would I say this to the person if we were face-to-face?"

If the answer is no, that’s worth reflecting on. The internet makes it easy to remove the human element from interactions. But behind every post, comment, and tweet is a real person. If you wouldn’t say it to their face—at a conference, at work, or in a coffee shop—then maybe it doesn’t need to be said that way online either.

Beyond that, here are some additional questions to consider when evaluating your digital engagement:

1. Am I adding value to the conversation, or just trying to win?
2. Am I engaging to educate and inform, or to vent and attack?
3. Am I treating this person like I would want to be treated?
4. Will this comment make me proud if I see it again in a year?
5. Are my comments in line with my values?

The internet isn’t going anywhere, and neither is public discourse. But how we engage determines whether we’re fostering real conversations - or just adding to the noise, division, and negativity flooding online spaces.

Final Thought: This is Not a Scientific Assessment (But It Makes Sense to Me)

Before you take your results too seriously, I need to be clear: this isn’t some peer-reviewed psychological measure of online behavior. No standardized validity tests, no regression analyses, no fancy statistical models backing it up.

What it is, though, is a reflection of patterns I’ve noticed after years of engaging online - thousands of posts, articles, videos, and interactions on not just my posts, but others. These questions are based on real-world observations of how people engage in digital spaces, what drives productive discussions, and what just turns into noise.

So, take this for what it is: a chance to reflect on your own online behavior and see where you land. No judgment - just a little self-awareness check.

And before you hit "post" on that next comment, ask yourself: Am I engaging in the kind of online behavior that aligns with my values? Is this something I'd say to somebody in person?

If the answer isn’t a clear yes, you might want to rethink your approach.

About the Author

Specializing in human performance, coaching, and organizational leadership, Dr. Paul "Paulie" Gavoni is a behavior scientist and educator who has worked across education and human services for almost three decades. In this capacity, he has served the needs of children and adults through various positions, including COO, Vice President, Director of School Improvement, Leadership Director, Professor, Assistant Principal, School Turnaround Manager, Clinical Coordinator, Therapist, District Behavior Analyst, and Director of Progam Development and Public Relations at PCMA. Dr. Gavoni is passionate about applying Organizational Behavior Management (OBM), or the science of human behavior, to make a positive difference in establishing safe, productive, and engaging environments that bring out the best in faculty and staff so they can bring out the best in the learners they serve. He is an active board member of the Opioid Awareness Foundation and World Behavior Analysis Day Alliance.

Known for his authenticity and practical approaches, Dr. Gavoni is the host of the Top 1.5% globally ranked Crisis in Education Podcast and a sought-out speaker at various Educational and Behavior Analytic Conferences Internationally. He a the Wall Street Journal and USA Today best-selling co-author of The Scientific Laws of Life & Leadership: Behavioral Karma; Quick Wins! Accelerating School Transformation through Science, Engagement, and Leadership; Deliberate Coaching: A Toolbox for Accelerating Teacher Performance; and MMA Science: A Training, Coaching, and Belt Ranking Guide. Dr. Gavoni is proud to introduce OBM and Applied Behavior Analysis to worldwide audiences through his numerous publications and his work with PCMA to create productive, safe, and positive cultures.

Beyond his work in education and human services, Dr. Gavoni is also a former Golden Gloves Heavyweight Champion and a highly respected striking coach in combat sports. Coach “Paulie Gloves,” as he is known in the Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) community, has trained world champions and UFC vets using technologies rooted in the behavioral sciences. Coach Paulie has been featured in the books Beast: Blood, Struggle, and Dreams a the Heart of Mixed Martial Arts, A Fighter’s Way, and the featured article Ring to Cage: How four former boxers help mold MMA’s finest. He is also an author who has written extensively for various online magazines such as Scifighting, Last Word on Sports, and Bloody Elbow, where his Fight Science series continues to bring behavioral science to MMA. Finally, Paulie was also a featured fighter in FX’s highest-rated show at the time, The Toughman, and as an MMA coach in the Lifetime reality series Leave it to Geege.

Disclaimer: All ideas presented are original to the author. ChatGPT has been used solely to enhance the reading experience.