"Study: Men Who Post Selfies Show Psychopathic Tendencies"

Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2015-01-17 07:14

Article here. "Psychopathic". Good grief. No mention of women who do likewise or that it's not out of the realm in the least that women post "selfies" much more often than men, and that if they do post "selfies", wouldn't that also suggest that they too are just one trivial slight away from opening up a can of whoop-a$$ on all in a$$-whooping range, too, or whatever happens to be their thing? What passes (or doesn't) at times for "scientific research" is truly barf-making. Excerpt:

'Men who regularly posted photos of themselves online scored higher on a measure for narcissism and psychopathy.

According to Medical News Today, a study out of Ohio State University has found that men who took “selfies” were more likely to exhibit psychopathic traits when compared to control group.

“That makes sense because psychopathy is characterized by impulsivity. They are going to snap the photos and put them online right away. They want to see themselves. They don’t want to spend time editing,” explains Jesse Fox, lead author of the study.

The study included 800 men between the ages of 18 and 40. The men took an online survey asking questions regarding their photo posting behavior on social media.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I sort of disagree.

Consider teen boys who have sex with their teachers. MRA is so determined to treat men and women the same, that we cry "rape" in such cases to keep things in balance. But to some extent, such boys are pursuing sex, with self agency, and they like it (good for them). The issue is NOT that we should call their female teachers "rapists" (and, thereby put men in the same 'dainty' box of victims as teen girls). We should recognize that the girls too, also pursue sex.

Or consider public crying. Yes, I teach my son it is OK to cry when he has an owie or he is feeling sad. But he is NOT to cry when he does not get the toy he wants and he must also learn to control his feelings. Self control is a good thing. And instead of teaching boys to cry, we should teach all children to show a modicum of self-restraint. Instead, we elevate the Oprah-inspired emotional Diarrhea and now expect boys to act like girls.

The same here. I DO think that men who take too many selfies are narcissistic. And they should be called on it (they are acting like teenage girls). Rather than get defensive and state "but girls do it too", we should continue to criticize such behaviors in men. Yes, we should criticize when girls do it, but these days I am more interested in saving boys from the feminist assault that wants them to act more like girls.

In fact, I daresay the world would be far better off, if girls acted (and get treated) more like traditional boys. Instead, in pursuit of parity, we mistakenly want boys to be treated like girls.

Acting like a man (self-restraint, lack of narcissism) is a good thing. Let's not destroy that in pursuit of parity.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ThomasI on Sat, 2015-01-17 07:42

Interesting take, Thomas, and I can see whence thou cometh. :)  I want to make a few points further that I didn't in the OP.

First, there's no mention of quantity.  The article makes a purely qualitative statement and includes no quotes from the pursuers of the study (I'm deliberately not using "researcher" since at the moment I don't see much evidence of them h@ving done a lot of actual research) saying there were quantitative measures of selfie-taking.  Did the study place men who posted one or two selfies/year in the same category as those who posted one or more per day, for example?

Secondly, Fox is not apparently qualified  to come to such a conclusion.  (Her Women's Studies Dept. faculty page is at: https://wgss.osu.edu/people/fox)  Her PhD is in Communication.  Her prior degrees are in English or Communication.  Unless one is an actual PhD or at least MA/MS in Psych or Clin Psych or better relative to the subject matter (e.g.: MD-Psy), academically they shouldn't even be swimming in this pool.  They're entitled of course to their personal opinions, but presuming to issue a scholarly paper on such things w/out actual scholastic qualifications in the subject is a big stretch.  That'd be like me presuming to issue a scholarly article on quantum electrical engineering theory w/out even a BS in EE or Physics, or indeed, on the psych implications of selfie-posting w/out at least an MA/MS in Psych.

Thirdly, there is no mention of a control group or of cross-studies of (surprise!) female selfie-posters to compare and contrast the men with, nor of cross-cultural issues.  For example, men's dress and grooming habits in other parts of the world are set to different standards as compared to most areas in the US. A study on grooming habits of men in most places in the world carried out by American researchers taking no acct. of varying cultural and social norms will be tempted to conclude any no. of things leading them to believe some pop'ns of men have "better" or "worse" such habits when in fact these things are typically determined by practicalities of climate, wealth, weather, taboos, etc. Once taken into acct., perhaps the study's conclusions would vary from those determined from a solely US socio-cultural POV.

Fourthly, her conclusion that men posting selfies reflects impulsivity doesn't follow.  She says the study's conclusion "makes sense because psychopathy is characterized by impulsivity.  They are going to snap the photos and put them online right away. They want to see themselves. They don’t want to spend time editing".  Posting selfies immediately or not makes no difference either if it's also true that posting selfies implies another kind of psychopathy as the article says the study concluded (somehow): narcissism.  Indeed, psychopathy comes in many forms; the common denominator, based on what I've read about it, appears to be that the behavior in question has its roots in a psych disturbance or other mental disorder that fosters a behavioral adjustment pattern that is at least part of the time seriously disruptive in ways to the well-being of self or others, or to relationships. (But I won't presume that knowing that qualifies me to issue scholarly works on the topic!)  I don't quite see how men's selfie-posting actually reflects psychopathic tendencies.  But I suppose I might if my study was being funded through the WST Dept. [Mrreeeowwr, I can be one catty bitch*, can't I? :) ]

Fifth, and in that vein, there seems to be no way the study can conclude other than what it does if it presumes selfie-posting entails psychopathy *exclusively* and tries to validate it with subjective testing.  There could be other non-isolated factors that come into play (culture, class, etc).  How do they influence outcomes?  In addition, the article reports: "The study also found that men who edited their pictures before posting also scored higher on the scales of narcissism and self-objectification."  So now it isn't impulsivity that is the only possible problem with selfie-posting men, it can be narcissism too if they are editing the pics prior to posting them.

No winning for losing, at least if you let feminists decide what the def'n of those words are in this context.  Hence my "Good grief" comment in the OP.

I wonder what Fox would say of men who don't post selfies?  Maybe that they could be showing signs of psychopathy since _obviously_ they're trying to avoid being seen on the Internet for some dubious reason?  Well, this is speculation on my part.  Nonetheless, I've noticed that when studies are done by feminists, the conclusion is typically foregone.  At the least, the "file-drawer effect" is usually in force, though to be fair, you find that in a lot of fields of science and industry, since money can be a very corrupting influence.  If the funder of the study, experiment, etc., wants a certain outcome, the studier/experimenter naturally feels the pressure from "the golden rule" and delivers the funder's desired results, or at the least, agrees not to report the findings publicly either explicitly or via a wink-and-nod sort of unspoken understanding.  In the case of WST Dept.-funded studies, it's obvious to me what kind of outcome the funding party wants to see reported.

As to your points about applying standards as applied to women instead of wanting to see those same standards applied to men, that's as valid a POV as any.  It becomes I suppose a question of which of the two is generally more fair to apply to ppl of both sexes, or if neither, then come up w/ a new one.  Maybe the passing of judgment vs. selfie-posters simply needs to be dropped entirely.  After all, just how bad is it to post selfies, and how many are "too many" anyway?  While to me, this particular topic (selfie-posting and its implications as a gauge for psychopathy in men, but gee, no mention if women) is trivial and typical of the sort of $- and time-wasting fluffy quack science one can expect from modern WST depts., it's also another example of how supposed "scientific studies" can be so bastardized and used for socio-political or other agendas. The Nazis did this a lot to justify their evil policies vs. non-"Aryans" in Germany and elsewhere; bogus "scientific studies" concluded all kinds of outrageous things, which were then used to justify to the press (which in turn swayed the ordinary German), and pressured any remaining hold-outs in the legal system to accept or go along with the voiding the rights of this or that class of person. Sound familiar?

Whether to adopt the classic how-we-judge-men vs. how-we-judge-women standard in any particular case though is itself a good thing to bring up, as you've done.  Like I said, either, or, or a third way is always possible.  I've just noticed a pattern: if a man is more readily condemnable by using the judge-like-a-man std., that's how he's judged.  If he could be judged like-a-woman and so be less harshly judged, he isn't.  If however it favors women to be judged-like-a-man, feminists cry foul if she isn't.  If it favors her to be judged like-a-woman, then no one gripes, incl. men.  I for one am sick of it.  Nymphotropism in action, again.  Barf.

---

* As dad used to say, "Men can be as bitchy as women, if not moreso."  Only in men it's more often called something like being a "sideways, sniping, snide a$$hole".  I'd rather be called a catty bitch than that other thing.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2015-01-18 07:21

Matt,

Had I known this article was based on the research of a feminist, I probably would not have bothered.

Yes, I see all your points and agree: this study is flawed.

I agree she (it?) appears to be motivated by a desire to disparage men. Even more noxious is her desire to "pathologize" behaviors in men.

Indeed, these are difficult times for men. We now appear to be attacked not only by feminists, but also by gay men. If only our gay brothers would recognize that their needs will not be addressed by feminists and that, at the end of the day, they are still men. But even that is difficult for men.

Despite this, I am growing very tired of many gay men (and I take this segue because I do perceive the flip side of narcissism to be, at times, homoerotic). In pursuit of rights that are coming anyway, they still seem to disparage men and side with feminists all the time. It seems to me their battles are with how THEY perceive or mis perceive masculinity and they now desire to deconstruct it, too -- weaken it.

I am going to relate an event.

Last Monday, I had a severe stomach pain. At the same time, my wife hurt her finger badly. In bed, I whined first. She basically told me to stiffen up, blamed me for what I must have eaten and then reminded me that it was my fault. Then she told me her finger hurt. I immediately stopped whining and began to massage her.

The next day, the thought entered my head on why I could not complain but she could --- and how I responded. I fought this feeling.

Then, last night, four days after the first event, she emailed me an apology. She said she did notice how I reacted. She told me how much she loved my stoicism. And last night... she showed it. Man oh man, did she show it....

As I look back, I am grateful I remained stoic. I am saddened that feminists and gays are deconstructing masculinity at a time it is sorely needed... in a era of emotional vomiting by so many.

These days, I sense a bit of caution in an over reaction to feminism. Yes, we must point out the double standards as you so often do and so eloquently. But we must caution ourselves not to descend into the "I am a victim, too," mentality.

PS: as an aside (and I suppose this is now the meat of my argument, coming in a post script; in fact, this is the first time I am revisiting this incident after my conversion to becoming MRA -- maybe, in time, I will expand these thougths). In 1972, as a 13 year old, I was alone in a movie theater and a man sat next to me and played with me. I was both immobilized and fascinated. In later years, under the sway of feminism, I whined about how I was victimized. It has taken me years and years to finally accept that I was fascinated. I was an an actor too. I wanted to see his dick. Yes, I had homoerotic feelings over the years, and acted on them many times. But now, at the age of 55, have these disparate feelings (anger, regret, self agency, self responsibility --- all related to the event) converged; now they are fully carried into a harmless memory. Under the sway of feminism, I would continue to be a victim: "I was raped, too!" Under the sway of masculinity, I moved on and am very happy and successful.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ThomasI on Sun, 2015-01-18 10:17