The ‘Selfie’ Obsession: A Chronic, Narcissistic Mental Disorder
21st Century Wire asks…
[Dec 13, 2014]
Does this picture make you uncomfortable?
President Obama and VP Biden: Was it just horse play, insecurity, or do they have compulsive narcissist tendencies?
Well, it should. As a member of the voting public, it should make you feel more than awkward seeing your top two chief executives engrossed in one of the most banal contemporary pastimes ever – taking a ‘Selfie’ [noun. a picture taken of a person, by that person].
One also must consider the very real possibility that these two men might be suffering from one of many mental conditions, including Body Dysmorphic Disorder, that are afflicting millions of smart phone users worldwide…
‘Gym Selfies’ are now some of the most popular forms of digital exhibitionism.
Everyone is taking selfies now. Should we really be worried about this trend, or is it just a case of people being empowered on a microblogging platform like Twitter, or Instagram? Writer Donna Highfill explains, “I have run into at least 10 people recently who have stopped on fast-moving, heavily-populated sidewalks to take a #selfie. There is no historical building behind them, no beautiful landscape, no real reason to take a picture of themselves other than the fact that they can reverse the camera on the phone, gaze at their own visage, and then share it on social media so the rest of the world can gaze upon it as well.”
“If smartphones were ponds, a large portion of our population would have already drowned.”
No one is immune. Even celebrities who you’d think are already getting enough face time are still drawn to the cheap narcissistic released provided by the selfie.
Yesterday, the digital oligarchs at Twitter declared 2014 as the ‘Year of the Selfie‘. According to executives there, the most popular, the most retweeted, ‘tweet’ of the year was by comedian Ellen DeGeneres at the Oscar awards last March – with her celebrity ‘friends’, including Bradley Cooper, Meryl Streep, and Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt. Her Tweet was ‘favorited’ over 2 million times and retweeted 3.3 million times.
ICON & SAD: There’s something uncomfortable about watching celebrities grovel for a Tweet (Image Source: First Post)
It later turned out that DeGeneres’s spontaneous selfie was just another corporate money-making scam, as was confirmed by the Wall Street Journal. Samsung executives even had to teach Degeneres how to use the Galaxy Note 3 device before the Oscars.
No occasion is sacred either, including somber events like funerals (see photo of Obama, Cameron and Danish PM further down article). Obama’s funeral gaffe went on to inspire other more macabre copycat selfies…
(Image Source: Manila Speak)
From a pop psychology perspective, the textbook definition of narcissism is fairly harmless, described as, “extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.” From a psychoanalysis point of view, it’s much more critical: “self-centeredness arising from failure to distinguish the self from external objects, either in very young babies or as a feature of mental disorder.”
Experts are now finding through new clinical studies, that this existing narcissistic mental disorder is now being further exacerbated by the introduction of hand-held technology and the ability to upload an image to a ready-made crowd of voyeurs in a matter of seconds.
Is Technology Eroding Away Our ‘Conscious Self’?
21st Century Wire says…
[Dec 1, 2014]
The esoteric side to technology is a discussion which is boiling to surface like never before.
In the 21st century, what was previously classed as ‘science fiction’ is now science fact, and with this comes some of the most horrific realizations of Frankenstein technologies – like ‘The Singularity’ – an integral concept of what some liberal progressives and atheists enthusiastically refer to as transhumanism.
When Mary Shelley’s early 19th century character, Dr. Frankenstein said, “I considered the being whom I had cast among mankind – and endowed with the will and power to effect purposes of horror, such as the deed which he had now done, nearly in the light of my own vampire, my own spirit let loose from the grave, and forced to destroy all that was dear to me”, he was really speaking to us.
So it’s interesting when theologians and monks enter the debate, helping to stretch the debate from technological, through to the esoteric, and back to the spiritual, and finally giving way to a genuine examination of the self. If technology is merely an extension of our human endowment, then where does that technological extension end?
This raises an yet another essential question for those who still consider themselves as holistic humans:
Are we really ‘present’ when we immerse ourselves into our virtual world of convenience and technology?
Here’s one monk’s introspective contribution to the technology discussion…
Gadgets, Distractions, and the Art of Presence
Benjamin Mann
Catholic Exchange
Though I’ve long been curious about him, I have not yet read the works of the Canadian philosopher, technology theorist, and Catholic convert Marshall McLuhan.
But my interest was piqued by an Internet discussion regarding McLuhan’s idea of technologies as “extensions of man.” An online acquaintance of mine, the electronic musician and author Alex Reed, outlined McLuhan’s view that our inventions are really ways of extending our bodies and minds: “the wheel externalizes the foot, writing externalizes speech … electricity externalizes the nervous system,” and so on, in Reed’s words. Our tools, on this account, enhance and extend the reach of our organic human functions.
This intriguing view of technology dovetails with a practical consideration of mine: namely, my own relationship to technology and media. Since I intend to become a monastic postulant in a matter of weeks, I am trying – though not always hard enough – to rein in my use of online social media. Things like Facebook are not entirely off-limits in our monastery, and they can sometimes serve good purposes in the life of the Church; but in general, the Internet, and social media in particular, are not conducive to contemplative solitude and interior silence.
It can be hard to change our habits if we do not know what drives them. So I have been trying to understand why I – who have criticized many facets of modern culture, including its aversion to silence – find it hard to break away from the parade of online news and commentary. If our technologies “externalize” some preexisting aspect of ourselves, what is one externalizing through his fixation on a real-time stream of news and discussion?
One of the answers to that question is obvious (though for that reason, not very deep or helpful): clearly, the Internet is a great “extension,” in McLuhan’s sense, of our nature as interconnected social beings. Digging deeper, however – and bearing in mind the idea of electronic media as an extended and enhanced “nervous system” – there is another way in which the Internet externalizes our mental abilities, for good or ill.
One defining features of human nature is that our minds are not bound by time and space as our bodies are. Physically, we can only be in one time and place at once; but the mind can – and often does – go elsewhere on a regular basis. The mind is often at work sorting through the data of various places and times, going over all kinds of facts, memories, and ideas in its ongoing (and not always fully conscious) search for the greater meaning and purpose of what it meets in the realm of experience.
This ability to be “elsewhere” – to go outside the bounds of our circumstances; to imagine, explore, and theorize – is a great strength of the mind, a strength the Internet can bolster. Nonetheless, the ability to be “elsewhere,” mentally stepping outside the present moment, is not always a strength. Anyone who has suffered distractions in prayer, or found it hard to focus on any other task, knows the downside of the mind’s freedom to roam and ruminate.
When we extend our minds, in McLuhan’s sense, through the use of electronic media, we externalize both the mind’s strengths and its weaknesses. The Internet enables our curiosity and speculative capacities (our abilities to “be elsewhere” in at least potentially good ways), but it also empowers our pre-existing inner capacity for distraction – the ability to be elsewhere when we ought to be present here and now. Without such technology, the mind “goes elsewhere” on its own: surfing through its inner realm of facts, commentary, and possibilities. With the Internet, it does so externally and visibly.
McLuhan’s idea of externalization suggests that our deepest problem is not our relationship to technology, but something more ingrained. Long before “smartphone” entered the dictionary, each of us carried around a resource with amazing powers of access and connection, as well as vast potential for distraction and self-indulgence. That resource is our own mind. Today, we have simply externalized and boosted its abilities and habits.
We may cringe at the sight of two people sitting across a restaurant table, both absorbed in their smartphones. But how often have we met with a friend or loved one, and ended up absorbed in our own inner thoughts and concerns, of one kind or another? It is the same tendency: unsatisfied with present reality – for trivial or serious reasons, or no reason at all – we look for ways to be elsewhere, ways of escape that become habitual and start feeling necessary.
Our dependence on technology turns out to be a symptom, more than a cause. Fundamentally, we lack training in the art of presence. It is not easy, as the Eastern Orthodox priest Fr. Thomas Hopko put it, to “be awake and attentive, fully present where you are.”
Yet our problem with technology is also an opportunity. In a world of ever-multiplying distractions and mental getaways, we can take another path by learning the art of presence.
I began to think about technology, and its relationship to the declining art of presence, when I recently made a series of trips to the post office near closing time. Some days the line moves quickly, but at other times, there is a lot of lag. It is the kind of familiar, everyday tedium that prompts many people to reach for their mobile device, fire up the Internet, and seek out something else: something new to think about, react to, appreciate, or criticize.
It makes sense that we want this: the mind craves stimulation and escape in the midst of seemingly dull experiences. But if we habitually use technology to give the restless mind what it wants, we will never become skilled in engaging fully with life as it is. And this inability will become a long-term problem: weakening our relationships with other people, and our connection to God – who is completely present in life’s ordinary details, just as much as in its peak experiences. It is only a question of our awareness.
The inability to stand in a long line without checking Facebook, or endure rush-hour traffic without the radio, turns out to be related to the more serious disconnections in our lives. We find it hard to give full, dedicated attention to someone whose interests differ from ours; or we meet with great difficulty when it is time to focus directly on God in worship or personal prayer. In some ways, the problem is not so mysterious: if we have not trained ourselves to be present, awake, and attentive in the small matters of daily life, we cannot expect the skill to materialize suddenly in more important moments.
“Appreciate your life!” – this was the refrain of the Zen teacher Taizan Maezumi; and while there is more to life than this, the practice of appreciation is crucial. It makes us more fully present to God, to the people around us, and to the amazing fact of our very existence.
Among other things, appreciation means not doing things simply in order to get them over with and move on to the next thing (to be discharged, most likely, in the same spirit!). To engage fully, even with life’s basic tasks – brushing our teeth, taking out the trash, washing dishes – is worthwhile in itself, and also prepares us for those moments in which our full attention is more important. Our life is full of chances to practice not “going elsewhere.” We learn to engage with what is before us, instead of surfing the mental web of memories, speculations, and commentary…
Continue this story at Catholic Exchange
READ MORE TRANSHUMANISM NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Transhumanist Files
–
The dark side of social media: Baroness Susan Greenfield says social media is rewiring our brains
news.com.au
Nov 17, 2014
Baroness Susan Greenfield is a brain scientist who says time spent with electronic devices is rewiring the brain. Source: News Limited
WE’RE all guilty of it. We’re at the pub, dinner table or enjoying a fun arvo with a group of friends and, instead of talking to the people we’re with, we’re preoccupied with our phones.
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, video games and — dare I say it — news.com.au all provide endless distractions, as well as more opportunities to share, connect and spout your views than ever before.
But what effect is this having on us? More crucially, how is it affecting our brains?
Renowned British neuroscientist Baroness Susan Greenfield says modern technology is not only changing the way we interact, it is changing the wiring in our brain.
Professor Greenfield, who is also a member of the British upper house, says the hyper-connectedness of today’s youth gives them shorter attention spans and makes them more narcissistic, more susceptible to depression and anxiety, and less empathetic.
“The mid-21st century mind might almost be infantilised, characterised by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathise and a shaky sense of identity,” she told parliament in 2009.
Her interest in the subject has culminated in her book Mind Change, released in August, in which she argues:
● That social media is affecting our sense of identity and ability to empathise,
● That video games are shortening attention spans, and increasing our recklessness and aggression, and
● That search engines are making us confuse information for knowledge.
Prof Greenfield says that the brain is exquisitely designed to adapt to its environment and, because technology has created a vastly changed social environment, it follows that our brains may also being changing in an unprecedented way.
What effect does our addiction to screens have on the way we relate to each other? Source: Supplied
She argues that today’s youth are developing in a world where relationships are increasingly formed online, which means we are less able to rehearse important social skills.
“Human beings love talking about themselves. Nature has developed body language so you can be sure that your interaction is reasonably secure, and you don’t make yourself vulnerable, through eye contact, gestures and pheromones,” Prof Greenfield told news.com.au.
But words — the primary means through which people interact on social media — make up only 10 per cent of the impact made when you meet someone.
“If you are not rehearsing those visual clues, you are going to be at a disadvantage,” Prof Greenfield said.
She said people were much more likely to insult others online because they didn’t have those cues.
“If someone says ‘I hate you’ to someone’s face, they may not say it again because the way it makes that person feel may be extremely hurtful, which can give the person who said it a physiological churning,” Prof Greenfield said.
“Those constraints are not available on social networking. You don’t have that handbrake … That’s what I’m concerned about.”
[…CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE]
[hat tip: Neil Sanders]
ISIS: Raging on the Internet, but not in the Mosque and don’t blame the web
21st Century Wire says…
[Nov 15, 2014]
How real is ISIS? Is it more real, or less real than al Qaeda?
According to some, ISIS is flourishing more online than it is in brick-and-mortar life…
ISIS INTERNET MARKETING DEPT: The majority of ISIS manpower is working in the virtual space.
Award-winning, veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk poses that very question: “I’m even wondering whether “Isis” – isn’t more real on the internet, than it is on the ground.”
Fisk also goes on to say that the “virtual” has dropped out of virtual reality, and that this generation’s obsession with the truth (as it’s sometimes portrayed) online is the reason ISIS youths are going bonkers for beheadings. We support this supposition in part, but to blame the internet for the ISIS crisis would be one dimensional without factoring in the avalanche of financial and arms support the terrorists are receiving from entities like the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
This statement by Fisk, however, is sublime in both its quality and its accuracy:
“The belief, the absolute conviction that the screen contains truth – that the “message” really is the ultimate verity, has still not been fully recognised for what it is; an extraordinary lapse in our critical consciousness that exposes us to the rawest of emotions – both total love and total hatred”.
Yes, the internet is a powerful tool, and it may appear dangerous to some, but if anything is inverted in this 21st century conundrum, it’s not the technology. The minds of its users were more likely warped long before they switched their computers on.
What even worse still, is the amount of free publicity and PR exposure given to ISIS/ISIL/IS by international media conglomerates like CNN, FOX, and the BBC. When the Islamic State’ post a staged jihadist propaganda video on YouTube – you can be certain that western broadcasters will give their videos heavy rotation 24/7. ISIS could not afford the free marketing they get from our media moguls.
Their consciousness was buried by a globalised, corporatised mega-media machine – buried under successive layers of lies, omissions and mistruths coming from “the mainstream” gospel, including TV broadcasters and newspapers. Lies, piled on top of lies – and then shaming the public to accept the lies – leads to a highly dysfunctional and unconscious society, not only in the west (where lying is a celebrated and high art form), but in the Middle East too.
Don’t Replace Facebook, Disrupt It
November 11, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – LocalOrg) – Facebook is a problem. It is undoubtedly being used by special interests to manipulate and monitor entire populations both within the United States and well beyond. It represents a tool that in no way serves the people actually using it, and instead allows special interests to use the users. It is a dream global panopticon for the abusive dictators that run Western society and presume dominion over what they call an “international order.”
But in order to counter this threat, Facebook cannot simply be “replaced.” It specifically, and what it represents, must be disrupted entirely.
Facebook is a Skinner Box for Humans
Facebook has been at the center of several recent controversies that are increasingly leaving users disillusioned and in search of alternatives. At the center of these controversies is Facebook’s “news feed” feature. Ideally, news feed would work by showing on your timeline updates from those individuals and organizations you follow. There are two options for news feed – “most recent” and “top stories.” Facebook has decided to upend this feature by insidiously controlling what appears on your news feed regardless of which option you select.
Now, you will no longer receive regular updates from accounts you follow, and instead will see a “filtered” version determined by Facebook’s algorithms. Many Facebook users are unaware of this fact and are perplexed as to why they are no longer receiving regular updates from accounts they follow.
Facebook boosted US election turnout via psychology experiment, company reveals
RT USA
Published time: November 04, 2014 05:54
Edited time: November 04, 2014 07:36
Reuters/Dado Ruvic
Facebook manipulated the news feeds of almost 2 million American users during the 2012 presidential election without telling them. The manipulation led to a 3 percent increase in voter turnout, according to the company’s own data scientist.
In a stunning revelation, the three months prior to Election Day in 2012 saw Facebook “tweak” the feeds of 1.9 million Americans by sharing their friends’ hard news posts rather than the usual personal posts. The effect was felt most by occasional Facebook users who reported in a survey they paid more attention to the government because of their friends’ hard news feeds. Facebook didn’t tell users about this psychology experiment, but it boosted voter turnout by 3 percent.
The experiment was first shared with the public in two talks given by Facebook’s data scientist, Lada Adamic, in the fall of 2012, and more details were disclosed recently by Mother Jones. In those talks, Adamic said a colleague at Facebook, Solomon Messing, “tweaked” the feeds. Afterwards, Messing surveyed the group and found that voter turnout and political engagement grew from a self-reported 64 percent to more than 67 percent.
PN 