If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   If you aren't on Facebook or Twitter you are most likely a sociopath   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 304
    More: Amusing, Farhad Manjoo, sociopaths, advice column, mass shooting, Albert of Monaco, Slashdot, psychologists  
•       •       •

15901 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2012 at 12:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



304 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-07 09:27:41 AM

SkunkWerks: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: ust nit-picking here, but 'sociopath' and 'psychopath' are not the same thing.

They also aren't necessarily the same thing as "mass murderer", incidentally.


Good point.

My own suspicion, taken mostly from other articles and threads on this, is that social people honestly feel that asocial people must have something wrong with them. As it happens, I'm equally perplexed by the popularity of cesspools like FB. But I recognise their great popularity, so I accept the reality of it, even as I concede I don't understand it. I suppose it's different from their perspective, in that asociality is statistically much less common, and it's much easier to peg the unusual as weird or suspect.
 
2012-08-07 09:37:27 AM
Oh my god... *speeds away from amish horse and buggy*
 
2012-08-07 09:44:37 AM

Godscrack: Nice try. I'll file that with 'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'.

In the meantime, a new law was just passed requiring sex offenders to 'list their status' on Facebook.


Which is funny, because being a sex offender is against the Facebook ToS.

Registration and Security
6. You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender.


Well, we'll see how well this law goes over.
 
2012-08-07 09:48:06 AM
Have better things to do than to be constantly updating a myassyourfacebook page or twatting or whatever the hell it is. Social media will eventually destroy society, and I'd rather not be part of it. FARK is as social as I get. For someone to make the statement that people who aren't on Facebook or Twitter are strange is prejudicial as well as asinine. Neither Facebook or Twitter is essential to ones well being or to living life.....the guy sounds like an asshat to me.
 
2012-08-07 09:57:33 AM

vanbiber874: Oh my god... *speeds away from amish horse and buggy*


Clip clop clip clop clip clop clip clop clip clop clip clop clip clop clip clop clip clop clip clop clip clop..
"I would not hurt thee for the world, but thou art standing where I am about to shoot."
"Buh-wha?"
BWA-BOOM!!
Clippitycloppityclippitycloppityclippitycloppityclippitycloppityclipp i tycloppityclippitycloppityclippitycloppity..

^^Amish drive-by
 
2012-08-07 10:05:11 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: The latter part of that is from his short story, "The Pedestrian." I don't remember the interactive TV part from Fahrenheit 451, but it's been many years since I last read it. (That might also be from the short story, which I haven't read in a similar span, but more recently read a description of, in an article about something else.)


Bradbury frequently minced ideas back and forth between short and longer stories. But yes, now that you mention it, I recall the Pedestrian as well. Bradbury was of course writing when TVs were mostly what folks were glued to, but still, the way he saw people using media was pretty prophetic.

As for me, I tried "social networking" back when the way to do it was LiveJournal. I never could find a point in any of it, so my activity with that dropped off pretty sharply after a few months. Admittedly some of it was that I've never been terribly regular at keeping a journal of any kind. I'm pretty random, and my entry habits tended to reflect that.

Then when Myspace and Facebook and all this stuff started rolling out, I was already well-jaded out of any notion that "social networking" online was something that ever actually happened outside of theory and marketing exercises.

I ignored it all. And it occurs to me the only reason it remains a topic today is that a lot of people are lonely (like the wife from Bradbury's story) and think this sort of thing shores up what they lack in a social life elsewhere. the other big reason is that Facebook is trying to make itself some sort of "RealID" for the internet. In that sense it's becoming very pervasive even outside of the marketing, and that in and of itself is pretty disturbing.
 
2012-08-07 10:08:21 AM

BR549: Social media will eventually destroy society


Welcome to the strart of The Cranky Years -- here's your lawnchair.*

EVERY society in history has thought that whatever the new thing was was going to be the thing that would destroy society. Even the ancient Greeks had such notions.

* We have scratch-baked cookies, too, so it's not so bad.
 
2012-08-07 10:12:00 AM

SkunkWerks: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: The latter part of that is from his short story, "The Pedestrian." I don't remember the interactive TV part from Fahrenheit 451, but it's been many years since I last read it. (That might also be from the short story, which I haven't read in a similar span, but more recently read a description of, in an article about something else.)

Bradbury frequently minced ideas back and forth between short and longer stories. But yes, now that you mention it, I recall the Pedestrian as well. Bradbury was of course writing when TVs were mostly what folks were glued to, but still, the way he saw people using media was pretty prophetic.

As for me, I tried "social networking" back when the way to do it was LiveJournal. I never could find a point in any of it, so my activity with that dropped off pretty sharply after a few months. Admittedly some of it was that I've never been terribly regular at keeping a journal of any kind. I'm pretty random, and my entry habits tended to reflect that.

Then when Myspace and Facebook and all this stuff started rolling out, I was already well-jaded out of any notion that "social networking" online was something that ever actually happened outside of theory and marketing exercises.

I ignored it all. And it occurs to me the only reason it remains a topic today is that a lot of people are lonely (like the wife from Bradbury's story) and think this sort of thing shores up what they lack in a social life elsewhere. the other big reason is that Facebook is trying to make itself some sort of "RealID" for the internet. In that sense it's becoming very pervasive even outside of the marketing, and that in and of itself is pretty disturbing.


I think there's a worthwhile distinction to be made between 'journalling' and 'social networking'. I don't consider LJ the same or similar to FB/Tw/MS, etc. The latter are primarily geared toward interactions between users, while journalling sites such as LJ, DJ, etc. are primarily about expressing one's own thoughts. I find social networking worthless to my life, but I still do journalling, even I don't do it regularly.
 
2012-08-07 10:19:16 AM
Also, Facebook (corporation, not the users) is just sick sometimes.

Their new "sponsored links" -- the one where if you "like" something, that something can pay to send out advertisements in your name forever? -- doesn't differentiate between the living and the dead.

I lost a good friend to cancer last winter. Several weeks ago, he began sending out links to Huffington Post and Gizmodo.

The day before yesterday, he "liked" Romney's remarks on Israel. Facebook knows this new revenue source is bringing the dead back to life -- I know, I've informed them many times -- and they simply don't care.

Imagine losing your fiancee in a car crash, and six months later she starts spamming all of her friends again. You don't want to "unfriend," because then you lose the correspondence you shared. It's pretty sickening.

So keep in mind that if you "like" any business or political entity, you will be their advertising conduit long after you're dead.
 
2012-08-07 10:20:47 AM
Facebook allows me to talk to my relatives more than once a year, so it's useful. Twitter can go to hell, farking hate that crap and those pompous enough to post the most idiotic things about their daily activities. Getting a twitter account should require the passing of an IQ test. Seriously, how self-absorbed and/or bored does one have to be to tweet ten times a day? The only useful or entertaining tweets are from organizations or comedians.
 
2012-08-07 10:22:16 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: SkunkWerks: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: ust nit-picking here, but 'sociopath' and 'psychopath' are not the same thing.

They also aren't necessarily the same thing as "mass murderer", incidentally.

Good point.

My own suspicion, taken mostly from other articles and threads on this, is that social people honestly feel that asocial people must have something wrong with them. As it happens, I'm equally perplexed by the popularity of cesspools like FB. But I recognise their great popularity, so I accept the reality of it, even as I concede I don't understand it. I suppose it's different from their perspective, in that asociality is statistically much less common, and it's much easier to peg the unusual as weird or suspect.


Eh, I've been subject to that sort of scrutiny most of my early life.

"Hey, Quiet Kid, what do you think you're better than we are?"

No one ever really took into account the following facts:

1) My First Grade teacher spent a good deal of time trying to correct my "quietness" (because it's strange for a Kindergartener who's been uprooted from peers his own age 9 months early and tossed in with people anything from twice to three times his age to be quiet). She did this by encouraging all my new peers to deride me in "hot seat" sessions where she'd sit me in front of the class and have the whole class harass me. For some reason, when a six year old cries after being treated this way, this is an indication you just aren't abusing him hard enough.

2) Thanks to being stuck in a rural public school, I would be stuck with these peers (and thus all the hateful invective they were well-conditioned to fling at me on a regular basis) for the next. Six. Years.

3) When you treat people like shiat constantly for years, for some odd reason, they develop an aversion to your presence. Fancy that.

It actually took complete removal from that environment before I so much as had the opportunity for a normal social life. And once I started getting one, yeah, I admit, I developed a predilection for keeping my circles of friends fairly small, and social events I attended were always on a smaller scale.

Years later I'm still much the same. Wary of people, sure. And basically any environment where you have entities which are referred to as "friends" but only have this status out of convenience? Yeah, it's something I'd rather not waste time with. I'd much rather have a few quality friends than a legion of zombie-like, pseudo-aware FaceBook "friends".


My personal time, the time I put into acquaintances, and my general giving a wet slap about others is precious to me. Spend a decade or so struggling to earn actual meaningful friendships with people and you'll find you have very little time or interest in updating your Facebook status to "ostentatious" today, I promise you.
 
2012-08-07 10:25:14 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Also, Facebook (corporation, not the users) is just sick sometimes.

Their new "sponsored links" -- the one where if you "like" something, that something can pay to send out advertisements in your name forever? -- doesn't differentiate between the living and the dead.

I lost a good friend to cancer last winter. Several weeks ago, he began sending out links to Huffington Post and Gizmodo.

The day before yesterday, he "liked" Romney's remarks on Israel. Facebook knows this new revenue source is bringing the dead back to life -- I know, I've informed them many times -- and they simply don't care.

Imagine losing your fiancee in a car crash, and six months later she starts spamming all of her friends again. You don't want to "unfriend," because then you lose the correspondence you shared. It's pretty sickening.

So keep in mind that if you "like" any business or political entity, you will be their advertising conduit long after you're dead.


That is creepy.

Facebook turns the dead into zombie salesmen?

Just so........ewwww!
 
2012-08-07 10:32:43 AM
it's not because I'm a sociopath or psychopath it's just that I'm an arsehole.
 
2012-08-07 10:35:25 AM
TFA:The tech news site Slashdot summed up Der Taggspiegel's story about social networking as 'not having a Facebook account could be the first sign that you are a mass murderer.'

...no, killing a lot of people is the first sign that you are a mass murderer.
 
2012-08-07 10:39:06 AM

Doink_Boink: Twitter can go to hell, farking hate that crap and those pompous enough to post the most idiotic things about their daily activities.


Twitter? Inane? No...

paulbaker.net
 
2012-08-07 10:49:01 AM
Heh, the URL is missing the headline's negation:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184658/Is-joining-Facebook- sign-youre-psychopath-Some-employers-psychologists-say-suspicious.htm l

As a non-Facebook person, this is amusin.
 
2012-08-07 10:54:02 AM
What if you're on Google+ instead because Facebook and Twitter both blow goats for bus fare, then walk home because they're in America and have no bus service?
 
2012-08-07 10:55:15 AM
Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Welcome to the strart of The Cranky Years -- here's your lawnchair.*

EVERY society in history has thought that whatever the new thing was was going to be the thing that would destroy society. Even the ancient Greeks had such notions.


.....so you think people being fired from their jobs for posting things on social media is a good thing? (Yes, most of these asshats deserve it for their sheer stupidity) Or people spending so much time online in their virtual society that they no longer have a "life" is a good thing? Or kids committing suicide simply because of cyber bullying via social media, is that a good thing? While the intent of social media was to connect people, it has gone beyond that and turned a lot of them into mindless, drooling web zombies that have nothing to contribute to society other than the fact that they just took "an awsome dump". Hopefully, Darwinism will kick in and then those of us who have a clue will be left to carry on. It does have it's uses, but all the time I see where people have become "hooked" on it and wound up pissing away their lives. I just don't think that people who don't participate in social media should be thought of as strange....we just refuse to be lemmings.
 
2012-08-07 11:03:22 AM

Confabulat: People who brag about not being on Facebook are just like the people who used to brag about not owning a television.

Well good for you! No one is impressed.


People who get upset about people who brag about not being on Facebook...priceless.
 
2012-08-07 11:03:28 AM

BR549: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Welcome to the strart of The Cranky Years -- here's your lawnchair.*

EVERY society in history has thought that whatever the new thing was was going to be the thing that would destroy society. Even the ancient Greeks had such notions.

.....so you think people being fired from their jobs for posting things on social media is a good thing? (Yes, most of these asshats deserve it for their sheer stupidity) Or people spending so much time online in their virtual society that they no longer have a "life" is a good thing? Or kids committing suicide simply because of cyber bullying via social media, is that a good thing? While the intent of social media was to connect people, it has gone beyond that and turned a lot of them into mindless, drooling web zombies that have nothing to contribute to society other than the fact that they just took "an awsome dump". Hopefully, Darwinism will kick in and then those of us who have a clue will be left to carry on. It does have it's uses, but all the time I see where people have become "hooked" on it and wound up pissing away their lives. I just don't think that people who don't participate in social media should be thought of as strange....we just refuse to be lemmings.


I think what Sylvia is getting at is: if things like Facebook didn't already hold an appeal to us- if they didn't just feed bad tendencies we already have as a society, they wouldn't be all that popular.

That said, this is just us finding new mediums in which we can be pricks to one another- as we always have been doing.

The method changes, the overall level of it honestly doesn't change much.

So, as much as I despise "social media", no, it's not going to "destroy society". People have been making this kind of claim for time untold. Back at the beginning of recorded history- there were actually thinkers that expounded upon how much the written word was going to destroy us as a society, yanno, 7 or 8000 years ago.

We're still here. And yeah, we're going to keep finding new ways to fail at society. But destroy it? Nah, even the most Visigoth among us need that society. Even if it's only to have some imagined audience for the most mundane announcements we feel the need to broadcast.
 
2012-08-07 11:26:34 AM

Republicat: A guy I work with swears that one of the CIA venture capital firms is behind Facebook. Ironically, he's the social media marketing person.


He may be on to something.
 
2012-08-07 11:33:59 AM

Rik01: Facebook aint going to get me laid.


Rumor has it, MySpace and the furry fandom will, though.
 
2012-08-07 11:44:58 AM
I'm not on Facebook because I'm a straight male.

However, I do have an alt, to use for staler purposes (also, it helps in my work because people will put all kinds of stupid stuff on social media, and deserve what they get when they do).
 
2012-08-07 12:07:27 PM
I'm looking forward to some of the great new Facebook photo apps including "Rorschach piss stains" and "rate my gape"
 
2012-08-07 12:43:42 PM
My response to everyone in that article: Go Fark Yourselves.
 
2012-08-07 01:00:33 PM
Only reason I use facebook is that local bars/restaurants will post daily specials and what bands are playing.
 
2012-08-07 01:05:05 PM

SkunkWerks: Dee Snarl: Ugh. You guys are so retarded. I keep up with my friends around the country on Facebook. I went to Vegas with a bunch of those friends a few weeks ago. If you can't see how an information system like Facebook can improve personal relationships... I don't know what to tell you. You are retarded.

Ah, but I'm not interested in how Facebook can improve my personal relationships. I'm interested in how Facebook can make me not a mass murderer.


In that case, yeah. I guess there's that, too. So far, so good, on my end.
 
2012-08-07 01:08:57 PM

Bondith: Smeggy Smurf
This is old school shotgun shooting mean nasty terrifying stepdad stuff here.

As soon as she gets out from under your thumb she's going to bang the first dude she can find.


Agreed, Parent sounds suspiciously like a helicopter....
/thwup thwup thwup
 
2012-08-07 01:16:00 PM
img.getglue.com
Can't wait for the Facebook Rapist movie.
 
2012-08-07 01:35:24 PM
I don't know. I could agree with TFA simply based on the people who are so anti-Facebook on Fark. They also seem to be self-righteous for no good reason, very opinionated about arbitrary things, myopic, and easily angered while feeling those who anger them deserve some over-the-top punishment. So, I'd describe them more as "borderline."
 
2012-08-07 01:46:08 PM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: They also seem to be self-righteous for no good reason


There's a good reason to be self-righteous?
 
2012-08-07 02:15:25 PM

SkunkWerks: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: They also seem to be self-righteous for no good reason

There's a good reason to be self-righteous?


Sure there is....like "not being on Twitter or Facebook".
:-)
 
2012-08-07 02:19:02 PM

Highroller48: SkunkWerks: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: They also seem to be self-righteous for no good reason

There's a good reason to be self-righteous?

Sure there is....like "not being on Twitter or Facebook".
:-)


Okay, now that I've got that answered, why are the nearsighted borderline psychopaths?
 
2012-08-07 02:30:27 PM

SkunkWerks: Highroller48: SkunkWerks: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: They also seem to be self-righteous for no good reason

There's a good reason to be self-righteous?

Sure there is....like "not being on Twitter or Facebook".
:-)

Okay, now that I've got that answered, why are the nearsighted borderline psychopaths?


Hypothesis: Because everyone they meet is way inside their personal space before they can even see them. To them, the world seems constantly more crowded than a Black Friday at Sam's club.
 
2012-08-07 02:43:05 PM
wow, really? what the f*ck.
 
2012-08-07 03:23:44 PM
Not having a facebook or twitter account is (maybe) a symptom, but I'd hardly consider it conclusive. There's always a much bigger picture to consider when labeling a psychopath.

/No social media, no dating sites, no television, no friends, no family, no empathy, and no passion. No interest in changing.
//Probably an accurate diagnosis.
 
2012-08-07 04:23:51 PM
Gee we sociopaths should start our own group on facebook or something.

Too many exs out there for me to be on it and work wants me to be on it and "friend" them. Yeah right. It's bad enough if I get my next promotion I have to put my picture on my business cards. FML
 
2012-08-07 04:43:35 PM
Don't laugh people. I predict in the not too distant future Facebook will be required as a form of id.

Your account details will be scannable on your driver license.
 
2012-08-07 04:49:07 PM
What a bunch of crap. FB should be considered a cry for help. What kind of person needs a "community" of a thousand "friends" to acknowledge their intimate relationships in a play by play delivery, their narcissistic thoughts, their whereabouts and all of their possible affiliations? I think I would rather hire those without FB accounts.
 
2012-08-07 04:53:27 PM
They don't even give a name for the person that wrote this article, it just says "Daily Mail Reporter". That seems pretty farking suspicious to me. You want people on Facebook, but you don't have the balls to give your name as the person that wrote the article.
 
2012-08-07 05:06:18 PM

Witness99: What a bunch of crap. FB should be considered a cry for help. What kind of person needs a "community" of a thousand "friends" to acknowledge their intimate relationships in a play by play delivery, their narcissistic thoughts, their whereabouts and all of their possible affiliations? I think I would rather hire those without FB accounts.


Yeah. Remember, blogging is a sign of egomania, but not blogging is a sign of sociopathy.
 
2012-08-07 05:44:56 PM

Godscrack: Don't laugh people. I predict in the not too distant future Facebook will be required as a form of id.

Your account details will be scannable on your driver license.


As soon as all the old people die, no one will know the difference.
 
2012-08-07 06:35:05 PM

Buffet: AMEN. Nor am I conceited enough (hard to believe, I know) to believe, for one moment, that anyone gives a Fark what goes on in the course of my usually mundane day.


"You wouldn't worry what people thought of you if you knew how seldom they do."
 
2012-08-07 06:40:00 PM

frestcrallen: When I'm out, conversations that take place without facebook being mentioned are becoming more and more rare. It's a bit depressing somehow.


I know what you mean. That's all my co-workers talked about today during training - what this person posted, that person responded, etc etc ad nauseum. They asked me if I'd seen it on FB, and I told them that I'd jumped off over two months ago. They were aghast, asking me why. I told them that, frankly, I was tired of inane posts and it was beginning to take over my life in a way that was unhealthy. They were surprised and then I felt completely out of the loop the rest of the day.

Whatever. I've found out who my one real friend is. No one else has even bothered to email, text or call me since I dropped out of Facebook. Whatever.
 
2012-08-07 06:44:33 PM

UseLessHuman: A great sci-fi writer once wrote a story about a man who didn't hook himself up to all the news feeds and phone gadgets and how he was treated as a mental case. I see now this dystopian vision was not so fictional. I'm pretty sure it was in a collection of short stories, Asimov maybe?

If you can name the author and story I'll give you half of ten in an upward motion.

Seriously. I'm drawing a blank here.


Ray Bradbury - The Pedestrian. My absolute favorite short story to teach next to "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty".
 
2012-08-07 07:35:04 PM

BR549: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Welcome to the strart of The Cranky Years -- here's your lawnchair.*

EVERY society in history has thought that whatever the new thing was was going to be the thing that would destroy society. Even the ancient Greeks had such notions.

.....so you think people being fired from their jobs for posting things on social media is a good thing? (Yes, most of these asshats deserve it for their sheer stupidity) Or people spending so much time online in their virtual society that they no longer have a "life" is a good thing? Or kids committing suicide simply because of cyber bullying via social media, is that a good thing? While the intent of social media was to connect people, it has gone beyond that and turned a lot of them into mindless, drooling web zombies that have nothing to contribute to society other than the fact that they just took "an awsome dump". Hopefully, Darwinism will kick in and then those of us who have a clue will be left to carry on. It does have it's uses, but all the time I see where people have become "hooked" on it and wound up pissing away their lives. I just don't think that people who don't participate in social media should be thought of as strange....we just refuse to be lemmings.


How cool that you used the word lemmings - that's what I always think of - if we're lucky, they'll simply all follow one another off a cliff - a high one! What'll be left? Real people, free thinkers that can successfully interact with one another and their environment, in a meaningful and productive manner. Can you imagine what future historian will write about this point in time, one littered with brain-dead bastards who feel compelled to alert the world to how many times they wiped their ass every time they shiat? Fark the sheep. The future belongs to REAL, worthwhile people!
 
2012-08-07 10:10:43 PM

ourbigdumbmouth: In a few years people who don't use social media will be viewed in the same light as people who move to the woods to avoid the big nasty Govt!!!


Or, y'know, as people who don't post on social media.

/I don't
//Have a FB for the sole purpose of FB-stalking my BFF. Hence, have never used it.
 
2012-08-07 10:40:03 PM
What if you work with sociopaths, is not having Facebook a means to sure promotion?
 
2012-08-07 11:30:45 PM

Pattuq: You need to get some therapy. It is no longer 1855, and unacceptable to live as if it were.


Who gives a rat's ass what you accept or don't accept?
 
2012-08-07 11:39:11 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: BR549: Social media will eventually destroy society

Welcome to the strart of The Cranky Years -- here's your lawnchair.*

EVERY society in history has thought that whatever the new thing was was going to be the thing that would destroy society. Even the ancient Greeks had such notions.

* We have scratch-baked cookies, too, so it's not so bad.


Yes, but they're eventually right. After all, there aren't any ancient Greeks running around today, are there? Who's the present Caesar of Rome? Etc, etc. It's not that society as a concept is going to be destroyed, it's that our present society will be destroyed.
 
Displayed 50 of 304 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report