Is not joining Facebook a sign you're a psychopath?

[Tsunami]

I have used MySpace and Facebook and found both of them unsatisfying. Then I discovered the political and economical system behind it and simple indifference turned into dislike. It is one of the reasons I never joined Twitter, I thought it was wise not to make the same mistake thrice and look for an alternative run on non-commercial ways.

Sadly enough it is undeniable that the likes of Twitter and Facebook changed the world. Back in the days a murder could occur 100 miles down the road and you'd never hear about it. No computers or smartphones to quickly spread the word. Now if a simple minor accident happens on the other end of the planet and a bypasser tweets it, journalists 10000 miles away know of the event within seconds. In elections, communications between government and people is done partially via social networks. Companies advertise on social networks as much as on their own sites. Even in war torn areas, re-establishing damaged internet infrastructure is a priority as Twitter is seen as the big thing to distribute news globally within seconds.

So while annoying, there is no denying that the likes of Facebook have changed society. I would however question that it were changes for the better.

Abstaining is fine, the one issue you get is that some people will simply ignore you because they don't understand that some people simply don't want to be on those social networks. As a writer this is what annoys me most. People wrote, sold and read books for ages before the internet existed. Now there is an attitude amongst artists that without Facebook and Twitter to promote your creations, you're doomed. I notice this attitude whenever I talk to other writers (or people involved with other arts such as music) : some of them don't even like social networks but fear they would end up being forgotten if they are not using it. Almost as if they feel it is obligatory.

I would like social networking if it wasn't for the fact that it got out of hand. Discussions on certain topics where people with shared interests meet: great! But now a lot of traffic on social networks is no longer about exchanging info but about random facts such as "I am sitting on the train" or "one more hour before working day ends". I think efficient exchange of info through social networking would require to shield it from the public eye, like a social network on an intranet where only people really wanting to debate can be connected to.

[Adam Lachlan]

Well said Tsunami. I say who needs 'em anyway when you have EMD?

[Tsunami]

Originally Posted by Adam Lachlan

Well said Tsunami. I say who needs 'em anyway when you have EMD?

Makes you really long to join some secret organisation, no? The Illuminati seem to be the only ones who manage to keep their conversations out of public eye and have actual privacy (as opposed to the false feeling of privacy the average email or Facebook user may have).

As for the artists who created a Facebook account purely because it seems like it's the only way to get your material out there... Unless you do a "belly of the beast" kinda thing (remember Bill Drummond) I'd say there is some logic that is lacking. If a person spends the majoity of his time on a social network site, ignoring the more serious news sources, does this sound like the prototype of person who is going to buy and read a book in the first place? Imagine status updates of a profile:
5:00 PM "on my way to the book store"
5:10 PM "entering the book store"
5:15 PM "buying book and paying at the counter"
6:00 PM "starting to read book" Like
6:10 PM "halfway page 1" Like
6:15 PM "finished page 1" Like
...
22:00 PM "spent too much time updating my Facebook, got as far as page 3 of the book." Thumbs down emoticon

Point I am trying to make: is Facebook really the place artists should consider their priority promotion tool? While I don't really like the Twitter setup neither, it seems a more useful medium to announce a new release. Hence I stand by my opinion: you don't need to think you desperately need Facebook to promote whatever creation or product you're involved with.

[just1acc]

Originally Posted by Tsunami

I'd say there is some logic that is lacking. If a person spends the majoity of his time on a social network site, ignoring the more serious news sources, does this sound like the prototype of person who is going to buy and read a book in the first place? Imagine status updates of a profile:
5:00 PM "on my way to the book store"
5:10 PM "entering the book store"
5:15 PM "buying book and paying at the counter"
6:00 PM "starting to read book" Like
6:10 PM "halfway page 1" Like
6:15 PM "finished page 1" Like
...
22:00 PM "spent too much time updating my Facebook, got as far as page 3 of the book." Thumbs down emoticon

Very good point. Facebook is a very useful tool if you use it properly.

With the same example given by Tsunami...if the status was like this...

"Just finished 'Life@EMD' written by Tsunami. A middle age Canadian's sweet-bitter experience with email discussion forum. Worth reading."

Make your status less annoying, informative and of course respectful.

[Tsunami]

My point is not intended to annoy but to point out that artists have the tendency now to think that without social networking they will not be able to spread their creations. This is not really true, people who spend a lot of time on these networks are not the most likely audience for a writer anyway. Maybe Twitter is more difficult to abstain from and still spread the word, although there's still other options. It may sound very old fashioned, but mailinglists and phpBB forums still are a great way for an artist to communicate with his followers. Still does the trick equally efficiently as more recently developed social networks. Old school sometimes still serves the purpose as good as all the new stuff

[David]

Originally Posted by Tsunami

My point is not intended to annoy but to point out that artists have the tendency now to think that without social networking they will not be able to spread their creations.

I don't think so (for the majority of artists) but it depends upon your definition of an artist.

[Tsunami]

Artist = someone who creates art and wishes it to reach an audience. The artist may be a poet, a novel writer, a musician, a film producer, a statue creator, a painter, ...

Especially amongst writers and musicians there seems to be a tendency that being on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and sometimes even more social network sites, is a requirement in order for the audience to discover even the fact you're making music/film/poetry/novels. I think other art forms (non audiovisually) may be less visable on social network sites. My point is: if your music, writings, film, ... is good, then you should be discovered by the audience no matter if you have or don't have an account on social networking sites. Usually media (papers, the news on TV, etc) usually pay attention when a popular artist finished a new creation ; hence I find it odd that some artists say they heavily dislike social networks but still create an account because they believe they will remain unnoticed if they don't create the obligatory account. Beginning artists seem to have that idea even more than artists who have been creating art for several years and counting (although even those tend to sooner or later be present on social networks). Beginning artists are likely to create a Twitter, MySpace and Facebook account before considering creating a real website about their art. That is odd because a properly built website which is updated regularly and easy to navigate, should always be a better online identity card than a profile on a networking site.

[David]

Millions consider themselves to be artists these days but real artists (artists with talent) are still few and far between, imho

[Tsunami]

Originally Posted by David

Millions consider themselves to be artists these days but real artists (artists with talent) are still few and far between, imho

While sadly enough this is true, there are two nuances:

a) art is not competitive, because there is no criteria to determine good from bad. It's all a matter of personal taste. I love Middle Eastern music and noise rock, not a very usual combination and one where (especially for noise rock) I am aware many people would find it alienating. Some others love hiphop or dance music where (KLF as a notable exception) I do not have interest in. The nice aspect of art: neither opinion is right and neither is wrong, there are different tastes and no absolute truths. This is why art should not be competitive. Tastes vary and that is one of the nice aspects of art.

b) Whether my own writings are truly art or not, I will leave this to the people in the crowd who attend my performances. It's not up to me to make a judgement, I can only do my very best and hope the audience will like it, but in the end it's not up to me but to whoever visits my performances to make the judgement.
However, as one writing (again I won't tag myself as a good or bad writer since that's up to the audience) I can only say I am glad to see people at least try to make arts. Whenever I see a new person visiting poetry festivals, I am glad to see that my prefered form of art is still appreciated and still attracts new followers. Whether their writings are good or not is again left to the opinion of the audience, but I am thankful to see people still are motivated to create something artistic and really try their best to accomplish something. That should be encouraged.



That said, regardless if the artist has a small underground following or a huge mainstream fanbase, the "obligation" to use social media to promote new releases or performances is identical. Both famous artists and new artists, both mainstream and alternative, have plenty of other options, so nobody in the artistic circuit should think that they will be ignored overall if they choose not to use Twitter, MySpace, Facebook etc...

[drew]

It is alarming that the 20 year old shooter guy
that loved to play computer games did not even
have a FB account. That support that if one
don't have FB with lot of friends then one are
a "Loner" and awkward in some serious way?

Easy to get that impression from what they write.

[Tsunami]

Originally Posted by drew

It is alarming that the 20 year old shooter guy
that loved to play computer games did not even
have a FB account. That support that if one
don't have FB with lot of friends then one are
a "Loner" and awkward in some serious way?

Easy to get that impression from what they write.

The media are leeches. They jump on whatever tragedy to exploit it to full extend, no matter how dramatic the facts.

First of all, let's make a distinction between "friends" on Facebook and actually real friends. I doubt if someone wants to commit suicide and wants to drag innocent others into death with him, that Facebook would be the solution. Post any such plan on Facebook and reactions will vary from "don't do that!" to thinking the person is making a very sick joke. It is unlikely Facebook is the tool to prevent attacks like what happened. Assuming the shooter had serious mental problems, then a psychologist is needed, not a Facebook account. Trying to offer psychological help is extremely hard and in a virtual way I doubt it would have made any difference.

Secondly, as said, the media are shameless sensation seekers. Also, people like to have someone to blame.

Imagine this guy was heavily into Facebook or Twitter or whatever, no doubt some people will say his internet addiction alienated him from reality or that some influence or connection on the social network has inspired him to cause a bloodbath. So should the guy have had a Facebook account, no doubt some would blame Facebook.

Now this guy spent a lot of time on computer, but not on Facebook or Twitter. He was into videogaming. And behold: some people on different discussion forums are already blaming the tragedy on "violent video games".

As long as people have a scapegoat, someone to blame, they will do so. If no scapegoat is clear, they'll dig into the shooter's private life and somehow try to link it to something that could cause psychopathic behaviour. Again video games and internet will be popular scapegoats.




The truth is that we talk about a guy whose mother believed in the End Times and was so obsessed with this that she was teaching her children how to use fire arms at a very young age. Apparently the kids were spending a lot of time indoors, and their mother was apparently not the best influence. And possibly the famous assumed "end of the world" of the Maya Calendar may have triggered the whole obsession with the end times and how to survive it.

I am no expert but I would say the guy probably had very serious problems, grew up in a very odd environment which could trigger odd thinking, and with weapon lessons as a child and a parent believing the world will end anytime soon you can hardly call this a stable family environment. To assume the video games he played caused it all, or to think a Facebook account could have prevented this, is very odd thinking and extremely unlikely. If someone loses touch with reality, there is little you can do. Sadly enough.

I wonder why in the media it is even published the guy had no Twitter or Facebook. Regardless if he had an account or not, it doesn't seem relevant. Even if he had an account, you can hardly blame Twitter or Facebook for this tragedy. I wonder why the media emphasised he was not using these media. It's unlikely to be a pivotal element in trying to analyse what triggered him to commit these murders. Social networking would probably not been able to prevent it, nor were they to blame for any such tragedies that happened the last few years.



Summarised: the guy who commited these horrible crimes probably was mentally extremely distorted, and no website whatsoever is relevant to this sad event. Seems people always look for a scapegoat and then video games or internet are easy targets. The idea that the criminal probably just lost touch with reality and that no website was of influence to him, doesn't seem to come into mind to some people. Guess it's easier to blame any outside influence such as Facebook or a video game.

By no means a connection between having/not having accounts on social networks and this particular killing should be made.



As for the part of the quote in red: "loner", "dressed in black", "listened to metal music", ... are also popular assumptions whenever something dramatic happens. As if it is that easy that using or not using a networking site, is a clear proof that one is/isn't a loner.... Again, people look for something to blame whereas the only one to blame is the shooter himself. "Easy to get that impression from what they write" : this part is quite important. What the media writes, is often sensation-based in order to sell lots of copies of their paper/magazine. It is well known that some magazines don't mind twisting the truth or not mentioning some facts in order to make a story look more sensational than it really is. I would say that it may be wise to ignore this type of magazines. "Loner playing computer games kills school children" is a sensational title to put on your front page, but the fact he was a loner and/or played video games does not seem relevant in most of similar cases that happened during recent years. The press however will be happy enough to put journalistic ethics aside to sell more papers.

I like to spend my time alone and be in solitude. I dress in black most of the time. I am very fond of heavy metal music. According to some I would match the profile of a killer. Oddly enough, my criminal record is empty and the only few times I visited a police office was as a victim of crime.

I'd say, let police and research do their job rather than to point the blaming finger to anything else but the shooter. I doubt his liking of computers without using Facebook would be more than a trivial coincidence unrelated to his act of terror.

[Ziesha008]

well, what's the issue if the person is not joining it as I don't think its an issue or pshysopath ?

[FredOnline]

Eventually we all get bored?

Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire

[Bamb0]

Originally Posted by FredOnline

Is not joining Facebook a sign you're a psychopath?

No not at all!!