Facebook: Narcissus' new playground?

Near and dear to my heart, mm? Facebook seems to be the easiest target, and the article published by the University of Georgia entitled, "Study: Facebook profiles can be used to detect narcissism." W. Keith Campbell and Laura Buffardi used the medium of Facebook.com to analyze and diagnose narcissism among over 130 users. The article focuses on traits of narcisists that are detectable by experts and laymen alike, simply by viewing a facebook profile page.

The publication notes some very interesting traits amongst narcissists. Namely, the greater proportion of shallow relationships, and the need to flaunt them. This trait is noticeable, as narcissists have many more wall posts from many people on facebook, and a larger number of friends compared to normal people. Another aspect of narcissistic facebook users is the emphasis on self-promotion on their profile pages, a characteristic matched in person. The self-promotion is most notable in the profile picture, where non-narcissists chose pictures of a more snap-shot nature, but narcissists used glamorous photos that emphasizes the user's image.

Luckily, this study is not the only analysis of the facts presented on facebook pages. The greater number of shallow relationships characterized by the authors as narcissistic, is rather the ability to keep in touch with lesser acquaintances. Rather than be a sign of narcissism, those friends are a sign of increased awareness, as noted in the article of Clive Thompson's we read in week 2 called "A Brave New World of Digital Intimacy." The values attributed to narcissism with respect to profile pictures can be alternatively assigned as either of two things. The first is simple vanity, but the much more likely candidate is that users know that people will view, and make judgements, based on the profile. The profile picture, therefore, is no longer an assertion of self-worth, but the attempt to communicate effectively to those viewing the profile page. Why would a user choose to put of a poor visual representation of themselves on a site everyone they know uses?

As for the three articles on text messaging, one key fact arises from my reading of the articles. Each article, and allowing for generalization, each media used to publish, creates a different spin on the same facts.
While a scholarly post on the topic of text messaging may be factually correct, the analysis of data may be far from the truth. In the context of scientific inquiry, several things may be unaccounted for, including the human component of information, as well as a well-informed user's opinion. As scholarly literature tends toward being unbiased reporting of fact, the restraints on diction and syntax make it hard for the scientist to put the same force as, say, a New Yorker columnist.
The New Yorker aims at a ritzy, high-class audience, not the studious minds of trend analysts, and therefore uses a different "angle of vision," in this case looking at the interface of language and text messages. Both the research paper and the New Yorker article are trying to justify why text messaging is here to stay, but the former observes the user, while the latter examines the evolution of communication.
RedOxygen, on the othe rhand, looks from the other side of the glass, as a company in the business of SMS communication, RedOxygen wants more people to text, not simply to think about texting. Therefore, RedOxygen's aim is to convince people that texting is the way of the future, that texting is the ultimate fate of communication, and that you should do it. Right. Now.

All in all, the usefulness of scholarly articles comes down to what you, the writer, wish to do with the information present. RedOxygen would help you prove the necessity of text messages. The New Yorker aids in explaining text messaging's effect on language, while the research paper leads to conclusions about emotional attachment through texts. All of these articles together hinder the effectiveness of the others, but the correct article can make the best impact on readers.