You Probably Think This Post Is About You

For years and years, the songstress Carly Simon was rumored to have written her epic "You're So Vain" about Warren Beatty, after seeing him walk into a party and someone commented, "Well he looks like he just walked onto a yacht."  Now, rumors are rumors, she's apparently only told one person on record about who the song, if anyone, was written about. 

Rumor has it, Beatty himself believed the tune was about him.  There have been some other attachments to it, but the idea is...a person obsessed with vanity thinks the world revolves around them.

What I find funny is that the title itself of the very song says much.  "You're So Vain/You Probably Think This Song Is About You" speaks to the very truth of social media.  Substitute "Facebook status/Tweet/blog post" for "song." 

How many times does one believe that a blog post, a tweet or a Facebook status is about THEM?

I wrote a blog post last week on an item in baseball news.  I was responding, in general, to mainstream media hysteria, which is pretty easy to do.  Yet, someone sent me an email, defending their position. 

Please note: I hadn't called this writer or person out, and at that point, hadn't even read their response on the topic I had written about.  I felt it telling that this writer, someone I respect on so many levels, felt the need to address it. 

When I hadn't even called that person out, personally.

There is truth, of course, to times that I do take issue with someone, and you will know about it.

There's the phenomenon of "subtweeting" that is basically calling someone out on Twitter without calling them out, specifically.  Say, someone is writing about their cat.  Then someone else following that person says something about a cat, without addressing the original tweeter, but definitely undermining or calling them out on something. 

I've certainly done my fair share of subtweeting, but it's usually in reference to several tweeters in general, not just a single person.  Although during the MLB playoffs, I was calling out specific and multiple holier-than-thou tweeters, and someone did respond to me.   Yet, I didn't mind chatting about the topic.  I wouldn't have written about it if I didn't think it was significant (silly or fair).

Then there's the topic of Facebook status, where a vague status is suddenly thought of as "OMG IS THAT ABOUT ME?????!!?!" 

I know a story of someone who had several friends outside of Facebook, and they all interacted there. All of a sudden, many of them weren't speaking to each other.   Why?  Someone had written a vague Facebook status, and one of the parties thought it was about themselves.  It was about a family member, but the damage had been done. 

It makes me wonder, however, what light people seem to think of themselves.  If someone writes something degrading in a post, and someone else thinks it's about them, why is that?  Do they feel like a bad person, or someone who needs to be the center of attention?

Which leads me what I think Mark Zuckerberg's famous social experiment is about: the narcissism and voyeuristic nature of humanity.

We like to watch and stare, and can either covet what others have or be happy for one another.  Then add in a layer of being self-centered and all of a sudden, the "ME" generation thinks everything is about them, even when it could be the furthest thing from the truth.

I had a conversation with a friend of mine before, and we talked about my recent Facebook purge, where I took a break.  I haven't been on in two weeks, and it's been very cleansing.  It frees up a lot of time, and to say I've suffered from burn out would be an understatement.  And yes, my friend, this paragraph WAS about you.

I found that my need to be connected at all times is very tiring, not to mention time-consuming.  But the very thing that draws us to these types of media can sometimes consume us: the need to be around people.  But what draws us away, the narcissism, over-sharing and vanity layer, can wear thin. 

Overused Word: Narcissist?

You've probably heard the myth of Narcissus played over and over. It's one of the most recognizable stories in Greek mythology, the one where Narcissus fell in love with the reflection in water. The irony was that he didn't realize it was an image, was afraid to leave the beauty of the image, and subsequently wasted away, dying of thirst as a result.

The lesson taught is that to be so self-consumed can result in "death," not so much the physical finality of death but that it can drive others away and be tough to live up to not only your own expectations, but to others around you.

Usually, when someone is called a "narcissist," it's...well...not considered "complimentary," in my opinion anyway. And yet, the very notion of what we do as individuals straddles a fine line between narcissism and just plain self-promotion. How does one balance that? Or is there one?

With the advent of social media tools, there is certainly a fine line of self-promotion versus interaction. To me, though, it's not so much an area of black and white, but more of that proverbial grey-shaded area where two circles interject. Bruce Reyes-Chen from the San Francisco Chronicle suggests that while social media puts the whole narcissism thing out there, he could argue that all communication (even old-fashioned phone calls, email marketing, face-to-face meetings even) can theoretically promote some agenda, right? I know when I meet people for marketing one-on-ones, there's always an underlying agenda there. We may generally enjoy each others company, have great conversation but at the end of the day, there's a deal that's brokered. Isn't that, by nature, a narcissistic promotion of one's agenda? I guess if one considers "putting food on the table" narcissistic, then perhaps. Reyes-Chow even suggests that the community in electronic forms is no different than say, family gatherings, religious houses and even knitting groups. However, he also writes, there is a fine line about the ugliness of a look-at-me-me-me community.

Narcissism is a topic du jour. The New York Times suggested to do away with several layers of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder as a "mental disorder." The article suggests that with the advent of so many people coming into the same forums as truly "narcissistic" personalities are, that their biggest fear might be realized: they will be ignored.

In response to this article, Jason Brand from the Huffington Post suggests that to do away with the term "Narcisstic Personality Disorder" in this day and age is bad timing especially in the Digital Age. I suppose that the idea behind that thinking is that for years and years, we've been promoting "self interest" and self "health and wellness" by thinking highly of ourselves, in a better effort to treat others around us. Brand suggests there is a healthy amount of narcissism out there, but it's tough to figure out. To me, the idea of it is contradictory. We've been promoting a high-level of self-esteem and to have a high opinion of ourselves. The idea was to carry that feeling over to others, to gain a better understanding of fellow man.

However, the biggest argument to me, in removing this title, is that deeply rooted Narcissistic Personality Disorder lacks empathy, is cruel and snarky but to be simply "self-absorbed" -- a very notion promoted by Millennial parents world over -- does not qualify one to be "Narcisstic." I can see the dilemma by wanting to put a label on it...but are Narcissists truly a danger to their community? They may be annoying, but then again, I'm sure we've all been guilty of it at times ourselves.

Meghan Daum at the Los Angeles Times wanted to take it a step further, and even said that the term "narcissist" itself is overused, and therefore rendered meaningless.

I'm going to have to go ahead and sort-of disagree there. See, I say "so-and-so is a narcissist" or "that's some narcissistic behavior" (which believe me, I do tend to interject that in a conversation every now and then), chances are...you're gonna know what I'm talking about. And I can emphasize it's not a good thing.

If someone is going to try to put food on the table, make their mark in some kind of community...what would rather have: a person who is negative about themselves who brings everyone down? Or someone who might have a high opinion of themselves and tries to engage people?

Maybe they can be sad, or perhaps a little out of touch. But trust me, Daum is off the mark here: narcissism, the term, isn't all that lost in today's Digital generation. You're gonna know what someone means when they say it. End of story!