I have never rated psychologists that much, having been through a number of daft and inaccurate psychological assessments over the years and the dependency on this so-called science by HR departments worries me.
Today, thanks to Julia via email, I see that they have surpassed themselves (Daily Mail, so usual caveats apply – and haven’t they surpassed themselves too with this wonderful bit of nonsense?)
Is not joining Facebook a sign you’re a psychopath? Some employers and psychologists say staying away from social media is ‘suspicious’
And that’s just the headline. Oh, it gets better (or worse, depending upon your viewpoint). This is why I normally eschew the Mail – it’s full of hogwash that makes the Sunday Sport look like a broadsheet.
Facebook has become such a pervasive force in modern society that increasing numbers of employers, and even some psychologists, believe people who aren’t on social networking sites are ‘suspicious.’
The German magazine Der Taggspiegel went so far as to point out that accused theater shooter James Holmes and Norwegian mass murder Anders Behring Breivik have common ground in their lack of Facebook profiles.
Riiiight… So, because a couple of nutters don’t have Farcebook accounts, that makes other people who don’t have one, “suspicious”. Now, even a half-witted, lobotomised cretin could drive a coach and four through that logical fallacy. It is perfectly summed up by Alexander Pope’s short poem:
Sir, I admit your general rule
That every poet is a fool.
But you yourself will serve to show it,
That every fool is not a poet.
Or, for the hard of thinking, just because a couple of nutters don’t have Farcebook accounts it does not follow that not having an account means that one is a homicidal nutter. The more mundane, logical, rational and simple explanation is the more likely; that they cannot be bothered because they have real life friends and so regard Farcebook as a waste of pixels. Ah, but, no, not according to the woo merchants – there must be something wrong.
On a more tangible level, Forbes.com reports that human resources departments across the country are becoming more wary of young job candidates who don’t use the site.
This too is deeply disturbing. Some of us like to keep our employers away from what we get up to in our private lives. It could be therefore that people do have accounts but make them invite only – precisely to keep them away from the prying eyes of the HR busybodies. And it is an outrage that HR departments think it is okay to demand access to log-on details so that they can pry – even the most basic security measures mean not handing over such details to perfect strangers – and that is precisely what they are. Besides, one’s private life is no business of one’s employer.
The common concern among bosses is that a lack of Facebook could mean the applicant’s account could be so full of red flags that it had to be deleted.
Well, of course it is. The logical, rational and simple explanation cannot possibly be the right one, now, can it?
Slate.com tech reporter Farhad Manjoo wrote in an advice column that young people shouldn’t date anyone who isn’t on Facebook.
‘If you’re of a certain age and you meet someone who you are about to go to bed with, and that person doesn’t have a Facebook page, you may be getting a false name. It could be some kind of red flag,’ he says.
I told you it got worse, didn’t I? Now you are not fit to date if you don’t do Farcebook. Never mind that you met someone in the flesh as it were, only Farcebook can make you safe…
Farhad Manjoo is not someone we should be taking advice from – any advice, ever. The man is a fuckwit.
Manjoo points out that these judgements don’t apply to older people who were already productive adults before social media became widespread.
Oh, well, that lets me off the hook, then. You can rest assured that I am not “suspicious” or, worse, a psychopathic murderer, I’m too old for Farcebook, so I’m all okay.
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.’
Well, that’s all that pre-crime solved, then, eh? All the police have to do is round up all those undesirables without Farcebook accounts. Easy. And no actual detecting to be done – let alone any thinking.
Breivik used MySpace and Holmes was reportedly on the hookup site Adult Friend Finder.
Well, there you go then, we always thought that Bill Gates was the spawn of the Devil, now we have the proof. Dunno about Adult Friend Finder, but obviously it is for homicidal weirdos – gotta be; a nutter used it, stands to reason.
Psychologist Christopher Moeller told the magazine that using Facebook has become a sign of having a healthy social network.
Er, no… The sign of a healthy social network is going out with people, mixing with them, having a drink and a laugh together – not sharing idiocies on Farcebook.
And this is what the argument boils down to: It’s the suspicion that not being on Facebook, which has become so normal among young adults, is a sign that you’re abnormal and dysfunctional, or even dangerous, ways.
And any rational, normal human being would feel a chill going down his spine that anyone could be so staggeringly stupid to believe, let alone come out with such codswallop.
When it comes to peddling woo, the psychologists are right up there with the the homeopaths and sellers of snake oil. Fake science and dangerous nonsense, frankly. Right up the Daily Mail’s street, then.
There is a problem I found. All the clubs where once we got invites by E-Mail, or, gods forbid POST(!), now ONLY isue invites through Facefuck.
So, as secretary, and general dogs body (Read “events manager” (in “Office speak shite)), I have no choice.
I must try and find myself on an external adding machine, to check I am “hidden”§. I would hate the boss to think I was NOT a sociopath. It would lead to many fewer days off at the drop of a….nicely sharpened axe blade. 😈
Shit, forgot the “follow up” buttons.
I have an account – but found that Farcebook does not accept “Radical” as a first name! (Ergo, I am known as “Rad” – ridiculous! I wonder how the Pixie Frou-Frous of the world manage?)
And as for having an account with “Adolf Friend Finder”… surely, that must raise a few suspicions!
Presumably if employers decide that people wanting to find adult friends is suspicious, eh?
OTOH … many employers (Banks, accountancy practices, lawyers …) either forbid their employees to have Facebook pages, or insist that only the most anodyne details are submitted, or are vetted first – you can see why – confidentiality issues may arise.
Also there is the confusing cross-over between Psychology – which is a genuine study – and Psychiatry, which is witch-doctoring, impure & complicated (as opposed to pure & simple, ye ken?)
Sainsbury’s has a policy. It is pretty straightforward and sensible. It prohibits people discussing their employer on social networking sites. I see no problem with this. There is no need for the employer to poke about in people’s private lives to do it.
XX It prohibits people discussing their employer on social networking sites. I see no problem with this. XX
Bollox.
Because to “police” it they need your log in details, to “do the occassional check.”
Don’t know how much you have heard about it in the U.K, but last week one of Germanys rowing team was thrown out, and is now threatened with prosecution at BUNDES level (I.e Parliamentary), because, in a similar way, they found out her FRIEND was once a member of the N.P.D (Similar to BNP).
This information was “discovered” over Facefuck, or similar.
They don’t though. It’s a policy and they expect people to abide by it. There is no policing. When I worked there, no one asked me about my social media accounts or what my log-in details were. They simply made me aware of the policy. One of the few things about the organisation of which I approved.
Yes, well, if you don’t make your account private, this is relatively easy.
XX They don’t though. It’s a policy and they expect people to abide by it. There is no policing. XX
Then it is a pointless “policy”.
Unless it is an arse covering exersise, for when everything goes queer.
No, it isn’t. It is based upon trust. Treat people like adults – they are told about the policy and are expected to abide by it. You do not have to go around policing every policy – that would be absurd. However, if people breach it, then they are aware of the consequences. That is how policies are supposed to work.
XX However, if people breach it, then they are aware of the consequences.XX
As I said at the end there, “arse covering”.
No, it’s a policy. Just like any other policy. If you sign up to an agreement and you breach that agreement, there are consequences. Nothing to see here.
EXACTLY! If they are not lookingt, ie POLICING, they will never find out will they?
UNLESS someone INFORMS them. then they have COVERED THEIR ARSES by already having it in the contract.
It is ONE or the other.
You are making something of a mountain out of a molehill with this one.
It is perfectly reasonable for an organisation to have a rule or policy that says “don’t badmouth us in public”. They don’t need to police it. If it happens and they find out, they can invoke their disciplinary procedure. It’s not arse covering, it is applying their policy in the event of a breach. It is no different to any other contractual arrangement. Any contract you or I enter into will have penalties for breaches.
It isn’t an issue. Sainsbury’s policy does not involve poking about in their employees’ private lives, nor are they asking to have access to log-on details, which is the issue here.
I would suggest that having such a policy is entirely sensible and pragmatic given the rise in popularity of social media.
I’d have thought that if a potential employer asks for information about what social networking site(s) you use is a good reason not to want to work for them.
If an interviewer asked me for those details, I would politely explain that it was none of their concern as this is a private matter. If they persisted, I would terminate the interview.
Neither Holmes or Brevik were supporters of Hull Kingston Rovers. Therefore not supporting Hull KR could be the first sign that you are a potential mass murderer.
Indeed. I believe they were not BMW riders either…
Greg, I think you have it the wrong way around. Psychiatrists are qualified medical doctors who treat mental disorders and diseases. Psychologists require no medical qualification and tend to deal with more wooly issues around behaviour and motivation.
A psychopath would not be referred to them, for example.
Rob
Ever read the late great Peter Medawar on Psychiatry?
His trashing of the subject was one of the bset tecnical demolition jobs I’ve ever seen.
( To be found in “Pluto’s Republic”.
I was, admittedly, thinking of experimental Psychologists, who have discovered many interesting, & indded disturbing things.
Like the Milgram experiments ……