7 ms·

The Selfie and the Self: In Defence of Duckface (2019)

25 points by ericdanielski 6y ago

harryf 6y ago
Hmmm this article says a lot without really saying anything. It concludes with implication that we should stop shaming people for posting selfies, without tackling the question "why do people publish selfies in the first place?" or managing to refute the idea that it's narcissistic. This paper https://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/linqiu/publications/selfie.pdf https://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/linqiu/publications/selfie.pdf shows... > " that selfies reflect their owners’ personality traits. We identified a number of personality-related cues. For example, emotional positivity predicts agreeableness and open-ness, duckface indicates neuroticism, and private location in the background indicates less conscientiousness. These cues reflect the characteristics of their corresponding personality traits" Meanwhile the article focused on the Oxford dictionary definition of selfie. I'd argue it's far more interesting to look at the urbandictionary definitions - there are over 70 definitions here - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Selfie https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Selfie some of which are over 10 years old like this one from 2009... > A picture taken of yourself that is planned to be uploaded to Facebook, Myspace or any other sort of social networking website. You can usually see the person's arm holding out the camera in which case you can clearly tell that this person does not have any friends to take pictures of them so they resort to Myspace to find internet friends and post pictures of themselves, taken by themselves. A selfie is usually accompanied by a kissy face or the individual looking in a direction that is not towards the camera. Duck face was called "kissy face" back then apparently. Anyway it's interesting to see how a definition on urbandictionary has evolved over time and I'd argue the urbandictionary is a better gauge of groupthink on a topic like this than the Oxford Dictionary.
- WilTimSon 6y ago
  > private location in the background indicates less conscientiousness Wait, I'm struggling with this one. How does showing off a private location (I presume this means someone's home, a bedroom, etc?) indicate that they are less conscientious? The paper says "more conscientious individuals are less likely to reveal their personal space in the background." However, this seems to me like it should be using "cautious" instead of "conscientious". Not being eager to show off your personal space indicates apprehension and carefulness with what you share, I never associated these with conscientiousness.
  - jrumbut 6y ago
    My reading was that private place could be read as bathroom or an unkempt bedroom rather than, say, a well decorated study or private photo studio.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  > Duck face was called "kissy face" back then apparently Although "duck face" was a thing by 2007, evidently it hadn't made it into the vocabulary of that particular Urban Dictionary contributor in 2009: https://www.dictionary.com/e/memes/duck-lips/#:~:text=The%20first%20Urban%20Dictionary%20entry,meme%20took%20off%20from%20there https://www.dictionary.com/e/memes/duck-lips/#:~:text=The%20....
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  We shouldn't shame people for posting selfies, because without selfies there could be no meta-selfie: http://panevin.ru/uploads/blog/2016/lenin_selfi_1024-2.jpg http://panevin.ru/uploads/blog/2016/lenin_selfi_1024-2.jpg (not only was Lenin a mushroom, but he invented the selfie before the west?)
- hippich 6y ago
  We should not shame people - that should be enough on its own IMHO :)
  - harryf 6y ago
    Is that truly an absolute? “You we’re texting and driving. You could have killed someone!” And if you genuinely believe people posting selfies are narcissists, does this mean you should ignore and keep quiet?
    - hippich 6y ago
      I can see why would you care about texting and driving (and why there are laws against it). Why would you care about selfies?
    - ghostpepper 6y ago
      Are we talking about whether it's morally defensible to shame someone for doing something irresponsible (like texting and driving) or whether it's actually likely to change their behavior (ie. whether it's good for society). The latter does not seem to clear cut; there are likely better, more positive ways to change behavior. Shame is more likely to make the person get better at hiding their irresponsible behavior, which is actually counterproductive for society. I'm still not convinced that shame is ever a useful tool.
  - asa4akj 6y ago
    Completely disagree. Shame is a very potent society shaping factor. Without it humans wouldn't be as civilized. So we should just use shame appropriately.
    - hippich 6y ago
      Intuitively, I agree with potential shaping factor. But shaming making people civilized - that certainly deserves a citation. But that's all besides the point. Judging by myself only of course, I seriously doubt people shame others because of the duty to higher purpose (making people civilized).
ratel 6y ago
The OP and apparently the book following Goffman make a huge leap in stating that selfies somehow give insight in a persons back stage behavior as opposed to front stage behavior. There is no reason given why a conscious act of performance completely controlled by the subject itself is now somehow an insight into back stage. I would say taking a selfie is a form of front stage behavior, albeit a more egalitarian one. On the other hand I am someone who thought a selfie-stick was a tool for punishment for people taking selfies at inappropriate moments.
- jjgreen 6y ago
  "Thrash him soundly with the selfie-stick", would that it were true ...
- munificent 6y ago
  > I would say taking a selfie is a form of front stage behavior, albeit a more egalitarian one. I think this hinges on whether the person taking the photo is aware of the people around them at that point in time. If they really aren't thinking about them at all, it's essentially "authentic" back-stage behavior. If you don't realize someone is looking in your bathroom window while taking a shower, you probably can't be honestly claimed to be making a social performance in there. If they are deliberately considering the people around them when taking the photo is part of the audience for their act, then, yes, it's clearly front-stage behavior. In practice, it is probably some shade of gray between these two extremes. The line between front stage and back stage is always somewhat blurry.
  - ratel 6y ago
    Sorry, there seems to be a disconnect here. Yes the difference between back stage and front stage is a gray-scale. However that was not my point: Making selfies is an act of front stage, not because there might be other people around, but by the mere fact you are making a photo of yourself with the purpose of it being seen by others. The performance is that what we see on the photo, not the conditions it is made under. The conditions it is under might make it into more of a front stage, but given that the selfie itself is front stage the fact that you are not hiding making it is very hard to see as "authentic" back stage behavior. People might use selfies to practice (back stage behavior), but you will normally never see those and what they do present is obviously fit for front stage. Yes you might walk into someone practicing with selfies, or accidentally see some practice selfies, but that in itself does not provide better or more reliable information than any other incidental back stage information like seeing someone in the shower. Now if your point was that selfies invite us to perform too much and practice too little than we are in agreement.
xwdv 6y ago
I always thought it was odd the selfie stick was so hated. It seems like a clever solution for getting a better photo, and it’s not like it bothers anyone else around. But I feel that’s why people hate it, it’s too clever. Seems to get derided the same way a nerd kid gets beat the fuck up in school.
- cassepipe 6y ago
  Idk know about it being "so hated" but it is sure enough the object of mockery because it means you actually spent money on it/ bothered to carry it around for the purpose of taking photos of your face, which, without thinking people taking selfies are monsters, I personally don't understand the appeal. I have no interest in taking pictures of myself even more so sharing them. I kinda see it as I see that thing that you're supposed to grab ice cubes with or elaborate beer-bottle openers. Those object kinda of make you feel that some people feel that they don't fully exist if they don't own things.
  - staticassertion 6y ago
    I think the idea is that you want to be able to look back not just at the places you've been but also at yourself. I think it makes sense. Seeing pictures of myself as a teenager certainly has a different impact than seeing pictures of where I went as a teenager.
    - cassepipe 6y ago
      When I look at pictures of me when I was younger, I am like "Wow I looked different at the time" for two seconds and then I move on with my life cause it did not learn me anything and I don't really know what to make of it. I guess I havent much interest in my past looks. I have a pretty good idea of who I was at various stages of my life and even if I had not, those would not help much. So I guess I am uninterested in pictures in general.
  - collyw 6y ago
    > I have no interest in taking pictures of myself even more so sharing them As an old git (45) it seems strange to me that today's youth have known nothing else but a world where sharing pictures of yourself on social media is the norm. It's like its part of the reason for living.
minikites 6y ago
I thought about the "sculpture taking a selfie" when I read this article: https://observer.com/2016/01/this-viral-image-makes-a-bold-statement-in-defense-of-selfie-culture/ https://observer.com/2016/01/this-viral-image-makes-a-bold-s... >The thing about this is that sculptures like these in art history were for the male gaze. Photoshop a phone to it and suddenly she’s seen as vain and conceited. That’s why I’m 100% for selfie culture because apparently men can gawk at women but when we realize how beautiful we are we’re suddenly full of ourselves.
- cat199 6y ago
  Isn't a third party admiring/honoring someones beauty independently an inherently different act than publicly proposing that ones own beauty should be admired? agree there can be a double standard, but if there is, it can go both ways
devmunchies 6y ago
Tangent... the title mentions the duckface, but that is a clear soyface (males "expressing surprise or excitement with their mouth agape") https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/soy-boy-face https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/soy-boy-face I personally don't believe it's soy, its just the meme. Don't hate the messenger.
gibupvotesplz 6y ago
Every time some pointless, self-indulgent, or even dangerous activity becomes fashionable with women, we see essays like this written by women or male feminists defending it. Is everything women do above criticism? Also, the author of this post looks like the typical male feminist rapist: tvofuturenow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Nathan-Jurgenson-Life-After-Digital.png I guess he thinks if he writes enough GoodThink pieces in defense of women, they'll have sex with him.

25 points by ericdanielski 6y ago

Hmmm this article says a lot without really saying anything. It concludes with implication that we should stop shaming people for posting selfies, without tackling the question "why do people publish selfies in the first place?" or managing to refute the idea that it's narcissistic. This paper https://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/linqiu/publications/selfie.pdf https://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/linqiu/publications/selfie.pdf shows... > " that selfies reflect their owners’ personality traits. We identified a number of personality-related cues. For example, emotional positivity predicts agreeableness and open-ness, duckface indicates neuroticism, and private location in the background indicates less conscientiousness. These cues reflect the characteristics of their corresponding personality traits" Meanwhile the article focused on the Oxford dictionary definition of selfie. I'd argue it's far more interesting to look at the urbandictionary definitions - there are over 70 definitions here - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Selfie https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Selfie some of which are over 10 years old like this one from 2009... > A picture taken of yourself that is planned to be uploaded to Facebook, Myspace or any other sort of social networking website. You can usually see the person's arm holding out the camera in which case you can clearly tell that this person does not have any friends to take pictures of them so they resort to Myspace to find internet friends and post pictures of themselves, taken by themselves. A selfie is usually accompanied by a kissy face or the individual looking in a direction that is not towards the camera. Duck face was called "kissy face" back then apparently. Anyway it's interesting to see how a definition on urbandictionary has evolved over time and I'd argue the urbandictionary is a better gauge of groupthink on a topic like this than the Oxford Dictionary.

WilTimSon 6y ago
> private location in the background indicates less conscientiousness Wait, I'm struggling with this one. How does showing off a private location (I presume this means someone's home, a bedroom, etc?) indicate that they are less conscientious? The paper says "more conscientious individuals are less likely to reveal their personal space in the background." However, this seems to me like it should be using "cautious" instead of "conscientious". Not being eager to show off your personal space indicates apprehension and carefulness with what you share, I never associated these with conscientiousness.
- jrumbut 6y ago
  My reading was that private place could be read as bathroom or an unkempt bedroom rather than, say, a well decorated study or private photo studio.
EForEndeavour 6y ago
> Duck face was called "kissy face" back then apparently Although "duck face" was a thing by 2007, evidently it hadn't made it into the vocabulary of that particular Urban Dictionary contributor in 2009: https://www.dictionary.com/e/memes/duck-lips/#:~:text=The%20first%20Urban%20Dictionary%20entry,meme%20took%20off%20from%20there https://www.dictionary.com/e/memes/duck-lips/#:~:text=The%20....
082349872349872 6y ago
We shouldn't shame people for posting selfies, because without selfies there could be no meta-selfie: http://panevin.ru/uploads/blog/2016/lenin_selfi_1024-2.jpg http://panevin.ru/uploads/blog/2016/lenin_selfi_1024-2.jpg (not only was Lenin a mushroom, but he invented the selfie before the west?)
hippich 6y ago
We should not shame people - that should be enough on its own IMHO :)
- harryf 6y ago
  Is that truly an absolute? “You we’re texting and driving. You could have killed someone!” And if you genuinely believe people posting selfies are narcissists, does this mean you should ignore and keep quiet?
  - hippich 6y ago
    I can see why would you care about texting and driving (and why there are laws against it). Why would you care about selfies?
  - ghostpepper 6y ago
    Are we talking about whether it's morally defensible to shame someone for doing something irresponsible (like texting and driving) or whether it's actually likely to change their behavior (ie. whether it's good for society). The latter does not seem to clear cut; there are likely better, more positive ways to change behavior. Shame is more likely to make the person get better at hiding their irresponsible behavior, which is actually counterproductive for society. I'm still not convinced that shame is ever a useful tool.
- asa4akj 6y ago
  Completely disagree. Shame is a very potent society shaping factor. Without it humans wouldn't be as civilized. So we should just use shame appropriately.
  - hippich 6y ago
    Intuitively, I agree with potential shaping factor. But shaming making people civilized - that certainly deserves a citation. But that's all besides the point. Judging by myself only of course, I seriously doubt people shame others because of the duty to higher purpose (making people civilized).

ratel 6y ago

The OP and apparently the book following Goffman make a huge leap in stating that selfies somehow give insight in a persons back stage behavior as opposed to front stage behavior. There is no reason given why a conscious act of performance completely controlled by the subject itself is now somehow an insight into back stage. I would say taking a selfie is a form of front stage behavior, albeit a more egalitarian one. On the other hand I am someone who thought a selfie-stick was a tool for punishment for people taking selfies at inappropriate moments.

jjgreen 6y ago
"Thrash him soundly with the selfie-stick", would that it were true ...
munificent 6y ago
> I would say taking a selfie is a form of front stage behavior, albeit a more egalitarian one. I think this hinges on whether the person taking the photo is aware of the people around them at that point in time. If they really aren't thinking about them at all, it's essentially "authentic" back-stage behavior. If you don't realize someone is looking in your bathroom window while taking a shower, you probably can't be honestly claimed to be making a social performance in there. If they are deliberately considering the people around them when taking the photo is part of the audience for their act, then, yes, it's clearly front-stage behavior. In practice, it is probably some shade of gray between these two extremes. The line between front stage and back stage is always somewhat blurry.
- ratel 6y ago
  Sorry, there seems to be a disconnect here. Yes the difference between back stage and front stage is a gray-scale. However that was not my point: Making selfies is an act of front stage, not because there might be other people around, but by the mere fact you are making a photo of yourself with the purpose of it being seen by others. The performance is that what we see on the photo, not the conditions it is made under. The conditions it is under might make it into more of a front stage, but given that the selfie itself is front stage the fact that you are not hiding making it is very hard to see as "authentic" back stage behavior. People might use selfies to practice (back stage behavior), but you will normally never see those and what they do present is obviously fit for front stage. Yes you might walk into someone practicing with selfies, or accidentally see some practice selfies, but that in itself does not provide better or more reliable information than any other incidental back stage information like seeing someone in the shower. Now if your point was that selfies invite us to perform too much and practice too little than we are in agreement.

xwdv 6y ago

I always thought it was odd the selfie stick was so hated. It seems like a clever solution for getting a better photo, and it’s not like it bothers anyone else around. But I feel that’s why people hate it, it’s too clever. Seems to get derided the same way a nerd kid gets beat the fuck up in school.

cassepipe 6y ago
Idk know about it being "so hated" but it is sure enough the object of mockery because it means you actually spent money on it/ bothered to carry it around for the purpose of taking photos of your face, which, without thinking people taking selfies are monsters, I personally don't understand the appeal. I have no interest in taking pictures of myself even more so sharing them. I kinda see it as I see that thing that you're supposed to grab ice cubes with or elaborate beer-bottle openers. Those object kinda of make you feel that some people feel that they don't fully exist if they don't own things.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  I think the idea is that you want to be able to look back not just at the places you've been but also at yourself. I think it makes sense. Seeing pictures of myself as a teenager certainly has a different impact than seeing pictures of where I went as a teenager.
  - cassepipe 6y ago
    When I look at pictures of me when I was younger, I am like "Wow I looked different at the time" for two seconds and then I move on with my life cause it did not learn me anything and I don't really know what to make of it. I guess I havent much interest in my past looks. I have a pretty good idea of who I was at various stages of my life and even if I had not, those would not help much. So I guess I am uninterested in pictures in general.
- collyw 6y ago
  > I have no interest in taking pictures of myself even more so sharing them As an old git (45) it seems strange to me that today's youth have known nothing else but a world where sharing pictures of yourself on social media is the norm. It's like its part of the reason for living.

minikites 6y ago

I thought about the "sculpture taking a selfie" when I read this article: https://observer.com/2016/01/this-viral-image-makes-a-bold-statement-in-defense-of-selfie-culture/ https://observer.com/2016/01/this-viral-image-makes-a-bold-s... >The thing about this is that sculptures like these in art history were for the male gaze. Photoshop a phone to it and suddenly she’s seen as vain and conceited. That’s why I’m 100% for selfie culture because apparently men can gawk at women but when we realize how beautiful we are we’re suddenly full of ourselves.

cat199 6y ago
Isn't a third party admiring/honoring someones beauty independently an inherently different act than publicly proposing that ones own beauty should be admired? agree there can be a double standard, but if there is, it can go both ways

devmunchies 6y ago

Tangent... the title mentions the duckface, but that is a clear soyface (males "expressing surprise or excitement with their mouth agape") https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/soy-boy-face https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/soy-boy-face I personally don't believe it's soy, its just the meme. Don't hate the messenger.

gibupvotesplz 6y ago

Every time some pointless, self-indulgent, or even dangerous activity becomes fashionable with women, we see essays like this written by women or male feminists defending it. Is everything women do above criticism? Also, the author of this post looks like the typical male feminist rapist: tvofuturenow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Nathan-Jurgenson-Life-After-Digital.png I guess he thinks if he writes enough GoodThink pieces in defense of women, they'll have sex with him.