Thank You, Captain Obvious

*Disclaimer: I am neither a mental health professional nor a scientific researcher, I am merely a person who likes to say “I told you so.”

Western Illinois University recently released the findings of a research study linking excessive Facebook activity to narcissism.

To this I say, “Thank You, Captain Obvious.”

After all, do we really need a study to tell us that the people who post updates on every aspect of their lives – seeking “likes” and comments from their 1,000+ close personal friends – are narcissists? No more so than we need a study examining the presence of sarcasm in my personality. Although, I think we can all agree that such an experiment, like the Facebook study, would be an invaluable use of time and resources.

Well, in honor of Western Illinois University’s groundbreaking research, I decided to conduct a Facebook experiment of my own.

The question: Does excessive Facebook PDA predict problems in a relationship? (For the purposes of this study, excessive shall be defined as an average of at least one status update or wall post per day.)

Hypothesis: With the exceptions of significant life events (i.e. deployment, cohabitation, anniversary, engagement, wedding, or baby), excessive Facebook PDA does predict underlying problems in a relationship.

Experiment: I will look at the Facebook profiles of friends who fill(ed) my news feed with frequent public declarations of adoration and love, and analyze the current status of said relationships.

Conclusion: So, does excessive Facebook PDA spell trouble in paradise…? Yes, yes it does.

Comments and unsolicited advice from an individual who is in no way qualified to offer such advice: Based on my extensive and incontrovertibly accurate research, Facebook PDA is a symptom of a larger problem. If engaged in a relationship that is chronicled on Facebook, you are advised to evaluate the underlying issues behind the compulsion to frequently and publicly acknowledge the relationship.

Aside from typical trust and jealousy issues that plague many Facebook PDA couples, humans have an animalistic need to mark one’s territory.

Legend has it that once upon a time, a man would signify a pre-engagement commitment to his girlfriend by giving her his letter jacket in high school, or pinning her in college. The guys at my high school were not quite as romantic, opting, instead, to mark their territory with a hickey.

Classy? No.

Effective? Absolutely.

In the recent social media frenzy, Facebook has become the Web 2.0 equivalent of the hickey. On Facebook, you can flaunt your relationship for all to see – friends, jealous exes, or skeptics who doubted your ability to ever find a significant other (who isn’t inflatable).

It should come as no surprise that I subscribe to the theory that the more public the relationship, the less stable it actually is.

As stated in my hypothesis, I concede that there are exceptions to the rule. However, the general rule for a correlation between excessive Facebook PDA and relationship longevity is that a relationship played out on 

Facebook is unlikely to succeed behind closed doors.

Proponents of Facebook PDA will likely accuse me, and rightfully so, of being cynical and unromantic. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

They call themselves hopelessly in love. 

I call them soon-to-be single.

Interpreting Interpretations: It's the American Way

I have been noticeably (or not so noticeably) absent from this blog of late. This is not for a lack of material. Rather, with all the hateful speech in the media, I reverted to the old practice of, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

Well, I’m over it.

In recent months, politicians and pundits have mercilessly and unapologetically attacked not just politicians, but private citizens, as well. These diatribes are being splashed across the news, polarizing the nation.

More often than not, justification for these verbal attacks ultimately boils down to an individual belief about what is associated with being a “true” American, or the proclaimed desire to return America to what the founders had intended.

But, since it’s safe to say those embroiled in recent debates were not present at the Constitutional Convention 236 years ago, everything is left up to interpretation.

And I do mean everything.

Take, for instance, the preamble to the Constitution. The preamble is one sentence which defines the purpose of the Constitution and establishes the inalienable rights of the American people; yet even this simple and straightforward sentence can be interpreted and contorted to fit one’s personal beliefs.

I took the liberty of rewriting the preamble as interpreted by the far right, left, and moderates, respectively, to illustrate this point:

We the [conservative] people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union [free of homosexuality], establish justice [except for those who can afford a high-powered attorney], insure domestic tranquility [except when we are right and our opponents are wrong, which, we do decree, is always], provide for the common defense [at the expense of all else], promote the general welfare [of men], and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves [but not to women and other specified minorities] and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We the [liberal] people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union [until we make good on our threat to move to Canada], establish justice [in order to prove a point, any point, it doesn’t really matter], insure domestic tranquility [until we find a reason to protest], [reluctantly] provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty [through means which alienate the rest of the country] to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We the [moderate] people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect [tolerant] union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility [until our life choices are attacked on a daily basis], provide for the common defense [and support the troops regardless of our opinions on the war], promote the general welfare [and tolerance of others], and secure the blessings of liberty [regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation] to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Of course the above is just conjecture. It is my perceived interpretation of how certain outspoken, extreme politicians may interpret the preamble. Really, my obnoxious interpretation of their unknown thoughts is no different than politicians interpreting any article of or amendment to the Constitution to fit their own convictions, and spouting that interpretation as constitutional gospel. As such, I feel perfectly justified in interpreting their interpretations.

Confused? Good. That’s politics for you.