[derefr]

I think the "serious answer" would be "you don't put a photo of yourself, or, in fact, anything related to yourself that could be misconstrued as egocentric or status-serving, in an article related to suicide; you just let it speak for itself." However, that sort of goes against the whole point of the site's format, which is, basically, to status-affiliate [through social learning] with people who have done things that have made them high-status in one way or another.

I think the "serious answer" to that would be "then they shouldn't have done the interview" (or "they should have made some special exception to their normal site formatting," which through interview prioritization basically amounts to the same thing) which has interesting implications for the ethics of free speech.

[pstack]

I could understand if it were just a little user icon off in the corner, but to have a huge 200x300 photo in the article is a little obnoxious, though probably not intentionally crude. If it's an automated function of the site that puts it there for, then maybe a more tasteful choice of photo is called for when one posts several articles about working with suicide patients.

I should edit this to add that the author being an attractive young women is irrelevant and that a similar photo with a male author would be as unfortunately distasteful. And as the other poster mentioned, they thoughtfully changed their photo. Maybe it's just a cruddy way the site automates the use of people's photos in a sort of template?