What's with the obsession with public figures?

[AqD]

Why do people care much about public figures? holding them to higher moral standards, checking their news (good or bad ones), and some would go so far to see them or support them in person - for example the presidential ceremony.

But what's the point? Most of public figures are just performers of entertainment industry (indifferent to pornstars) or politicians who are merely our delegates in boring and complicated government matters, similar to electricians but far less reliable and untrustworthy. Like workers of other industries it makes absolutely no sense to give them special attention or even make them target of inspiration.


Why don't people focus more on themselves or people surrounding them? If they find their life extremely dull compared to public figures', shouldn't the logical response be to invest time on changing that? There is hardly any benefit to gain from caring about public figures who aren't our friends or families - in fact it could be a source of distorted perspectives since people tend to give their opinions more weight and forget that they're not above average humans (well even if they are, it's none of our business).

[Prodromos]

I think it's part of the scapegoating mechanism in humanity, and thanks to modern communication technology, you can scapegoat people thousands of miles away from the comfort of your home.

"A group finds a person, or a group, and they blame them for the crisis, they blame them for the tensiveness. A kind of peace then reigns in the community, because they've managed to vent their frustrations on this person or on this group. But it's always an unstable peace, a phony unity, because it's predicated on violence, and what will inevitably happen is violence will reassert itself, and then more victims have to be found."

"All those who were holding stones, he was writing their worst sin in the ground. Next time you feel yourself being drawn into the dynamic power of a mob, imagine the Lord Jesus writing in the ground your worst sin. But of course he rises and delivers what's probably the best-known one-liner in the Scripture, 'Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her.'

"What does he do? He takes the violence of the mob that was directed outward, and he turns it inward, and in the process he transforms it into contrition. Instead of focusing on her sin, instead of focusing on her problem, I now can look within, and see my dysfunction, and my sin. Having said that, Jesus effectively breaks up this mob that was once a tight circle, and now each one drifts away back home."

From:

[Sar1n]

I think it's all due to evolution. We've evolved to be a social animals, living in packs. But packs have one leader and the rest are followers. They can't work if everyone wants to be leader. So, more people have drive to be followers than those who want to be leaders. All this, from celebrities through politicians to religions, it's all just people following their instincts to be followers.

[youneuoy]

Why do people care much about public figures? holding them to higher moral standards, checking their news (good or bad ones), and some would go so far to see them or support them in person - for example the presidential ceremony.

But what's the point? Most of public figures are just performers of entertainment industry (indifferent to pornstars) or politicians who are merely our delegates in boring and complicated government matters, similar to electricians but far less reliable and untrustworthy. Like workers of other industries it makes absolutely no sense to give them special attention or even make them target of inspiration.


Why don't people focus more on themselves or people surrounding them? If they find their life extremely dull compared to public figures', shouldn't the logical response be to invest time on changing that? There is hardly any benefit to gain from caring about public figures who aren't our friends or families - in fact it could be a source of distorted perspectives since people tend to give their opinions more weight and forget that they're not above average humans (well even if they are, it's none of our business).

because at the moment it is actively imposed by the social structure (if someone has something, then he undoubtedly achieved this with great work and he really is worth the million that earns every day). Individualism he is, yes

[youneuoy]

I think it's all due to evolution. We've evolved to be a social animals, living in packs. But packs have one leader and the rest are followers. They can't work if everyone wants to be leader. So, more people have drive to be followers than those who want to be leaders. All this, from celebrities through politicians to religions, it's all just people following their instincts to be followers.

Well, that's what I wrote about in the last post - there is only one step from individualism to social Darwinism

[conon394]

similar to electricians but far less reliable and untrustworthy

Said by somebody who obviously not recently tried a major home renovation.

Why don't people focus more on themselves or people surrounding them? If they find their life extremely dull compared to public figures', shouldn't the logical response be to invest time on changing that? There is hardly any benefit to gain from caring about public figures who aren't our friends or families - in fact it could be a source of distorted perspectives since people tend to give their opinions more weight and forget that they're not above average humans (well even if they are, it's none of our business).

Depends on the nature of the 'public' figure you are I think over generalizing.

One obviously needs to care about public figures who are politicians or figures who hold a public trust. Otherwise how can you judge if that person is a decent representative to carryout the public trust or more narrowly the interests you might have voted or supported them for. As we cross into celebrity. Of what sort. I see nothing wrong looking for role models in success in your field of endeavor and following them. I mean sure my daughter was inspired by her friend who was the former lead dancer at her school, and the owner instructor, but why should she not also look at women who carved the path she wants in terms of physicality and nature of dance and are famous as inspirations?

[youneuoy]

Said by somebody who obviously not recently tried a major home renovation.



Depends on the nature of the 'public' figure you are I think over generalizing.

One obviously needs to care about public figures who are politicians or figures who hold a public trust. Otherwise how can you judge if that person is a decent representative to carryout the public trust or more narrowly the interests you might have voted or supported them for. As we cross into celebrity. Of what sort. I see nothing wrong looking for role models in success in your field of endeavor and following them. I mean sure my daughter was inspired by her friend who was the former lead dancer at her school, and the owner instructor, but why should she not also look at women who carved the path she wants in terms of physicality and nature of dance and are famous as inspirations?

I think the question was a little different

[conon394]

Care to elaborate?

[Muizer]

Why don't people focus more on themselves or people surrounding them? If they find their life extremely dull compared to public figures', shouldn't the logical response be to invest time on changing that? There is hardly any benefit to gain from caring about public figures who aren't our friends or families - in fact it could be a source of distorted perspectives since people tend to give their opinions more weight and forget that they're not above average humans (well even if they are, it's none of our business).

Paradoxical as it may sound, being a follower is a way to shore up one's self esteem. Take for instance football supporters. They follow, but rather than wallow in subservience, they instead derive some vicarious pride from the achievements of 'their' club. The same can be said for people who join highly hierarchical institutions. They too revel in the status that joining the hierarchy gives them, even if in doing so they subject themselves to the whims of the higher ups. Gaining a measure of self esteem from being a follower of 'something bigger' is a substitute for being able to gain the respect of others on your own merits. Of course the best attitude towards self esteem is to not let it depend on what other people think of you at all, but even if I believe that's ultimately the best approach to living in today's society, it's somewhat at odds with our base animal instincts.

[AqD]

I can understand people would follow some leadership when inside an organization, but they yield - or supposed to yield benefit.

Compared it to typical celebrities - there is zero benefit at all. Most people don't even want to become football players, actresses or politicians.

Isn't a human's basic instinct being selfish and self-preservation? Under this presumption a human himself/herself should always be the center of the universe, while the surrounding / how other people are doing is irrelevant.

One obviously needs to care about public figures who are politicians or figures who hold a public trust. Otherwise how can you judge if that person is a decent representative to carryout the public trust or more narrowly the interests you might have voted or supported them for.

Isn't it blind to judge by appearance? That's exactly why there are organizations set up to monitor and counter the power of some positions. A conflict of self-interests ensures the balance and keep things under check.

Gaining a measure of self esteem from being a follower of 'something bigger' is a substitute for being able to gain the respect of others on your own merits.

Hmm, just like nationalism.

[antaeus]

I'm sorry... but there's nothing more fun than screaming at a screen while watching Love Island.

It's like Instagram Hunger Games. The survivors get the most followers as reward.

It's also a great example of how we're chimpanzees and gorillas at heart. The Love Island house is an artificially created human troop. The troop has no assigned alphas. So the competition for love, is actually a de facto competition for alpha status within the troop. That's why the men strut topless around the house, lounging poolside in self selecting groups preening themselves on display, displaying their muscles on the gym equipment. It's why women gather in groups, showing off the visual elements of their sexuality as best they can, seeking the attention of the alphas. Those who fail at the competition are forced to leave the troop.

I'm surprised it's not being taught in anthropology classes.

It's true of any human troop.