This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Many people in this world are more famous than me. I guess that means they're better people than me, right? And better than you, right?
I probably don't even need to example some people more famous than me, famous for their positive achievements. Brad Pitt; Bill Gates; Peyton Manning; and so on. If they're more famous than me for good things they've done, that means they're better than me, right? And also better than you, right?
Seamus McGrenery
If your impression is that 'stars' don't loose fame then; You are ignoring a great theme in drama form 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane' to 'The Wrestler' that explores what happens when they do. I'm guessing you have not done that much research into, say, who were stars in a particular medium at a given date and who were well known 10, 15 or 20 years later.
On the generational issue since the advent of popular culture fans have admired their heroes, One Direction are not more admired now than Elvis was half a Century ago. It seems from a quick read of this debate that no-one else is buying your suggestion that famous people are better, so unless there is more evidence I think that one is case closed.
A review of 'Saul Bellow's Heart: A Son’s Memoir by Greg Bellow' described as heartbreaking the realisation that great (and famous) writers are often not great people. It is a realisation that many young fans eventually make about famous people.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/culture/books/non_fiction/article1239499.ece
As for the communication technology connection, it is the means that the celebrity form of fame is created. The meaning people take from this type of connection is important to understand. For example there is the quasi-religious view of some Elvis fans that he did not die in 1977, complete with reported sightings.
If a sizeable number of people started to believe the being famous had to equate to being good that would indeed be interesting.
greg dahlen 20+
I can't remember why we were talking about whether stars lose fame. My impression is that most extremely famous people stay famous a long time. The Beatles are a good example, movie stars like Paul Newman, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie; political figures like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. I suppose for less famous people fame might fade, but I would say even to have been famous for a while says a person probably has better-than-average character, the things you have to do to get fame take character.
I'm not trying to "sell" the suggestion that famous people have better character. It strikes me as true, but if others don't believe I don't think I'll be harmed. I guess the only way to know for sure would be to get to know a bunch of famous people. But until I do, I would still maintain that, logically, someone who becomes famous would have great character. In almost every case fame is about serving somehow, by entertaining, stimulating, governing; and people who serve are already showing character.
Seamus McGrenery
First ' much-sought-after, rarely-achieved' makes me think you are talking about national or global fame. We as humans are not really equipped to operate as a global community. I think that really only very very few people actively seek fame of this type.
If you accept Dunbar's number about 150 is the maximum number of people we can meaningfully relate to. It is not that difficult to achieve a level of fame among 150 people, or in your own local community. Fame at this level is probably often sought after and quite often achieved.
Sometimes people do get diamonds or the equivalent for free. Look at the Australian man who found a huge gold nugget in January. Or what about all of the people who inherit great wealth or win when gambling. It might be scary to think that aspects of the world can be unfair, but that should never stop us from doing, and being, the best we can.
But fame is definitely not like diamonds. It is a fleeting fickle gift that some people have for a while. It is not the same as wealth or goodness or talent or any other positive quality you can name. That is why we have a separate word for it.
Fame can go as quickly as it comes precisely because it is not tied to any other positive quality.
greg dahlen 20+
Yes, I'm talking about national or global fame, you know, fame. I don't think we would say of someone who is "famous" among 150 people that that person is famous.
What is your evidence that we're not equipped to operate as a, well, you say global, but you also mentioned national. If that were true, could a website like TED continue to operate? How is it that nations stay together and remain nations, sometimes for thousands of years, if we're not equipped to operate as a national community?
Occasionally people get diamonds for free, but usually they work hard for them. If we read the biographies of famous people, my general sense is that they don't come from astounding beginnings, but they make themselves astounding. Just as an example, look at our U.S. president--welfare mother, died young from cancer, father died let's see was he driving drunk and got in a car accident, or was he walking drunk and got hit? And yet our president raised himself to someone of large power and fame known, I believe, the world over.
Why is fame not like diamonds? It doesn't seem so fleeting, many people have it for many years. It doesn't seem so fickle, we see that the people who have it are hard-working, risk-taking individuals.
True, we have a separate word for it, because it is something different from wealth, intellectually we can distinguish it. And there is even the occasional famous person who appears not to be wealthy, such as Mother Teresa from India. But in most cases fame accompanies wealth, talent, and, I say, goodness.
As I've already said, fame generally doesn't go that quickly. Once someone has achieved it, they usually keep it or some amount of it.
I am not purposely trying to line up opposite to you. I hope we'll keep talking and reach some consensus, or perhaps agree to disagree. What are your qualifications on this subject?
Seamus McGrenery
The reason for my engagement is that your take on fame is, I think, unusual and I wonder why. Is it a generational thing of the word changing meaning or is it something else.
Dunbars number comes from a theory by a British anthropologist, and is a limit on meaningful relationships. So for example the theory would hold that while you may be Facebook friends with say 1,000 people you cannot keep up meaningful interaction with more than 150. I believe that research in this area is ongoing in the filed of social networking.
There have been many stories of stars who have lost fame, such as the movie 'The Artist'. Culturally fame is fleeting, search for 'where are they now' and you will find people with just enough fame left to make it to a web page.
So when it come to ' fame accompanies wealth, talent, and, I say, goodness' it will be definitely agree to disagree.
greg dahlen 20+
It seems to me, Seamus, that you can have a meaningful experience of someone without interacting with them. For instance, if I was to listen to a tape of Gandhi, it could be meaningful with no direct interaction.
My impression is that "stars" don't greatly lose fame, it may be supporting players who lose it, or people where we know that their prominence is a bit transient, they found the perfect project for themselves and it won't come again. But even enough fame left to make it to a web page isn't horrible.
I don't know if it's a generational thing. Your generation may have been more influenced by the punk ethos, which questioned fame. But I see young people now who are as virulent admirers of their heroes, like One Direction, as ever.
How does the technology/communication interest relate to how good a person a famous person is, I could see technology upping the level of fame someone could achieve, or the number of famous people.
Seamus McGrenery
If we were having this conversation in 1996 I would likely have used Marc Andreessen as an example of a famous person. And yes he did develop and commercialize technology based on other peoples ideas. The thing is I'd guess that now, less than twenty years later, you would more likely have heard of at least one of the people who came up with the idea that Marc Andreessen helped make popular.
This is why I am intrigued. Famous, as a word, has had a specific meaning for quite a while. We have other words for qualities of people. Wealthy, hard working, heroic and even great can be used to describe people.
If I was to do a Facebook survey asking your question I'm sure that the people I know would react with a 'no'. That is if I could get a reaction to a question most of the people in that group would regard as obviously misconceived.
So what is it about fame that makes you think differently, has fame got a new meaning for you? Can you really not conceive of a world where someone can be 'famous' but not 'better'?
greg dahlen 20+
Actually, I think it'd be scary if you could. If we thought that fame, this much-sought-after, rarely-achieved thing, didn't involve having good personal qualities, wouldn't it skew our world? It'd be like they were giving away diamonds for free, part of the value of a diamond is that we know it took a lot to get it.
Charles Curt
greg dahlen 20+
Charles Curt
greg dahlen 20+
Charles Curt
Amanda Dobson
Great discussion by the way :)
Questions First
unfortunately, our society created the illusion that fame make you a super man. you do have more power by being famous and more money, but that does not make a better person. actually, quite the opposite may happen when people are overwhelmed by fame and its disadvantages
Colleen Steen 500+
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
Kate Blake 50+
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
Famous need not be do-gooders. You can experiment it by para-dropping naked in Trafalgar Square at 12 noon any day.
What is more interesting question to me is if I am better today compared to yesterday.
greg dahlen 20+
Kate Blake 50+
greg dahlen 20+
I saw the same psychologist for five years who died while I was seeing her. She was 77 when we started and died at 82. When I went to her memorial service, I chatted for a while afterwards with another of her ex-patients who told me his father was a serial killer who had never been caught, and then died in a rest home. I eventually reported that conversation to the LAPD cold case squad, but at this point, to my knowledge, they haven't found that guy (I need to check on that).
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
I don't believe that Adolf Hitler was a better person than me despite his immense fame at one point of history. He got so much attention of people that kids of 12 -13 agreed to die in a lost war.
greg dahlen 20+
Colleen Steen 500+
I would seriously listen to our monkey cousins here...Pabitra and Questions First. Are you a little bit obbsessed with this idea Greg? This question is very similar to your question about farmers and actors.
greg dahlen 20+
Colleen Steen 500+
Actors probably have more famous people because their jobs depend on being famous. If they are not recognized, they don't make the big bucks.
greg dahlen 20+
Thaddea Thompson
besides fame does not elevate you only you elevate you, that is if you so choose. It's all about the state of mind and P.O.V.( also what you consider famous)
greg dahlen 20+
Thaddea Thompson
greg dahlen 20+
But if you really succeed in elevating yourself, don't you become famous? Can't we assume that famous people have elevated themselves?
mary ellen johnson
greg dahlen 20+
You may be right that we all have an equal share of kindness to give, but wouldn't you agree that some end up giving more of it than others? Why is that?
mary ellen johnson
ok acts of kindness. Kindness comes in all shapes, forms, sizes, actions, etc. I guess if you can give many dollars to an organization or a village of people in need, you are performing a multitude of acts of kindness in one shot.
holding the door for someone, saying good morning with a smile, let them take the spot in front of while waiting in a line, carrying a bundle for them, a friendly nod, ......all acts of kindness. one human being to another.
I am of the thought that each and every act is no greater than another. It is the giving of one's heart to another. we truly are in need of far more acts of kindness, (giving) in our world for most don't know the abundance you receive in return.
you thoughts Greg? what does giving mean to you? do you feel you don't give enough? what does it mean to be wealthy?
Nathan Cook
Robert Winner 50+
If I were Catholic I may think the Pope or Mother Teressa as "great people" .... If I were a sadist then the Marques De Sade would be my hero ... The fact is Greg ... why do I have to think someone is better than me or you ... I may be honest in thinking that Joe is a better mechanic .. Judy is a better writer .. Sam is great at math .... Anne is a science whizz .... That is a evaluation of a talent / strength ... not the worth of a individual. Any of those peope, although talented in certain areas may be a lousey parent ... a drunk ... a murderer .... a canibal (yuck). Just because they have a talent does not stamp their ticket "good".
Greg all I want is to be the best ME I can be. My friends and family know me for what I am.
All the best. Bob.
greg dahlen 20+
I don't know, Robert, I tend to think that when a person gets really good at one thing, it ripples across their whole life and makes them somewhat better at many other things. For instance, Tom Cruise is really good at acting, but I expect he's better at washing the dishes than most people, too. The mental stimulation you get as you get better at one difficult thing you can then apply to the other things you do and do them better, too.
Colleen Steen 500+
greg dahlen 20+
Colleen Steen 500+
Many people often do not make the connection with one practice or another. They assimilate valuable information, and apply it to only one aspect of their lives. When, in fact, we have the ability to apply the same information to many different situations in our lives......good point Greg!
greg dahlen 20+
This probably ups my regard for celebrities, because even though they're known for being good at one thing, I think it shades over and helps them become better at other things. But all of us benefit from this "shading over," I think.
Colleen Steen 500+
I believe that to use information effectively in many different practices of the life experience, it helps to be aware. Yes...many things we do can be applied elsewhere in our life adventure, and the use of the information may be conscious or unconscious. The more aware we are, the more possibilities to apply it in many different ways:>)
greg dahlen 20+
It's a little hard to speak for "all people" on anything, would you agree? I probably think all people use it to some degree. For instance, one woman has learned to spice one dish wonderfully. Now when she goes to spice a new dish she has never cooked before, doesn't it seem like she's going to use what she learned from the prior dish to spice the new one, she's going to make a better educated guess about what will be the right spices on the new one. This is a little different from my first example, because in the first one I'm saying you use knowledge in rather unrelated fields to enhance each other, and in the second I'm saying you use prior knowledge in a field to do new things in the field.
Probably I think you apply knowledge from hugely unrelated fields to each other. Like you can take what you learn from tying your shoe and apply it to writing the Great American Novel. You can take what you learn from blowing your nose, and apply it to TED conversations. (I myself blow my nose gently, and try to be gentle on TED conversations).
Had you thought about this before it came up between us? I've thought about it a long time, but I can't remember discussing it with anyone before. Do you agree with my examples? Do you have some examples you like?
Colleen Steen 500+
I think/feel there are LOTS of things we (humans) are not yet aware of.
As Mrs. Vermont, I didn't really learn to dress differently, because I dressed pretty good prior to that.
Dress better for gardening??? OH my goodness! You should see me when gardening!!! Yes...I dress appropriately for the task at hand and I'm not exactly a fashion statement when in the gardens!!! LOL
I get your point anyway. I learned to communicate better and project thoughts, feelings and ideas more clearly. I was also learning that with the acting and guest lecturing at the same time. And of course communication skills are beneficial in all aspects of life. When doing volunteer work with the dept. of corrections, I became a mediator, for example.
Yes, I agree that we cannot speak for "all people".
Yes, I thought about "cross training" in the life experience before we had this conversation:>) Did you? I perceive everything as interconnected, so it seems natural to me that all our experiences would also interconnect.
I realized a long time ago that my life experiences flowed, one to the other, and what I learned in one situation often served me in other situations as well.
greg dahlen 20+
I'm sure you dressed well prior, didn't you fine-tune it a little as you did those spotlight activities, like pageants and commercials?
Colleen Steen 500+
I do not agree with the statement that if someone is famous, they are a better person than you. I will say again.....it depends on how we use the position....how we use the information. A person could be famous, and not be a very good person because of HOW they used their fame. Another person who is NOT famous, may be a wonderful person because of HOW they use their life experiences.
As I think we agreed....I dressed for the task at hand:>)
greg dahlen 20+
What exactly is involved in pursuing Mrs. Vermont, Colleen, do you have to put on ball gowns and such? Maybe you were already used to putting on those elegant clothes, I guess in my life I haven't put on elegant clothes very often, such as tuxedos or even suits.
Colleen Steen 500+
When I visit other countries and cultures, I often trade my western cloths with locals, or buy cloths there because I like the feeling and experience of fitting in as much as possible. I wore a veil in Egypt and Jordan at times....very practical....kept the sun, wind and sand out of the face, and also helped me connect with local people, which I love doing:>)
I believe it is not necessarily WHAT we do in the life experience, as HOW we do it. To me, the motivation and intent is important. Two people can have the same experience....maybe hold the same postion....be famous or not, and to me, how they/we use that opportunity is more important than the position, fame, etc.
We have been talking about this for quite some time, and it's ok if we do not agree:>)
edward long 100+
Let's say there are 5 categories of human quality into which each of the 7-billion humans now living on Earth can be placed: 5= Worst; 4= Bad; 3= Good; 2=Better; 1= Best.
The question you are asking is: Does the Quality of a person depend strictly upon the degree of fame to which they attain?
I will be watching this debate to see if even one rational, objective, convincing, argument based on the common understanding of the phrases "good people" and "bad people", appears on the "YES" side. There will probably be attempts, but I doubt there will be even one worthy attempt.
Barry Palmer 50+
It is the responsibility of every adult to decide what it means to be better.
You might start by considering people you know personally and ask yourself who do you respect more, and then ask yourself why you respect them more. What characteristics make a person better.
greg dahlen 20+
Barry Palmer 50+
Some people who are famous might be hard-working, but certainly not all of them
Some people who are famous might be thoughtful, but not all of them.
Paris Hilton is famous, and from the little I have learned about her, that may be her only reliable characteristic.
So it is prudent to examine people carefully to determine each person's specific characteristics, without associating characteristics together into packages.
I admire people who are thoughtful and hardworking and think of themselves as one individual in a large society of equal individuals. Fame is not a characteristic I admire. Fame is very often a result of circumstances rather than any virtues of the famous person.
greg dahlen 20+
Colleen Steen 500+
Wyatt Tanton
I think you might need to differentiate between success and being an overall good person. People like Brad Pitt earn way more money than most people, and is more well known, so you could say he's a successful person, but being a good person is something you would need to know him more personally. His actions towards others are what would make him a good person.
greg dahlen 20+
Wyatt, I really think that success and being a good person go hand in hand. I don't know that I have to know Brad Pitt, I think in order to be a successful actor he must have talked to and met a lot of different people and really thought about them, thought about them deeply so he can depict them well on the screen. Meeting people, talking to them, thinking about them are things that already make you a good person, they are good things to do. If he were a bad person, noone would want to meet him and talk to him, and therefore he wouldn't have as much to draw on when he gives a performance, and therefore noone would want to watch him act.
Seamus McGrenery
It is a seductive idea, but it is wrong. I have written about this here:
http://seamus.mcgrenery.com/2013/03/no-superman.html
The point is that we are all part of an interdependent system. No-one achieves anything without the support of a great many others. You have only heard of Brad Pitt because of the army of writers technicians, actors, publicists movie theatre staff and media people who have worked to make sure you do. They are all doing that because it is in their interests to do so.
The same is true of Bill gates or anyone else you care to mention. Even the scientists who win Nobel prizes do not work in isolation. They are dependent on a scientific community working today building on work going back hundreds of years.
In all of our actions we are faced with a frame problem. We have no way of knowing how the things we do now, or have done in the past, will change the world in the future.
Maybe in a hundred years from now our descendants will marvel at the people who spread electricity generating across the world. Maybe the people they will remember for doing good are the technicians who kept the lights on in movie theatres through wars and natural disasters.
But why do you equate fame with being better period? We might use the word better when comparing two people like-for-like. The fastest runner in a race may be a better runner. I doubt you could find many people, including yourself, who would say that makes them a better person.
All that someones fame can tell you is how famous they are today.
greg dahlen 20+
True, we may not know certainly how our actions will affect the future, but don't you think the human race makes good judgements right now about who is doing the valuable work? Thus the person the rest of us deem famous probably really is doing something marvelous?
I think the faster person in the race might be a better person because they have shown the self-discipline to become the better athlete.
Kate Blake 50+
Please your idea of better is skewered, maybe you need to put more distance between you and Hollywood it seems to eating at you?
Seamus McGrenery
Someone in a prehistoric tribe might get known by all two hundred people in the tribe for heroically saving a life, or being a great hunter. We are equipped to understand and react to that kind of fame, and yes we can say that the famous person is one some way better at something.
Fame has meaning in our lives, at this level. We can learn to hunt from the great hunter, or avoid the cheating trader. It works both ways fame and infamy.
Just over five hundred years ago Gutenberg, who's invention changed our world, was known by few people. So we can clearly see the link between fame in ones lifetime and lasting impact has been broken for a long time.
Take a modern example, how many people are aware of who developed the computer, and how they did it? My guess is that more people will have heard of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs than the people who did the work that changed our world.
Many people have heard of Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist. Yet he has said of the book that made him famous “It is an account not of my own invention, but rather an articulation of neo-Darwinism, a synthesis of the gene’s-eye view that has become the norm among field workers in evolutionary biology.”
Because we are not equipped to deal with fame in the modern sense we confuse it with other qualities.
“Fame is a vapor, popularity is an accident, riches take wings, those who cheer today may curse tomorrow and only one thing endures - character.” Harry S. Truman
greg dahlen 20+
I'm more inclined to stand up for famous people than you. If we didn't think that famous people had great qualities of character, such as hard work, risk-taking, creativity, wouldn't it turn the world topsy-turvy?
Gail . 50+
It is said that our greatest fear is not our smallness. It is our greatness.
gale kooser 20+
A person sets out to achieve a reasonable goal, like a good education in their chosen field, for example. They then go on to do good in that field and if by chance/fate/luck or what ever, they get recognition for something they did well. Get written up in a paper of some sort, put on TV, & then maybe they become famous.
Fame also comes in different forms and levels too.
Example: You reach out in your community and help people or animals or both. Family, friends, and strangers really like your work and always call on you for help. That is a form of fame.
Even just being a good (or bad) neighbor is also a form of fame. But being bad can be infamous instead.
Don't reach for that star, it will reach for you, even if it is a small one. It counts too!
greg dahlen 20+
Charles Curt
greg dahlen 20+
I am inclined to stand up for famous people. If you didn't believe famous people had wonderful characters, wouldn't it rather turn the world topsy-turvy?
Fritzie Reisner 100+
greg dahlen 20+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
greg dahlen 20+
I am a big fan of famous people and believe that anyone who becomes famous has done quite a bit of good.
Colleen Steen 500+
Don't you know of some famous people who you may not consider to be "good"? Working hard and taking risks are caracteristics that MAY accompany recognition, but not necessarily.
greg dahlen 20+
How does one get recognition without working hard and taking risks?
Fritzie Reisner 100+
greg dahlen 20+
Kate Blake 50+
I've never heard of Peyton Manning, and Brad Pitt is just an actor to my knowledge or has he done something I haven't heard about?
Please just be content with who you are and where you are - then you will be the best possible person any of us can be!
greg dahlen 20+
Peyton Manning is a fantastic pro football quarterback. You can say Just an actor, but having worked frequently as an extra in TV and movies (I live on the eastern edge of Hollywood), I can tell you that acting is hard work.
I love your closing statement, but I wonder if it's true. If a person were really content with who they were, would they ever do anything? Or just sit and be content? Would they participate in TED conversations? I really don't see a contradiction between fame and being content with who you are, I think a famous person could be content with themselves, in fact are more likely to be.
Kate Blake 50+
If fame will truly improve your happiness then I hope you get it soon.