Why are successful people and their lives overly glorified and romanticised?

[OinkBoink]

"Genius" and success can (probably) be completely explained in terms of genetics, brain biology, environmental factors etc. Maybe we can't explain them yet. But they (probably) can be completely explained. There's nothing really "special" about any of it.

I read all these books and articles about geniuses and successful people and the way they're portrayed is almost as if they're out of this planet. My problem isn't that these people are appreciated. I have no problem with that. My problem is that once you elevate people to this sort of a level (which is unrealistic and kind of delusional almost), any rational discussion on them or their success or their policies or their work tends to get lost. Any questioning of their policies/methods/behavio(u)r/authority/intellect doesn't work properly. Things tend to get lost in emotion rather than being analyzed/analysed through logic.

 

[randomrogue]

I think you're just talking to the wrong people.

Take Albert Einstein for example. Clearly a genius. However any real discussion about the man would expose his flaws and failures. Part of being successful though is perseverance.

Look at Apple. They're the 2nd biggest company and have been the first. They'll probably swap with Exxon a few more times. However any serious discussion about Apple, Steve Jobs, etc would show the flaws in their business and persona.

 

[SMOGZINN]

"Genius" and success can (probably) be completely explained in terms of genetics, brain biology, environmental factors etc. Maybe we can't explain them yet. But they (probably) can be completely explained. There's nothing really "special" about any of it.

I read all these books and articles about geniuses and successful people and the way they're portrayed is almost as if they're out of this planet. My problem isn't that these people are appreciated. I have no problem with that. My problem is that once you elevate people to this sort of a level (which is unrealistic and kind of delusional almost), any rational discussion on them or their success or their policies or their work tends to get lost. Any questioning of their policies/methods/behavio(u)r/authority/intellect doesn't work properly. Things tend to get lost in emotion rather than being analyzed/analysed through logic.

So you want to be a fatalist. Then you have to accept that the sort of conversations we have about successful people and "geniuses" are also completely explained in terms of genetics, brain biology, environmental factors etc. You really can't have one with out the other.

 

[Moonbeam]

M: The answers you get will probably depend a lot on who you ask and what they see in your questions. I say this as a way of apologizing in advance since how I react to your words may be unexpected. I am not the slightest bit interested in the questions themselves but in the person who asks them. I am hearing the question, "What is the Matrix?"

OinkBoink: "Genius" and success can (probably) be completely explained in terms of genetics, brain biology, environmental factors etc. Maybe we can't explain them yet. But they (probably) can be completely explained. There's nothing really "special" about any of it.

M: Here you have made some assumptions about some questions you have. Your questions are irrelevant, the importance is in why you ask them. Why do you ask them?

In the first place I am stupid and will never be a genius. So of what importance to me could the answers be, or how would any answer change anything for me? I am way to stupid to think I can assume there's nothing special there. For all I know genius could be really special. So the important question to me is why do you have such an interest in this question? Where are the hooks? Why do these questions drive you. Are you asking, What is the Matrix? I think so.

OB: I read all these books and articles about geniuses and successful people and the way they're portrayed is almost as if they're out of this planet. My problem isn't that these people are appreciated. I have no problem with that. My problem is that once you elevate people to this sort of a level (which is unrealistic and kind of delusional almost), any rational discussion on them or their success or their policies or their work tends to get lost. Any questioning of their policies/methods/behavio(u)r/authority/intellect doesn't work properly. Things tend to get lost in emotion rather than being analyzed/analysed through logic.

M: Maybe, but who cares? What are the feelings you are having that makes you state this publically? Does the Matrix love you?

This reminds me of a story of the Stone Cutter hewing a mountain in the hot sun. He got curious about the Matrix too. He started imagining what it would be like, instead of a stone cutter he could be the sun and put an end to his suffering in the heat. Do you know that story? Would you like to know how it ends?

 

[DaveSimmons]

"What can change the nature of a man?"

If you assume that people are capable of change, then studying how Jobs managed Apple or Gates built Microsoft can give you ideas of how to shape your own efforts. Or not, if you don't want to accept the trade-offs of their methods.

There's nothing really "special" about any of it.

Steve Jobs created
- The windows, mouse and pointer PC, after Xerox PARC failed to commercialize it
- The portable digital music player market, which was a niche before the iPod
- The touch-screen smartphone market, another niche
- The tablet market, after others tried and failed for over a decade.

Sure, Hari Seldon might have predicted all that, but he wouldn't have figured out that Jobs was the one to do it, or exactly how he'd accomplish it.

Was it all pre-determined in the first instant of the Big Bang? Probably not, given quantum uncertainty. And if the multiverse theory of reality holds, then Jobs both did and did not create the iPod

 

[sm625]

Many so called successful people take a cornucopia of big pharma death-in-a-bottle. They often have a spirituality that is about as deep as a mud puddle. They may never have had anything even close to resembling a spiritual experience. They have no care of concepts like karma. They will often perform the most amazingly acts of cruelty on their own children, such as feeding them GMO poisons and giving them brain eating mercury shots which together cause autism. And they will never even know or care that they themselves are responsible for the suffering they caused through their own ignorance. And I cannot stress enough how they just dont give a damn. Oh sure, they pretend to, but they really dont give a damn. Because they are too busy being successful. It's a joke.

 

[randomrogue]

Many so called successful people take a cornucopia of big pharma death-in-a-bottle. SOURCE PLEASE They often have a spirituality that is about as deep as a mud puddle. SOURCE PLEASE They may never have had anything even close to resembling a spiritual experience. SOURCE PLEASE They have no care of concepts like karma. SOURCE PLEASE They will often perform the most amazingly acts of cruelty on their own children, such as feeding them GMO poisons and giving them brain eating mercury shots which together cause autism. SOURCE PLEASE And they will never even know or care that they themselves are responsible for the suffering they caused through their own ignorance. SOURCE PLEASE And I cannot stress enough how they just dont give a damn. SOURCE PLEASE Oh sure, they pretend to, but they really dont give a damn. SOURCE PLEASE Because they are too busy being successful. It's a joke.

Any links would be appreciated.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It's a joke.

This isn't a place for your jokes.

 

[OinkBoink]

So you want to be a fatalist. Then you have to accept that the sort of conversations we have about successful people and "geniuses" are also completely explained in terms of genetics, brain biology, environmental factors etc. You really can't have one with out the other.

Saying that a lot can be explained by all those things isn't necessarily fatalism in the strict sense of the word. There might as well be room for "free will" (which would also be a part of the overall explanation), but that's quite a complex topic. And yes, our conversations can (probably) be explained by all those things.

Even if everything were totally deterministic, and we accept the fact that we tend to keep improving our ideas in the long run for several reasons, this discussion would also be a part of that.

 

[OinkBoink]

"What can change the nature of a man?"

If you assume that people are capable of change, then studying how Jobs managed Apple or Gates built Microsoft can give you ideas of how to shape your own efforts. Or not, if you don't want to accept the trade-offs of their methods.


Steve Jobs created
- The windows, mouse and pointer PC, after Xerox PARC failed to commercialize it
- The portable digital music player market, which was a niche before the iPod
- The touch-screen smartphone market, another niche
- The tablet market, after others tried and failed for over a decade.

Sure, Hari Seldon might have predicted all that, but he wouldn't have figured out that Jobs was the one to do it, or exactly how he'd accomplish it.

Was it all pre-determined in the first instant of the Big Bang? Probably not, given quantum uncertainty. And if the multiverse theory of reality holds, then Jobs both did and did not create the iPod

Yup, we must study success in order to be better at being successful.

Also, quoting individual lines out of context alters the meaning of what the line was intended for.

 

[Soundmanred]

Human nature. It's always been this way.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I suspect the answer is fairly simple. Group coherence is a huge advantage in survival. A tendency to elevate leaders to a status above mere men would prove a survival advantage. It keeps the group unified and coherent. People who don't elevate them in that fashion tend to have fractured organizations that are easy prey for those who do.

 

[OinkBoink]

I suspect the answer is fairly simple. Group coherence is a huge advantage in survival. A tendency to elevate leaders to a status above mere men would prove a survival advantage. It keeps the group unified and coherent. People who don't elevate them in that fashion tend to have fractured organizations that are easy prey for those who do.

Seems to be a reasonable answer.

 

[Moonbeam]

Seems to be a reasonable answer.

Yes it does, but then we might consider the negotiating skills of one Korben Dallas with regards to the Mangalores. How well would a pack of wolves with an Alpha leader do against a pack of Alpha wolves. I have no idea of course, and mention this only because thought can take you anywhere. What one should have before buying into any one line of reasoning, in my opinion, is scientific evidence to back up ones claim.

An experiment I would propose is to see if folk with proven records of personal success are followers or leaders because it seems more likely to data I have experience, that feelings of worthlessness are more likely the reasons we look to and worship others. We were dependent as children and that dependence was used to control. The real scientific evidence for this however, can only come from memory, what you know to have happened by feel because the inculcation of a lack of self respect, if such a thing happens, is a subjective experience, a transformation of self that can only be inferred by a scientific instrument but could be an experience one can relive. The data from others that such an event happened has been reported

 

[OinkBoink]

Even in the case of science, which is an objective enterprise, we see that certain names are remembered but the rest are forgotten. If Einstein died prematurely, someone else would have discovered the stuff that he did. He happened to have been born at the right place at the right time with the right innate constitution. Also, everything that a scientist does builds upon the work of a lot of other people (not to mention, the mistakes of a lot of people).

"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould

Also, I think that in science, we must not have units etc. dedicated to the names of scientists (like the units of force, capacitance etc. which are Newtons, Farads etc. respectively). Similarly with diseases. I don't think they should be named after the people who discovered them. Science should be completely objective. It's nice that you want to honor these people. But make that a separate subject. Something like, "The History of Science".

Shoot me. But that's my opinion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Even in the case of science, which is an objective enterprise, we see that certain names are remembered but the rest are forgotten. If Einstein died prematurely, someone else would have discovered the stuff that he did. He happened to have been born at the right place at the right time with the right innate constitution. Also, everything that a scientist does builds upon the work of a lot of other people (not to mention, the mistakes of a lot of people).

"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould

Also, I think that in science, we must not have units etc. dedicated to the names of scientists (like the units of force, capacitance etc. which are Newtons, Farads etc. respectively). Similarly with diseases. I don't think they should be named after the people who discovered them. Science should be completely objective. It's nice that you want to honor these people. But make that a separate subject. Something like, "The History of Science".

Shoot me. But that's my opinion.

Your opinions are based on nothing but your own subjective reasoning. No person can ever be perfectly objective. Naming a disease/unit after a person is no less arbitrary than naming a particular protein p21 or whatever else you'd like to call it. A name is simply a way we refer to something. Einstein started out a clerk in a patent office and worked his way out of it. While not a sweat shop, it's not exactly MIT. He published three of the most important works of physics (each in a completely different area) the year he turned 26. Any one of these was worthy of a Nobel Prize. Sure someone else would have figured these things out eventually but it's ridiculous to assert that he was nothing special. He busted his ass and spent decades figuring out the details of how things worked. If you don't believe in free will then there's obviously no point in having this conversation. If you do, you cannot discount the approach he adopted for his life as a major contributor to his success.

 

[OinkBoink]

Your opinions are based on nothing but your own subjective reasoning. No person can ever be perfectly objective. Naming a disease/unit after a person is no less arbitrary than naming a particular protein p21 or whatever else you'd like to call it. A name is simply a way we refer to something. Einstein started out a clerk in a patent office and worked his way out of it. While not a sweat shop, it's not exactly MIT. He published three of the most important works of physics (each in a completely different area) the year he turned 26. Any one of these was worthy of a Nobel Prize. Sure someone else would have figured these things out eventually but it's ridiculous to assert that he was nothing special. He busted his ass and spent decades figuring out the details of how things worked. If you don't believe in free will then there's obviously no point in having this conversation. If you do, you cannot discount the approach he adopted for his life as a major contributor to his success.

Certainly sir. There's always a bit of subjectivity involved. Sometimes, we extract objectivity from all our subjective discussions.

Einstein certainly deserved a Nobel Prize (a prize is something you receive for your contributions. A little different from what's contained in scientific literature itself). Yup. I neither "believe" nor "disbelieve" in "free will". It's a pretty complex topic. I'm always willing to learn.

No, I don't discount his approach nor the approach of many of those other scientists who made contributions in their fields. So?

Please refer back to the first post to see the context in which the word "special" was used.

 

[CycloWizard]

Certainly sir. There's always a bit of subjectivity involved. Sometimes, we extract objectivity from all our subjective discussions.

Einstein certainly deserved a Nobel Prize (a prize is something you receive for your contributions. A little different from what's contained in scientific literature itself). Yup. I neither "believe" nor "disbelieve" in "free will". It's a pretty complex topic. I'm always willing to learn.

No, I don't discount his approach nor the approach of many of those other scientists who made contributions in their fields. So?

Please refer back to the first post to see the context in which the word "special" was used.

The Nobel Prize is actually awarded for making a discovery (with few exceptions - a couple have been given more as "lifetime achievement awards" than for a particular discovery). Discoveries are nominally what should be presented in the scientific literature. The individual's contribution to those discoveries is celebrated because, as Einstein said (paraphrasing), "Research is seeing what everyone else has seen and think what no one else has thought." The ability to synthesize complex ideas and disparate data from the cesspool of literature spanning centuries, the willingness to face ridicule when suggesting a paradigm shift, and the willingness to risk one's career on one particular high-risk topic. This is generally counter to what is required to earn an MD or PhD (a virtual prerequisite for these awards - only a handful of non-terminal degree recipients have won a science-based Nobel). This leads me to believe that these individuals make conscious choices which lead them down the path to the prize.

 

[cwjerome]

Sometimes successful people are glorified, sometimes they are ridiculed or worse. There's plenty of celebrity worship but there are also many successful people who you rarely hear about. It just depends... I don't think there is some epidemic of glorification and romanticism. In fact, real romanticism seems rarer these days because of our cynical and ironic attitude. Besides, with reality tv and social media and the general "jerry springer" effect, we seem to thrive on the unsuccessful nearly as much.

 

[1prophet]

Why are successful people and their lives overly glorified and romanticized?


Most people would rather live vicariously through others they deem successful even if they have the same ability for success,

because they are afraid, unwilling or unable to cut off the psychological balls and chains that they have accumulated over their lifetimes which hold them back from achieving their full potential.

 

[cwjerome]

Why are successful people and their lives overly glorified and romanticized?


Most people would rather live vicariously through others they deem successful even if they have the same ability for success,

because they are afraid, unwilling or unable to cut off the psychological balls and chains that they have accumulated over their lifetimes which hold them back from achieving their full potential.

That's a little too psuedo-psychological for me.

First we'd have to define "overly" in the overly glorified piece. Next we'd have to accept that some glorification and romanticization is normal and OK when done for the right reasons and not taken too far.

And what's the purpose of the link?

 

[MagickMan]

Success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Do you want your leisure time or do you want lots of money?

 

[Onceler]

Why are scumbags glorified?