A new study shows almost everyone thinks that almost everyone desires fame. But the survey also shows that almost no one craves it for himself. Instead, the vast majority say they believe that personal success means “following your interests and talents to be the best you can be at something you love.” But how can we explain the relentless barrage of self-promotion and personal image manipulation on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and elsewhere? Are we lying to ourselves to cover up our social disease epidemic — faking humility to mask our desperate craving for wealth, influence and public approval?
If you enjoyed this episode, you can binge-watch the full archive of Right Angle, more than 600 episodes. If you become a Member, you can jump into the discussion of this and other topics in comments, a new forum, private messages, and our Member-written blog. Plus, you’ll see Members-only backstage content each week.
10 replies on “Social Disease Epidemic: Study Reveals Our Bipolar View on Success and Fame”
A baby’s arm holding an apple?
I feel entitled to that as an American citizen.
Thanks Scott…you make me chuckle almost as much as you make me ponder…
Bill got the line from Greek philosophy right, but his example was not quite there. Happiness does not lie in being a better farmer than the next guy, it resides in being the best farmer that you are capable of being. Whether you are better or worse than the next buy matters not.
You may not be famous, but you guys are rockstars to me. Keep up the good work.
I think most of us want respect, not fame. If you’re respected, either in a field or for you character, that is usually enough. I think respect is even more important than love; respect without love is still respect, but love without respect is only pity. Most famous people would be happy to do without much of it. I recently saw an interview with George R.R. Martin who said that while fame from “Game of Thrones” has brought him many awesome things (a boatload of money, HBO deals, convention appearances and some publishing power), it has stolen from him one of his most cherished passions in life: the ability to enter a bookstore anonymously and indulge in quietly reading books undisturbed. If he shows anywhere now he is instantly recognized and mobbed. When you are famous, you can’t even pass gas without making the news and being watched and commented on. It destroys your natural spontaneity and denies you much privacy. You can be famous for either good things or bad. Be careful what you wish for. But respect is almost always a good thing, famous or not.
I think fame is people knowing you outside your local sphere of influence. Facebook, etc, has allowed that sort of ‘fame’ in the ‘likes’, etc. Most people put their best side out there on Facebook, none of the mundane, boring stuff that is the largest part of our everyday lives.
I have to admit that I would like to be famous…for being a good person.
I frequently quote Bill Murray ‘If you think you want to be rich and famous, get rich first, see if that doesn’t do it for you’
Oddly enough, the only fame I want is with a group I like and spend time in willingly and for enjoyment. You can keep the rest. If I got more, I’d deal with it the best I can, but not desire it. The definition of happiness given by Bill fits me pretty well, but include people I love and love me.