Hero Problem

The problem with the story of Jesus and any other Hero stories is that we start looking for them in real people today. We look at famous people and categorize them as either the Hero or the Villain because we're so used to integrating stories into our thinking and communication. The truth is that real people are almost never all good or all bad. Stories try to simplify morality in a way that is easy to understand for many ages. The simplest and most effective parables are directed at children. Stories create context without requiring real turmoil and so can teach lessons "the easier way".

Maybe the hero story is meant for children to have someone to look up to. Heroes exemplify the virtue of the culture and teach children the values of the culture. Whether that means to be brave, physically fit, intelligent or trustworthy, children can learn how to be useful adults and understand hierarchies with stories. While these stories are useful for children they can also create a heuristic that models the world in a far too simplistic way. As we mature we should be more and more critical of our tendency to simplify and gloss over important details. We should try to see the world as it is instead of as it might be imagined.

I am sure that those that have interacted with immediate danger will learn a valuable lesson but if you can prepare someone or help them avoid something bad then they are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Those that listened to stories and comprehended them, as well as applied their lessons, would have had an advantage in our past which has led to a species that is prone to hold storytelling as a major virtue. The vast majority of humans can understand the lessons that come from stories and we value those that write and act out compelling stories. We are primed to seek out stories as they may help us to survive. This is why the entertainment world has amassed so much wealth, especially in the US.

The problem is that stories would be boring and confusing if they were too realistic. Real-life is oftentimes slow and most of the time nothing interesting happens, especially in the relatively safe 1st world countries around the world today. So, stories must be simplified and made interesting and an easy way to do this is to create a hero versus villain scenario. This creates drama, conflict and an opportunity for a lesson to emerge. Some clever writers play with this theme and will have the hero and villain roles swap or become ambiguous during the story. This is difficult to pull off but if done well can become even more compelling as it illustrates some of the actual vagueries of life. If it is done poorly it leaves the audience with nothing concrete to learn and just creates confusion as to who they should root for.

The reason this concept came to me was that I was watching a video about Jordan Peterson "wrecking" people with his words. It seems ridiculous to take a few excerpts from interviews and think of it as some intellectual victory. Even a long debate between two expert communicators may only result in a minor positive effect on the cultural landscape. Taking a few minute-long clips out of context that makes one person look smarter than another is misleading and disingenuous unless your goal is to attempt to idolize them.

Jordan Peterson could be more humble but if he is as qualified as I believe he is then he has every right to state his case as an expert in the fields of study that he speaks on. Also, he is probably in the minority of those with high IQs and so when interacting with most people on earth he will be the more intelligent and since he usually only talks about what he knows about he seems even more intelligent. He is confident and listens intently. He thinks about his responses more than most but he is not a hero or some kind of perfect human. He gives advise that many people need and they are benefiting from it and he has a great deal to say about humans but even he isn't completely aware of all the variables related to how humans behave. No one person can know everything about psychology or philosophy or any other complicated abstract pursuit.

The real key to our success in the modern world is not the efforts of individuals on their own but of individuals working together. We rely on specialization and the integration of a variety of disciplines to gain real insight into reality and in the pursuit to maximize prosperity. This does not mean that the efforts of individuals such as Elon Musk or Thomas Eddison did not have a major impact on the world but they were not alone in their projects and they were and are not devoid of failures.

Real people are fraught with inconsistent beliefs, personal flaws, and other unbecoming attributes. We often neglect these aspects in ourselves and those we deem heroic. We do the opposite with those with villainize. We focus on their flaws and inconsistencies and deem them unworthy. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

The judgment of others is a crucial skill in that we live in a world of both free and compulsory association with others. We must attempt to accurately judge the character of others in everyday life as well as in the more disconnected realms of politics and foreign relations. This article is not an attempt to deny the importance of assessing others' virtues and vices but the understand the gray and unsteady nature of such endeavors. Really, it is in the pursuit of personal understanding that we can see the nebulousness of others. If we can see ourselves more accurately we can see others as having many good and bad qualities and respect the vagueness of judgments.

At some point, we do need to act on these judgments and sometimes it comes down to deeming someone slightly more good or slightly more bad but we should be careful of our confidence in our judgments. We should seek wisdom in our understanding of our own frailties in an effort to understand the frailties of others and we should be wary of our desire to deify and hold others up above the rest. The inclination to idolize others can blind us to reality and create obedience when the moral act would be defiance. The opposite is true of course.

Thoughts on Celebrities and Outrage

One reason there is so much outrage when celebrities, or famous people in general, are caught engaging in corrupt acts is due to the fact that people project their own sense of moral superiority and self-righteousness onto them. The regular, every day, media consumer thinks of themselves as a good person and so they look at celebrities and assume that the reason they are able to amass such wealth, attention, and power must be because celebrities are also good people.

"I'm good and I like this actor, so they must be good?" One might think. Or, "They are popular and successful. They must be good people."

Because they project themselves onto others when the other fails they see themselves as failing. They identified with the other long enough to feel empathy subconsciously for them. But no matter how much empathy they have for their failed celebrity they must distance themselves from them socially. They rebuke them and signal their allegiance to decency based on the current ethics they adhere to and make their position known to others so that they will not be found out to be just as weak, and corrupt as their favorite famous person.

The question to ask when a person is revealed to be an immoral person, after amassing so much of what we all covet, is how did others allow this to happen? Who supported this corrupt individual throughout their career? Should we blame it on all of the consumers that paid for their success or was it their friends, family members and coworkers that allowed them to flourish while inside they were a blight on decency and a disgrace to those that have the moral bravery to do the right thing?

Famous people should be scrutinized in the same manner as everyone else. We should remain objective about others and not make wild assumptions about who they are based on their appearances in popular media. Also, because politicians are famous people they should be scrutinized just like everybody else as well and laws should apply to all equally. It seems that the rich and powerful sometimes skirt the justice system creating another reason for people to see them as superior. This difference generates more jealousy, resentment, and outrage.

No one should be surprised that someone they don't know, at all, turns out to be a "bad person." There are a lot of "bad" people out there and in the case of politics, I can see why a bad person might be drawn to the power there or born into the corrupting nature of power.

Also, we tend to value money and we assume famous people have money. People wish they could be rich, famous and popular so they look at those who have accomplished such things as if they were them. They put themselves into the shoes of their favorite celebrities and imagine that they are them. They want to relate to and become friends with their celebrities. So, when they find out that their favorite famous person did something socially, legally or morally reprehensible they are taken aback because the venire of their idealism has been stripped away.

Maybe others wish they could be as free and powerful as celebrities and they both envy them and resent them and so they display confused and inconsistent stances on celebrity behavior.

Maybe people covet what celebrities have and so they jump on any opportunity to spite and shame them due to their own jealous nature.

Maybe public outrage is just another mechanism to feel included and socially accepted.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be outraged about immoral celebrities but I don't think they should be more outraged about them than anyone else. We should be outraged at anyone that commits terrible crimes or engages in immoral actions. Also, I don't think we should be surprised when someone we don't know is not the person we assumed they were. Maybe it is just easy to jump on the bandwagon of celebrity outrage because the subject of the outrage is well known. I think it important not to deify others and not to pay so much mind to things that have no real effect on you. There are enough things to worry about going on in my neighborhood and around the people I care about that to worry about what Bill Cosby did doesn't seem that important to me.

Maybe we need these famous baddies to teach us a lesson about making assumptions or elevating people due to their status. Maybe we use these public shamings to teach others that no one is safe from scrutiny. Maybe we jump on the famous case of impropriety to showcase our virtue in a way that resounds throughout the land and reinforces our values. Maybe it's just another case of "first world problems" and entertainment. Maybe we revel in any opportunity to display our moral superiority and regain power over the powerful. Maybe the media leeches onto the famous to capitalize on their fame. Maybe pointing out the failures of others distracts us from our own weaknesses and failures.