I suspect that it is often the same worldwide but, in the US, there is a tendency to take one characteristic (positive or negative) and allow the value placed upon it to expand and be applied to the rest of the person. The characteristic may be an action, a behavior, or anything.
We most often think of celebrities as those that we see, and hear, often. Actors, sports stars, famous novelists, politicians, royalty, content creators, and so forth. Because of their visibility by many, they enter the arena of "influencers". But celebrities can also be less visible -- but still very impactful -- within an industry or segment of economy. People pay attention to their opinions about all kinds of things -- of which they may actually have little, or no, knowledge.
A person may be a marketing genius (though, perhaps, ruthless) -- people fall over themselves asking for advice in all kinds of other areas of knowledge. Another person is a magnificent technical evangelist -- but is expected to also be a good manager and administrator. Most of us in technical fields are very aware of excellent technical people who were rewarded by being put into management positions for which they had no applicable skills. (Many companies now have dual ladders -- but many still do not.)
People high on the social scale (based on heredity or money amassed) are given credit for that which they have not done (and would not be able to do). Their advice is sought even if the reality is they have only had the fortune to be born to wealthy, or high social-class, parents. The "higher class" are elevated upon pedestals and expected to do miracles in all ways. In a parallel way, the stigma of "lower class" roots, or current situation, may cause people to have their knowledge, abilities, and experiences disregarded.
We can make these expectations come true. If you have confidence in someone, then that helps them to have confidence (perhaps even arrogance) and a person with confidence can often do better than one without. The opposite holds also -- as demonstrated in many psychological experiments -- that lack of confidence in someone can create a situation with terrible results. The best overall results can occur by treating everyone, of whatever background, with respect and appreciation for what they have actually done.
Perspective from the other end -- that of someone who has done something very bad and is extrapolated to be a very bad person in total -- is hard to argue against. That one area of wrongness may, indeed, overshadow all other aspects. If a person is a serial murderer then the fact that they volunteer to deliver food to the needy, treat their pets well, and contribute to their church are truly not very important aspects. The reality may be that, like everyone, they are a complex mixture of "good" and "bad" but the bad outweighs the good.
There have always been "influencers" -- not just in the age of electronic media. Sometimes that influence can be used in great, and noble, ways. Sometimes not. As long as we are conscious about what we are doing and about what they truly know, there is no problem. But, that is not always the case.
1 comment:
As usual .. nailed it !
Post a Comment