
How celebrities stay famous regardless of talent - robg
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17366-how-celebrities-stay-famous-regardless-of-talent.html
======
wallflower
On a boat ride in Bruges, Belgium, I heard a boat operator/philosopher expound
on why it was so that teachers were paid so little, rockstars like Ozzy
Osbourne were rich, and famous composers like Mozart died broke.

He said it was a question of network effects and impact. Mozart died broke
because of poor money management and the inability to reach a worldwide
audience.

An elementary school teacher is only paid a small amount relative to most
celebrities because their impact is small. They cannot reach more 10-30
students at a time.

A baseball player is paid millions because he (through cable TV) can
impact/entertain many more anonymous people indirectly.

Is it fair? Probably not but there aren't incentive systems in place to pay
good teachers according to their impact.

Clive James had a fascinating BBC documentary a while back, a multi-part
series "Fame in the 20th Century". It's pre-Internet but I believe still very
relevant.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fame_in_the_20th_Century>

~~~
amichail
Teachers can have a huge impact with online education.

~~~
tvon
Not really, to have an impact a teacher needs 1-on-1 time with a student,
otherwise the kid might as well use electronic material without any teacher at
all.

~~~
amichail
What about online university lectures? Isn't there potential for some of those
professors to have a huge impact?

~~~
lief79
Sure, but the bigger differences are usually made while people are younger. It
gives them more time to take advantage of them and grow with them.

*addendum: In short, if they can appreciate the university lecture, odds are they've already had some good teachers, and/or managed to work around the poor ones.

~~~
jules
Yes, compared to early life 1-on-1 teachers online university lecturers make a
small difference. Compared to baseball players they make a large difference.

------
tokenadult
"'The very experts who could kind of inform everyone else don't. They actually
keep feeding them the information they already know because that helps
establish a connection,' Fast says."

This is a very good description of a lot of online communication, including
many HN discussion threads. But I don't have to tell you that, because you
already know it. I guess this generalizes to saying that it feels like
swimming upstream sometimes to add significant amounts of new information to
an online discussion among casual participants who may not know one another in
real life. I find it easier to dig out my references and really lay out a lot
of new information in some online networks I participate in with other members
of a membership organization. Many of us have met one another in real life,
and have already established emotional bonds over a meal or a beer, so on
those networks I feel more comfortable challenging conventional wisdom. That
CAN happen here on HN, of course, but it feels considerably less natural.

~~~
Radix
FWIW, you're one of my favorite posters and commenters. Your posts often feel
as a new idea.

Perhaps your beliefs and views are different enough enough from the
established practice (of education or other) that what is old information to
you sounds like new information to others (me). You may feel as though you're
swimming upstream, but I simply find a new idea to play with.

I really do enjoy your posts.

------
frossie
Makes sense. This is why Michael Jackson's death practically brought down the
Internet, right? Irrespective of how many people actually cared about the man
or his music, he was somebody that everybody knew of. Similar with Princess
Diana's death - even people who didn't care about her rang around their
friends saying "Did you hear... ?"

------
edw519
When Einstein asked Chaplin under the glare of klieg lights what it all meant,
Chaplin replied, "Nothing, absolutely nothing."

------
known
<http://twittercelebrities.org/>

