Reputations of famous groups vary tremendously from place to place, calling stereotype accuracy into question. (Also calling the positive connotation of [famous] into question. Corruption of English.) One realizes the stereotype researchers are looking at only the broadest groups, and as such they're finding average reputations are typically accurate. Accidentally, they tap into a disinterested observer. As with all proofs, the methodology is critical for knowing the valid range.
Naturally, locals take these studies as proof that all their local reputations are accurate. Kruger, paging Dunning. Only the brightest and most dedicated have access to reputations beyond their tiny parochial tribe. Naturally, these parochial locals will only talk about the reputations they are most interested in (their rivals) the ones they are least disinterested in observing.
Used to be Americans would be obsessed with saying, "We should have a better reputation," or the reverse, "Y'all should have a worse reputation." For my sins, recently I've watched a bunch of youtube and found that Americans have now rejected activism for statickism: all reputations ought to be set in stone. Hours of footage, uniformly reinforcing and policing reputations to match whatever the video author's (childish) prejudices already are.
2 comments:
in chinese and japanese, the word for famous is 有名: "has name". as opposed to doesn't have a name = 'unknown'. having a name not being particularly valuable ala taoism.
The phrase in English is the same: "Made a name for one's self."
Government name as Communism: the parasite trying to subsidize names for everyone. If you haven't made your own name the state will make a name for you. It will live up to the high quality standards Communism is known for.
Also "fame" is from rumour in Latin. To be famous means to be...gossipy. "The gossiped head of [agency]." "The gossipy industrialist."
Apropos of nothing, berserk is just bear-shirt, scandinavian style. "Watch out, he's gone bear-shirt."
Post a Comment