Insightful, but there are a lot more types of people out there who also don't overlap much. Why group these three together? (Many others who share one or both of these traits to some degree.) What about college presidents?
Also it's not just that they do both well but that they enjoy both being the focus of attention and engaging with others. If they didn't enjoy both they'd likely try to be celebrities or CEOs. I'd imagine CEOs don't crave the attention and admiration of others and celebs don't really want that two way interaction.
I think it's also driven by people's desire. If you want lots of money, you become a CEO. If you want lots of power, you become a politician. If you want lots of attention, you become a celebrity. For many people, the amount of power politicians have and the amount of attention celebrities get become so large they're unwelcome burdens. I think most people would probably want the amount of money CEOs get, but being a CEO is a very difficult thing that I think even people skilled at other domains would be capable of switching into.
I think there's a distinction between local and national politicians. Even someone like a candidate for mayor of a medium size city doesn't really get any press exposure, compared to a celebrity. Many of them will have little social media presence, very few ways to see them on video, they don't have to look good on TV. Instead things like getting the endorsement of local groups are more important. Once you get to be, say, a presidential candidate, then it really matters how good you look on TV. Thus people like Kamala Harris dominate at California-level campaigns and do less well nationally.
Your new ontology is interesting, thank you. I was greatly distracted by the strange statement, "The skill of interacting is reacting to othering back and forth", which seems to define interaction as continual mutual othering.
CEOs also have to submit to the bottom line. Not applicable for politicians who mostly spend other people's money. Celebrity is in a world of its own. Possible to monetize, but plenty who are famous one day fade into the background tomorrow.
Where on earth did this info/opinion come from? What about Ronald Regan and Volodymyr Zelensky, both celebrity actors who became presidents of their country? And half the British Tory party are TV presenters. And Elon Musk, Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos? I believe they are CEOs of something.
Insightful, but there are a lot more types of people out there who also don't overlap much. Why group these three together? (Many others who share one or both of these traits to some degree.) What about college presidents?
Also it's not just that they do both well but that they enjoy both being the focus of attention and engaging with others. If they didn't enjoy both they'd likely try to be celebrities or CEOs. I'd imagine CEOs don't crave the attention and admiration of others and celebs don't really want that two way interaction.
I think it's also driven by people's desire. If you want lots of money, you become a CEO. If you want lots of power, you become a politician. If you want lots of attention, you become a celebrity. For many people, the amount of power politicians have and the amount of attention celebrities get become so large they're unwelcome burdens. I think most people would probably want the amount of money CEOs get, but being a CEO is a very difficult thing that I think even people skilled at other domains would be capable of switching into.
pelosi and mcconnell are a lot of things but I wouldn’t use the word captivating to describe them
Right, they are politicians, not celebrities.
I think there's a distinction between local and national politicians. Even someone like a candidate for mayor of a medium size city doesn't really get any press exposure, compared to a celebrity. Many of them will have little social media presence, very few ways to see them on video, they don't have to look good on TV. Instead things like getting the endorsement of local groups are more important. Once you get to be, say, a presidential candidate, then it really matters how good you look on TV. Thus people like Kamala Harris dominate at California-level campaigns and do less well nationally.
Many rock stars crave dialogue and interaction with their audiences and get praised for it (e.g., Freddy Mercury) or slammed for it (if it is political)... see. https://www.google.com/search?q=Rock+star+criticized+for+using+concerns+to+talk+with+audience+about+politics&client=safari&rls=en&start=30&dpr=2
Does anyone actually set out to be a celebrity, politician or CEO? Isn't a lot of the outcome based on luck and circumstance?
sigma game substack: the SSH explains it
Seems a weird time to publish this when the newly-inaugurated president is both a celebrity and a CEO.
Your new ontology is interesting, thank you. I was greatly distracted by the strange statement, "The skill of interacting is reacting to othering back and forth", which seems to define interaction as continual mutual othering.
"othering" word was a typo.
Pairs well (but awkwardly) with Klings "My Debate with Curtis Yarvin"
https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/my-debate-with-curtis-yarvin
CEOs also have to submit to the bottom line. Not applicable for politicians who mostly spend other people's money. Celebrity is in a world of its own. Possible to monetize, but plenty who are famous one day fade into the background tomorrow.
Where on earth did this info/opinion come from? What about Ronald Regan and Volodymyr Zelensky, both celebrity actors who became presidents of their country? And half the British Tory party are TV presenters. And Elon Musk, Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos? I believe they are CEOs of something.