I'm in favor of being rich and anonymous. I take your points about the perks of fame, but I'm routinely mistaken for Brad Pitt already. Now to achieve the rich part...
Agree on rich and anonymous. I recently attended a classic car event and got to mingle with people who can afford a very expensive hobby. They were all very down-to-earth, casually dressed, would not attract a second glance in a Walmart checkout line.
Two actresses who star in "Yellowjackets" discussed their experiences playing an unattractive (well, unattractive for Hollywood) character on the show:
RICCI: I found that the second I put the wig and glasses on, people actually treated me differently. Did you find that?
HANRATTY: Oh, definitely.
RICCI: I was dismissed, teased more. It was really fascinating.
HANRATTY: I don’t think we’ve talked about this, but I was seeing a therapist while I was in Canada, and that was something that we discussed. I was definitely treated differently when I was in hair and makeup and wardrobe.
RICCI: It was fascinating. I wanted to take it all off and be like, “No, you will not talk to me like that anymore.”
I was at a postgame party when the Cubs were in the playoffs in 2008 and Bill Murray was there with his kids and his brother Brian Doyle Murray. I’ve met quite a few pro athletes and actors and directors and I’ve never meet one nicer or less pretentious. He seemed truly happy to talk with me and all of the other “nobodies” who were there. And he did get hit on by the hot waitress.
I wonder if a distinction can be made between admiration from others and status. I feel like the regular compliments from people would get old quite quickly. You'd just start to devalue all of these people's thoughts. You're just humoring them at some point. (Curious what your experience has been like wrt this. Does "I loved your book" stop meaning as much after you've been doing this for a while?)
But status never gets old. People deferring to you works even if you don't value their opinion. There's something so basic and primitive there. I remember some famous person saying something like how a room they're in automatically revolves around them. They need to do all of the action, notice people and include them, etc. It's a responsibility, and I'm sure it can be tiring at times, but there's something there, even if you're forced into it, that's got to do all sorts of good things in your brain. Although there's the risk of overconfidence and delusion as well I guess.
This sounds like the old distinction between dominance and prestige. Although to be fair, when most people talk of status, I think often, they are thinking of prestige rather than dominance, which appears to be the opposite of what you’re thinking here.
This was a nice piece, but I think you’re doing a disservice to Murray’s position, at least when charitably interpreted. He’s not saying that fame has no benefits. He’s saying it has few extra benefits on top of being rich. He thinks that wealth covers *most* of the benefits of fame, so what would really be nice is wealth plus anonymity.
So for your three listed benefits of being famous (making a dent in the world, sex, and social connections)—could a rich person who is not recognized on the street have those too? If yes then Murray (or a charitable reconstruction of his position) was right after all.
There's another category worth adding: famous but not proportionally rich. this is the worst quadrant. some Hollywood stars and politicians sit there.
They're rich by ordinary standards, but not at the scale of a tech founder or financier. Yet fame gives them access to ultra-wealthy circles, so they see that lifestyle up close and desire it (private jets, yachts), without actually being able to sustain it independently. That gap creates vulnerability. You become dependent on patrons to fund the lifestyle (hence hanging out with Epstein). The book Billion Dollar Whale has a good account of this category.
good news is that this category is self-selected. plenty of people opt out.
There are undoubtedly perks of being famous... but we could also reduce the costs of fame if we behaved better towards the famous. That appeal may be writing the score for someone to play the world's tiniest violin... but I think imagining how the famous should be treated better would help us too. I sketched out some thoughts on how to do that here: https://spheresofpossibility.substack.com/p/starfcked-a-fans-manifesto
I made a comment on one of my favorite YouTuber's videos a couple days ago. He has a little over a million followers.
I undiplomatically disagreed with his position regarding AI use. He replied, blocked me and then highlighted his comment for the audience as a spectacle.
It was like the polar opposite of an "It's a good question" affirmation in front of a crowd, on about the same scale of consequence. Likely, nobody will remember the moment but me.
It feels oddly like a bit of fame. Even though it's negative attention, it was still validating. As if Bruce Lee actually took the time and care to kick my ass personally.
The practical lesson learned : don't mention AI in a room full of ancient manuscript researchers. Apparently I didn't learn from my previous experience of mentioning consciousness in a room full of physicists. At least I have a pattern forming. Hehe
In his autobiography, Keith Richards shares that “fame is the bargain you make with success. You don’t realize that you made it until it’s too late”. He then embraced drugs as a way to cope, while Mick nurtured a sex addiction. So it goes.
The most desirable form of fame, it seems to me, is "constrained fame." Think Scott Alexander pre-doxxing. Just famous enough to get a lot of positive attention and $$, not so much as to attract unwanted attention. And with a very clear and hard ceiling on the level of fame that's possible without changing lanes completely. Of course it depends on your preferences, but for most people the optimal level of fame is probably not ~Brad Pitt. Although I suspect unsolicited sexual advances are...less of a benefit/issue for the merely somewhat famous.
Paul, you are one of my favorite psychologists and non-fiction writers, and I was very excited when you moved to Toronto, hoping to one day run into you. And so I say this with love:
It's the Dufferin Mall, not the Dundas Mall. Clearly, you are not spending enough time there. Are you not in desperate need of a new heavily bejewelled cellphone case?
On a more apt note, my lifelong best friend is one of the most famous people in the country, and when I'm with him, aside from people kissing his ass and offering him special treatment, lots of strangers ask him for photos. And 98% of the time, he gladly obliges them; it makes him happy. People telling you you're great and your work means a lot to them is not an unpleasant experience. He has deliberately chosen a career in the spotlight and has enough talent and luck that it's worked out swimmingly. He's also the most extroverted person I know and feeds off other people's energy the way most of us use calories. But you should consider the underlying selection aspects of your argument: people who become famous are generally those who seek it, and they probably value anonymity and quietude less and the appreciation of others more than most people.
I’ve never met Ferriss - he may be a decent guy. He also made his fortune conning people into buying nonsensical supplements that nobody who wants to make a positive impact on the planet would hock.
"Fame has its pros and cons, then. Pros: You can make the world a better place, have lots of sex with hot people, and bask in the joyous feeling of being loved and admired. Cons: Endless hassle, loss of privacy, and someone might show up at your house in the middle of the night and kill you and your family. You choose!"
I'm in favor of being rich and anonymous. I take your points about the perks of fame, but I'm routinely mistaken for Brad Pitt already. Now to achieve the rich part...
Agree on rich and anonymous. I recently attended a classic car event and got to mingle with people who can afford a very expensive hobby. They were all very down-to-earth, casually dressed, would not attract a second glance in a Walmart checkout line.
Two actresses who star in "Yellowjackets" discussed their experiences playing an unattractive (well, unattractive for Hollywood) character on the show:
RICCI: I found that the second I put the wig and glasses on, people actually treated me differently. Did you find that?
HANRATTY: Oh, definitely.
RICCI: I was dismissed, teased more. It was really fascinating.
HANRATTY: I don’t think we’ve talked about this, but I was seeing a therapist while I was in Canada, and that was something that we discussed. I was definitely treated differently when I was in hair and makeup and wardrobe.
RICCI: It was fascinating. I wanted to take it all off and be like, “No, you will not talk to me like that anymore.”
https://www.interviewmagazine.com/culture/samantha-hanratty-and-christina-ricci-on-surviving-in-the-wilderness
I was at a postgame party when the Cubs were in the playoffs in 2008 and Bill Murray was there with his kids and his brother Brian Doyle Murray. I’ve met quite a few pro athletes and actors and directors and I’ve never meet one nicer or less pretentious. He seemed truly happy to talk with me and all of the other “nobodies” who were there. And he did get hit on by the hot waitress.
I wonder if a distinction can be made between admiration from others and status. I feel like the regular compliments from people would get old quite quickly. You'd just start to devalue all of these people's thoughts. You're just humoring them at some point. (Curious what your experience has been like wrt this. Does "I loved your book" stop meaning as much after you've been doing this for a while?)
But status never gets old. People deferring to you works even if you don't value their opinion. There's something so basic and primitive there. I remember some famous person saying something like how a room they're in automatically revolves around them. They need to do all of the action, notice people and include them, etc. It's a responsibility, and I'm sure it can be tiring at times, but there's something there, even if you're forced into it, that's got to do all sorts of good things in your brain. Although there's the risk of overconfidence and delusion as well I guess.
This sounds like the old distinction between dominance and prestige. Although to be fair, when most people talk of status, I think often, they are thinking of prestige rather than dominance, which appears to be the opposite of what you’re thinking here.
This was a nice piece, but I think you’re doing a disservice to Murray’s position, at least when charitably interpreted. He’s not saying that fame has no benefits. He’s saying it has few extra benefits on top of being rich. He thinks that wealth covers *most* of the benefits of fame, so what would really be nice is wealth plus anonymity.
So for your three listed benefits of being famous (making a dent in the world, sex, and social connections)—could a rich person who is not recognized on the street have those too? If yes then Murray (or a charitable reconstruction of his position) was right after all.
Reading this I thought of the Kevin Bacon story so I'm glad you included it.
Here's him telling it on the Graham Norton show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbp2EZRyHAk
There's another category worth adding: famous but not proportionally rich. this is the worst quadrant. some Hollywood stars and politicians sit there.
They're rich by ordinary standards, but not at the scale of a tech founder or financier. Yet fame gives them access to ultra-wealthy circles, so they see that lifestyle up close and desire it (private jets, yachts), without actually being able to sustain it independently. That gap creates vulnerability. You become dependent on patrons to fund the lifestyle (hence hanging out with Epstein). The book Billion Dollar Whale has a good account of this category.
good news is that this category is self-selected. plenty of people opt out.
There are undoubtedly perks of being famous... but we could also reduce the costs of fame if we behaved better towards the famous. That appeal may be writing the score for someone to play the world's tiniest violin... but I think imagining how the famous should be treated better would help us too. I sketched out some thoughts on how to do that here: https://spheresofpossibility.substack.com/p/starfcked-a-fans-manifesto
I deposit the "fame sucks" in the same bin that "I pay too much tax" bin. Go somewhere else if its so bad.
I made a comment on one of my favorite YouTuber's videos a couple days ago. He has a little over a million followers.
I undiplomatically disagreed with his position regarding AI use. He replied, blocked me and then highlighted his comment for the audience as a spectacle.
It was like the polar opposite of an "It's a good question" affirmation in front of a crowd, on about the same scale of consequence. Likely, nobody will remember the moment but me.
It feels oddly like a bit of fame. Even though it's negative attention, it was still validating. As if Bruce Lee actually took the time and care to kick my ass personally.
The practical lesson learned : don't mention AI in a room full of ancient manuscript researchers. Apparently I didn't learn from my previous experience of mentioning consciousness in a room full of physicists. At least I have a pattern forming. Hehe
In his autobiography, Keith Richards shares that “fame is the bargain you make with success. You don’t realize that you made it until it’s too late”. He then embraced drugs as a way to cope, while Mick nurtured a sex addiction. So it goes.
The most desirable form of fame, it seems to me, is "constrained fame." Think Scott Alexander pre-doxxing. Just famous enough to get a lot of positive attention and $$, not so much as to attract unwanted attention. And with a very clear and hard ceiling on the level of fame that's possible without changing lanes completely. Of course it depends on your preferences, but for most people the optimal level of fame is probably not ~Brad Pitt. Although I suspect unsolicited sexual advances are...less of a benefit/issue for the merely somewhat famous.
Paul, you are one of my favorite psychologists and non-fiction writers, and I was very excited when you moved to Toronto, hoping to one day run into you. And so I say this with love:
It's the Dufferin Mall, not the Dundas Mall. Clearly, you are not spending enough time there. Are you not in desperate need of a new heavily bejewelled cellphone case?
On a more apt note, my lifelong best friend is one of the most famous people in the country, and when I'm with him, aside from people kissing his ass and offering him special treatment, lots of strangers ask him for photos. And 98% of the time, he gladly obliges them; it makes him happy. People telling you you're great and your work means a lot to them is not an unpleasant experience. He has deliberately chosen a career in the spotlight and has enough talent and luck that it's worked out swimmingly. He's also the most extroverted person I know and feeds off other people's energy the way most of us use calories. But you should consider the underlying selection aspects of your argument: people who become famous are generally those who seek it, and they probably value anonymity and quietude less and the appreciation of others more than most people.
Thanks for the kind words, Matt—and the correction. Oops. Fixed!
I’m now curious who your lifelong friend is. If you’re comfortable letting me know, but don’t want to out him in public, shoot me an email.
Wow, just realized Justin Timberlake in 35 years will look like Bill Murray now.
I’ve never met Ferriss - he may be a decent guy. He also made his fortune conning people into buying nonsensical supplements that nobody who wants to make a positive impact on the planet would hock.
Laughed out loud at this one:
"Fame has its pros and cons, then. Pros: You can make the world a better place, have lots of sex with hot people, and bask in the joyous feeling of being loved and admired. Cons: Endless hassle, loss of privacy, and someone might show up at your house in the middle of the night and kill you and your family. You choose!"