[subego]

Royals who don't work to make an emotional connection with their subjects end up with their head in a basket.

Unlike celebrities however, people don't want their royals to be too friendly, otherwise they wouldn't be royals (i.e. the divine embodiment of their country), so they can appreciate someone like the Queen of England, who's a stern old bird.

There's also the fairy tale princess shit, too. It should be obvious why people are into that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Honestly, I understood besson's question and thought it was relevant.
I thought you were way overreacting. But that's me, and I have zero connection to this actor. I had absolutely no idea who he was, and it seems that the only movie I've seen that he was in was Lebowski.

As I think I said above, my reaction had nothing to do with being a fan of Hoffman. The only movies I can think I've seen him in are Happiness, and The Talented Mr. Ripley. He was good in them, and I liked him because of it, but neither was a big enough role for me to become a rabid fan.

What pissed me off is the dead person level of discussion dick waving Olympics: I'm better than you because I don't waste my time on unimportant dead people... why aren't you into important people, like me?

[Spheric Harlot]

Fair enough. I didn't get that vibe, but I know how on certain subjects, besson can make me feel the same way.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

What pissed me off is the dead person level of discussion dick waving Olympics: I'm better than you because I don't waste my time on unimportant dead people... why aren't you into important people, like me?

Instead of trying to figure out whether I was trying to suggest that with a strange series of leading/probing/analyzing questions, why not just ask if this is what I meant? I could have saved us both the trouble by saying no, that is not what I meant.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being interested in any particular death, whether this is Beiber or Stephen Hawking, we all have different interests and are impacted emotionally in different ways by different things for different reasons.

I was simply exploring the overall big picture trends as to what our societies as a whole are interested in. There is some strangeness and inconsistency to this list, royalty being a great example. In other words, if death were to be followed by Twitter hashtag searches, why would there be more results for actors than others? We have some pretty good theories about emotional impact, but you have to admit, there are some other factors here.

I mean, just as a for example, many of us swear up and down that we don't really care about Justin Beiber, but if he were to continue to implode we'd be compelled to him sort of like the gawking at a car accident on the side of the road effect, and perhaps that experience in and of itself would affect our emotions. If that experience of watching somebody self destruct is a big part of what affects our emotions, why does that person that is self-destructing need to be a celebrity, necessarily?

These are the sorts of questions I have, and as you can hopefully tell by now since my unpopular style has been widely criticized and dissected, I'm just thinking out-loud and brainstorming on this stuff. I don't have any set opinions that couldn't easily be tweaked on this particular issue. You've already tweaked them by pointing out the whole emotional impact thing.

So, the wanting to put every little idea of mine under multiple microscopes is annoying. It would be like somebody saying "Obama is being treated unfairly on this" very casually and in passing, and then proceeding with:

- why didn't you think this before, why have you been so inconsistent on this issue?
- let's analyze exactly what you mean by "unfairly", define
- let's get into a Wikipedia-level analysis on every little facet of this issue

I realize that it's odd that I'm comfortable with brainstorming and hearing what people think about my moving-target ideas and tentative opinions. I need to do a better job as to creating some way of helping people that document what I said in the past to pivot from what I said then to what I'm saying now, and I need to also do a better job as to making it clear what beliefs are just tentative and what are more "I challenge you to change my mind on this, good luck". However, I don't see why everything that is posted to MacNN has to be this essay-like bulletproof thesis that needs to pass through the court of MacNN. Maybe both kinds of posting can exist?

[besson3c]

I'm also addicted to listening to and trying to understand the thought processes of others. I want people to think out-loud too.

I often drive my wife crazy by trying to see if she can explain to me how people can think that the Earth is 6000 years old. She doesn't believe this, so it annoys her that she has to play devil's advocate and that I don't have enough friends to be able to find somebody that thinks this so that I can go bug them myself

I obsess over this not because I think that I can change the minds of those people (I used to feel that way when I was much, much younger, not any longer), or that I'm interested in being judgmental (sometimes I just can't help myself, but it honestly isn't my intent to play the scorecard game, I realize that there are people that believe probably every fathomable thing about every fathomable subject for... reasons, and maybe they are even right about many of these), but because I feel that in order to *REALLY* communicate with people, to understand them, to have these sorts of conversations with them you really have to understand their thinking. Otherwise, there is just hopeless cross-talking.

[subego]

besson, look... I totally didn't deal with any of this properly. I apologize. I'm always trying to be constructive, but judging by how often I'm not able to figure out how to do that until I've been destructive first, there's work ahead for me.

If you're interested in the potentially useful information underneath the dickish exterior...

The simplest way I can put it is: inquisitiveness takes a lot more effort than it would seem. There's an irreconcilable tension between inquiry and preconceived notions.

Preconceived notions are important. They're how we're able to function. They can't be flipped off like a light switch. It is however, very easy to convince yourself you can just switch it off. It's easy to convince yourself the only necessary ingredient for successful inquiry is an honest desire for answers.

While that ingredient is necessary, and to have it deserves praise, it takes a lot more effort than that. There's still the issue of getting rid of all these preconceived notions. The less you think you know the answer, the closer you're getting to "true" inquiry. The closer you are to "true" inquiry, the less people will get frustrated with you.

The "problem" here is you're smart. The less you know makes you a dumbass. Your brain wants to come up with its own solution. Your preconceived notions are actually fighting to be heard as part of the inquiry.

There's no question these have value, but they need to be fought back lest the inquiry become opinion. If you don't successfully fight them away the result is obvious: frustration on both sides. You have an opinion which isn't listened to because you are requesting answers. The person you're talking to provides answers which aren't listened to because answers weren't really what was wanted.

Again, I want to be clear, I'm not accusing you of missing the obvious or something. It isn't obvious, otherwise people wouldn't do it all the time. Myself completely included. Likewise that it's easy. You have to want to be a dumbass. Like, really want it. It's okay not to be up to that. All it means is phrase it as opinion.

I don't know, just wanted to add I miss him, too.

It is sort of weird right. The moment you can be viewed at all by a broader audience, you start being pretty artifical. However, you also have to excel, put up with much higher demands, so Hoffman or Lady Gaga may be true artists, but also... Oh, I dunno. Not the deepest thinking here, it counts, though, I thought. I thought he was great in the Hunger Games, so absolutely careless. And I loved Capote... Opened up the whole tribute to a great literate, he hid so much behind this role, only just the Man remained...