As long as they aren't breaking the law, I'll never understand why anyone even cares what an athlete/celebrity is like outside of their profession, let alone consider them a role model in that sense. As if being a good athlete/actor/singer/performer has any bearing on what they're like as people. Except maybe their work ethic, since getting to that lever almost always requires one that's above average, but even that is unrelated to what they're like as people. The whole 'role model' thing puzzles me, actually, and I'm even more puzzled when someone doesn't like the person's art because they find out they aren't nice in real life. Like years back, when my friend, a fellow White Stripes fan, heard about Jack White calling a radio station because they played an un-released song (or something, I'm honestly not sure exactly what it was) and he was a dick. My friend honestly stopped listening to them, at least for a little while, because of that, and I had to bite my tongue from calling her stupid. If I had kids, and they had a role model(s) that wasn't me, I'd feel like a failure. Speaking of hypothetical children, you know what's a fun game? Trying to come up with celebrities/athletes you'd let marry your daughter (based on personality, not money/security). Maybe I don't know enough about celebrities in general (not gonna change), but I can only come up with five: Wayne Gretzky, Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, Paul Newman (pre mortem) and Steve Carell.
I think it has something to do with how we justify our adoration. We can't completely accept that the only reason we like watching athletes/teams and will defend them is all because they can jump/run/cycle/tackle/fight etc harder and better than everyone else or just happen to come from the same general area as you. That would just be superficial. So we ascribe these traits to them, so we can feel better about being their fans. Because we like to think that good, honest and likeable people get to be succesful instead of raging, insecure assholes. These opinions don't even have to be based on anything. We might not even know anything about those athletes, but still like to think 'he isn't just paid a lot to murder that guy's face on the field, but also because he's a role model and an inspiration to us all, that binds us together in this stadium or at home or at the bars where we murder our sobriety'. It's slightly better than thinking 'wow, he can really throw a good basketball, let's support this guy'. It also goes both ways. You can dislike an athlete or a team on personal grounds, while often the only reason you aren't supporting them has more to do with the whole succes/proximity thing. Nobody cares if the guy who came in last in this year's Tour the France used doping and likes to set hobo's on fire in his spare time.
You practically nailed it on the head with that, and Bill Simmons wrote a piece about Tiger Woods that is just as eloquent if not more so. He had another piece that solely focused on the attribution good athlete into good person, because we believe in a fair just world, good people put out good things and receive good things (i.e. success and money). Sports and celebrity doesn't. Adam Carolla talks about this all the time, everyone thinks certain celebrities are super smart because they're good actors, when they just are good actors. That's it.
What's next? OJ Simpson openly admitting he killed Ronald and Nicole? Bill Clinton admitting that he did in fact inhale, and did in fact get a blowie from Lewinsky? Kanye West admitting that he is, in fact, trying to steal Bono's self-righteous douche crown? Watching Glenn Beck demonstrate the necessity of inpatient mental care and medication is more entertaining than fucking Lance Armstrong trying to become relevant by doing something that doesn't involve a suicide note. Too harsh?
Probably one of the smartest things you've posted on here. There is a quote from some antebellum novel I read one time in college, Marrow of Tradition, and the line was "I'd rather her hate me, cause at least I would still occupy a prominent place in her heart, rather than not be considered at all." Well said
Well to defend Bill Clinton, "I did indeed have sexual relations with that woman." He admitted it. To jump on to the 'Sack here (I know how that sounds), I really could careless. We're talking about bike riding here.
I think I'm going to go against the grain here. I think athletes/celebrities should definitely be held to a standard of respectability, and if they deviate from that, they should absolutely be downgraded in or removed from the public eye. South Korea demands that their celebrities have a high IQ in order to be famous, and will tear a celebrity down if they're found using drugs. Is that not a better model than elevating total idiots and teaching the swarming masses of idiot children that they don't need to get any smarter and they can dick around and have no consequences once they're rich? Whether we will it or no, these people ARE role models. They're in the media, they're achieving something, and they're our, well, celebrities. They're who we elevate as the winners of the American Dream. If we're not holding them to a standard of respectability, we're telling future generations they can be total shitheads as long as they're rich, and that is a future I don't exactly want to live with, given that it's the one we're in right now and this one sucks.
I find it more fun to root for people who aren't assholes, in general, but I agree with the consensus here: there is zero (probably even negative) correlation with being able to jump high and run fast and being a reasonably decent human being. Pretty much all I ask out of athletes is that they aren't such assholes in the public eye that it affects the ability of people to tune out their personal life. No news is good news, as far as I'm concerned.
Wait, what? I admittedly have no idea what you're referring to, but are you suggesting that every one of those K Pop stars is a well-behaved MENSA candidate? I think there is something to this sentiment. Karl Malone responded to the Barkley ad I linked by saying, "Charles...I don't think it's your decision to make. We don't choose to be role models, we are chosen. Our only choice is whether to be a good role model or a bad one." It may be the case that role model is not actually a title that one can abdicate. That doesn't mean we should necessarily encourage viewing them as such, but perhaps it is unavoidable/inevitable.
Long answer: I don't know if it's a hard fast rule, but you are really, really looked down on for having a low IQ in South Korea, so typically if someone is going to be elevated to idol status, they have to have an IQ above average (106 in S Korea). In one of their more popular reality TV shows, they made it a point to poke fun at two of the contestants for having the lowest IQs of the bunch (which, by the way, S Korea has some of the cleverest and most hilarious reality TV because of the inherent intelligence of the contestants, even when they're acting dumb you know it's just an act). The lowest was 110, which is still above the national average. Granted, IQ is not always an accurate measure of intelligence, but take into account that celebrities are also required to complete one year in the military which ramps up their ability to appear competent and respectable. Short answer: Some of those girls that look like they were made out of candy and gumdrops are really, really fucking smart.
But still, we're having a whole 'should they be role models/should they act like role models?' discussion here. While I do believe there's some correlation, there's also no reason to suggest that intelligent people are also a nicer, sympathetic and inspiring lot. Scientists can be assholes too. IQ isn't an accurate measure of a good person. Like I said, I do think there's some correlation; intelligent people are more able to look at themselves and their surrounding in a more reflective way and try to correct themself when they start acting like inconsiderate monkeys. But you know what's also inconsiderate? Belittling people because they weren't born as fucking smart as some of you. While it's easy to point out the lack of intelligence in the cast of Jersey Shore, it's something different if a guy who worked really hard to become the, I don't know, best ice-skater in the world and is a wonderful person to everyone, but is ridiculed because he has an IQ of 99. That's just wrong. The hypothetical guy likes to skate, but is instead judged on his intelligence. Poor hypothetical ice-skater. But I also don't think I like a society where they put such an emphasis on just one aspect of a person. Be it an emphasis on physical or mental prowess, appearance, family, money, or any other thing that you are, for a large part, born with. Thing is, there are lots of athletes, actors and other public figures out there who are as dumb as a rock, but because they are good at what they do and try to be a decent person, could be considered role models. Because they can show what you can accomplish by hard work and developing your talents and not be a total dickhead about it. A role model is more than just their abilities, it's also about their character.
110 is not a high IQ. IQ tests have a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. 110 is not even considered high-average.
For what it's worth, I have heard from various articles (though have never been to South Korea and do not speak Korean) that scientists there are very highly respected. As in, top scientists walking down the street will be recognized, and restaurants will refuse to let them pay for their meals. We could do worse as a society than that.
The guy gets paid to dress in skin tight lycra and ride a push bike faster than other guys also dressed in skin tight lycra. Let that soak in. Also fuck cyclists in general.
Have none of you ever competed in sports? These aren't guys that were born fast, or decided to jump high. Nearly all of them trained their asses off, dedicated themselves, blah blah blah ... hard work. There's something to be said for someone that set a very hard goal, trained, sacrificed, compromised a large portion of their life, and competed against the world to be what they wanted to be when they were a kid. And the world would be a lot better off if people set goals for themselves, were determined to meet them, and accomplished what they wanted. It's just too bad that seemingly the majority of these folks don't care that others look up to them. They don't have to, because people pay millions for performances but dollars for signatures. Should we force them to care? Well we can only do that by changing their incentives. If Michael Vick causes attendance to drop 10% because he killed puppies with batteries, but if he gets his team to the playoffs and it causes a 25% increase in seats, what the hell do you expect them to do?
Lance is a dick. Now that this has been established, can we use this thread to talk about how gay Te'o is and how bad he is at covering it up?
I've never like Armstrong-- ever-- and always thought he was a smug glory hog and dubious motherfucker. Truth be told, it's nice to watch him crash and burn but in the end who loses? He's still rich and he's gonna burn every bridge he can all the way to the bank. Let's just hope we don't have to hear about him any more. Go away, shoo. How athletes act is how they act. Some do a good job at it, other let it go to their head and become horrible morons who change their name to "World Peace". However, if they behave like anybody else and fuck up like everybody else, then they should be punished like anybody else. Shooting a ball through a hoop should not give you immunity ffrom parking your car in a family's backyard pool. And in a vast majority of cases, they are NOT punished like everybody else. Every time I hear an American college athletic story on this site it often rings with "covered up rape" and we've seen athletes skate in the news countless times. Pacman Jones is criminally insane, beats women and is responsible for a man being in a wheelchair and he's punished with a year off from the sport he constantly fucks up around, becoming a half-assed pro wrestler in the meantime. I don't expect athletes to kiss babies and cut ribbons. Nor actors or politicians for that matter. They are counted on to do their job, but when they sexually assault women or discharge firearms into crowds of people inside nightclubs they should be sent to prison.