[FRIAM] great man theory

[Steve Smith]

> What is the quote "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"? >8^D
>
> Dave's post held zero resentment, as far as I can tell. Maybe Steve resents.
I was reporting on my own experience/introspection of/on/with
resentment, yes.   I was also noting that such lists are compressed
caricatures.   I don't know if Glen or Dave resents these people their
success, but it sure sounds like whomever did the caricaturing was
looking for a (not inaccurate, but possibly very carefully contrived)
low-dimensional silhouette of a high-dimensional
person/phenomena/career/movement.
> I don't and I don't think Dave does. What's at work, here, isn't resentment. It's an attempt to point out a fundamental flaw in our highly connected world ... watching as GroupThink churns from one celebrity to the next, from celebrity like Trump to the more sedate celebrity of Biden ... from the celebrity of AI to the more sedate celebrity of ML.
Sure, there is a pop-collective over-estimation of value going on in all
of these examples.    We here variously give folks like Pearce or
Feynman caricatured celebrity status which in turn might evoke the
desire in some to create a less flattering caricature.   Caricature all.
> If we replaced the people in Dave's list with technologies, we'd see the SAME pattern.
And some have called out the signifier "Science" and the things it
pretends to point at as being a broad example  as well.
> And Dave explicitly said, and Jon remarked on, the fact that *we* make these celebrities. They're the victims. And if we want to come to terms with our highly connected world, we need to look hard in the mirror.

I think that was my fundamental point as well.  I wasn't trying to
contradict or impugn Glen or Dave or anyone else, just noticing that
when there is snark there is ego.  If those lists of traits of "Great
(wo)men" were not dripping with snark then you may be accurate that I
projected my own stuff into it and I'm entirely off-base.  Wouldn't be
the first time.

- Sieve