I think you've just hit Katie H bang on the money. She visibly struggles with empathetic situations.
Absolutely - she freezes. The jaw sets. The mind whirrs like a stuck central heating pump, but not even the usual clever hot air gushes out.
She knows some of what you are supposed to do when people are upset, and that various people she encounters seem more aware of others' feelings and needs, but because it's not instinctive for her the 'practicalities' when she is under scrutiny cause a blockage until she 're-sets'.
It's why she's so blase about all the husband-stealing, the cruelty of many of her pronouncements as a trolling columnist. Her fail-safe button is a rigid personality under cover of 'telling it like it is'.
...
The fallacy that popularity equates worth - the story of the rise of Katie Hopkins really.
She appears on a reality TV show, gobs off at Lord Sugar, becomes noticed by some people. The press make a big issue about her gobbiness and the viewers enjoy it, they start printing all the nasty things she says. People who read that press start following her on Twitter and reading about her more in the media. She gobs off more, people take note - cause if the media are paying her attention, she MUST be saying something of note, something important, surely? It snowballs from there and she ends up on CBB.
I think that ending up on CBB is a low, and suggests a lack of other opportunities, rather than a place reached as a result of snowballing attention.
But in any case, I don't think her rise is because of a fallacy that popularity equates worth.
The main reason she's featured in the media is that those publications and tv shows hope to draw attention to themselves by featuring controversial things she says. They're hoping to get more readers or viewers. If that's seeing her as having "worth", it's only "worth" in that sense: good at providing controversy.
People comment because something she did or said (as presented by the media) brought out thoughts or emotions they want to express -- not because they think what she says is "of note" or important. That people comment on BB and CBB, follow BB on Twitter, and so on, doesn't mean they think BB is "of note" or important. And the same goes for Katie H.
Of course, being in the media, and having her words spread as they're repeated, may give her a type of "importance". But it's not a type that would normally be described as "worth".
I think there are much better examples of the fallacy that popularity equates worth than Katie H. And this thread ought to consider some of them, so that it's not just another thread that criticises viewers who aren't sufficiently negative about her. For instance, there's the idea that having more viewers shows a BB or CBB series is better than ones that had a smaller audience, and there's the idea that if a HM is much discussed or has brought in viewers (a claim often made in defence of Perez), that means they're a good HM. (There's even a recent thread saying "This CBB series was ALL about Perez. He deserves to win.")
I dislike Katie H as much as I did Dave the monk. I think she's an insidiously harmful Individual. I agree with you that there are indications that she was herself harmed somehow in the past, but her attempts at empathy, while amusing in terms of her tendancy to overreach, are quite chilling,
Well I don't know about popular, but I can't think of occasions where bullies are exactly unpopular.
They only seem to exist at all because they have the support of a group of people around them.
It's that support group which enables them and condones their behaviour.
It's often the case that the bully is excused because people see a group supporting them, so think that if the majority agree with them then they must be right.
Depends what you mean by popular. I guess people tried to join them rather than be picked upon.
Yes Hopkins view of being nice is that it is fake. I was thinking about it today, since I know someone online who is quite nasty and talks of "playing nice". Very revealing. This person too obviously cannot believe that people ARE genuinely nice but just play at it. It's maybe because they do not have that quality in them that they cannot acknowledge/believe that others do. Either that or they are in deep denial. Very sad.
It could be a very particular cynical view of people they've adopted through their life where they see other people who are are seen by others to be 'nice' and people like them. They themselves may have tried to be nice to people in the past, but life has shat all over them. So they resent people being 'nice' and getting away with it.
Almost like they are somehow aware of how horrible they are to others, are jealous of some seemingly 'nice' person, and feel that if they bring them down it would somehow bring them down to a lower status than themselves and raise them up above them in status. And it somehow makes everything alright.
Getting to the source of the matter, it was a loaded question on BB's part. The HMs were apparently asked who they thought was the most popular. (Presumably they had to vote for one or more HMs to avoid a tie.) This is entirely different from asking the HMs who they like the most, then calling the one with the most votes the most popular.
It's like an election where, instead of voting for the candidate you support, you vote for who you think will win the election. ^_^
Well observed. It went over my head, but I think you're right. That does appear to be the kind of question BB ask which is heavily weighted.
It's an opportunity for housemates to obtain outside knowledge about what the voters think.
But more importantly it's a means for BB itself to dramatically affect housemates' behaviour accordingly.
Of course information like that is bound to affect relationships within the house, or at least how relationships within the house are seen by other housemates. It's a way of finding out if you're in the popular club or not, and who are easy pickings to go against without upsetting the public.
I'll be honest ... I did struggle to read the first paragraph (not a slight at all, my english is horrid so really not having a go), but having re read it a few times I get your point. I was a bully in high school and it was fear more than anything that made me seem popular.
Just wait for the new big shark to show and all of KH people will swim away....
I really do appreciate your honesty. I would imagine for some people that may be as hard to admit as it would be for some people to admit that they were bullied. I would imagine that there are no real winners in this situation, the bully and the victim are probably both victims of the same situation, although the bully may not feel like it at the time.
One problem is that genuinely 'nice' people often lack the venom to stand up to someone like KH in language that she understands. Therefore, it reinforces her perspective that she is in the right and others are weaker whereas in truth she is one hundred times more emotionally backward than the people she sneers at.
I think you're right there. There is a sense that Katie H believes that her way of conducting herself is the correct way to be, and that if somebody is 'different' and approaches situations in a different way, then it's almost like a validation to her that she is superior to them.
If they don't choose to insult people and degrade them with petty jibes, then to her she appears to see that as proof that she's better than them because she sees putting other people down with childish insults as the proper way.
It is as though if you bring yourself down to her level then she will respect you more.
Comments
Absolutely - she freezes. The jaw sets. The mind whirrs like a stuck central heating pump, but not even the usual clever hot air gushes out.
She knows some of what you are supposed to do when people are upset, and that various people she encounters seem more aware of others' feelings and needs, but because it's not instinctive for her the 'practicalities' when she is under scrutiny cause a blockage until she 're-sets'.
It's why she's so blase about all the husband-stealing, the cruelty of many of her pronouncements as a trolling columnist. Her fail-safe button is a rigid personality under cover of 'telling it like it is'.
I think that ending up on CBB is a low, and suggests a lack of other opportunities, rather than a place reached as a result of snowballing attention.
But in any case, I don't think her rise is because of a fallacy that popularity equates worth.
The main reason she's featured in the media is that those publications and tv shows hope to draw attention to themselves by featuring controversial things she says. They're hoping to get more readers or viewers. If that's seeing her as having "worth", it's only "worth" in that sense: good at providing controversy.
People comment because something she did or said (as presented by the media) brought out thoughts or emotions they want to express -- not because they think what she says is "of note" or important. That people comment on BB and CBB, follow BB on Twitter, and so on, doesn't mean they think BB is "of note" or important. And the same goes for Katie H.
Of course, being in the media, and having her words spread as they're repeated, may give her a type of "importance". But it's not a type that would normally be described as "worth".
I think there are much better examples of the fallacy that popularity equates worth than Katie H. And this thread ought to consider some of them, so that it's not just another thread that criticises viewers who aren't sufficiently negative about her. For instance, there's the idea that having more viewers shows a BB or CBB series is better than ones that had a smaller audience, and there's the idea that if a HM is much discussed or has brought in viewers (a claim often made in defence of Perez), that means they're a good HM. (There's even a recent thread saying "This CBB series was ALL about Perez. He deserves to win.")
Well I don't know about popular, but I can't think of occasions where bullies are exactly unpopular.
They only seem to exist at all because they have the support of a group of people around them.
It's that support group which enables them and condones their behaviour.
It's often the case that the bully is excused because people see a group supporting them, so think that if the majority agree with them then they must be right.
It could be a very particular cynical view of people they've adopted through their life where they see other people who are are seen by others to be 'nice' and people like them. They themselves may have tried to be nice to people in the past, but life has shat all over them. So they resent people being 'nice' and getting away with it.
Almost like they are somehow aware of how horrible they are to others, are jealous of some seemingly 'nice' person, and feel that if they bring them down it would somehow bring them down to a lower status than themselves and raise them up above them in status. And it somehow makes everything alright.
Well observed. It went over my head, but I think you're right. That does appear to be the kind of question BB ask which is heavily weighted.
It's an opportunity for housemates to obtain outside knowledge about what the voters think.
But more importantly it's a means for BB itself to dramatically affect housemates' behaviour accordingly.
Of course information like that is bound to affect relationships within the house, or at least how relationships within the house are seen by other housemates. It's a way of finding out if you're in the popular club or not, and who are easy pickings to go against without upsetting the public.
I really do appreciate your honesty. I would imagine for some people that may be as hard to admit as it would be for some people to admit that they were bullied. I would imagine that there are no real winners in this situation, the bully and the victim are probably both victims of the same situation, although the bully may not feel like it at the time.
I think you're right there. There is a sense that Katie H believes that her way of conducting herself is the correct way to be, and that if somebody is 'different' and approaches situations in a different way, then it's almost like a validation to her that she is superior to them.
If they don't choose to insult people and degrade them with petty jibes, then to her she appears to see that as proof that she's better than them because she sees putting other people down with childish insults as the proper way.
It is as though if you bring yourself down to her level then she will respect you more.