Trivially, independent events don't seem to be realistic (neither mathematically, physically, nor psychologically). Even, if someone has really had a low IQ, disease, or extraordinary personality traits then, yet still, that's the last thing that should be expected at all. It can't be done by the activities of a person, rather mass media or someone else. You read it from someone with 136 IQ (I've got papers of that).
A simple primary school math for events
For joint events, there exists a simple math
. How many events are needed to be such famous by own activities, take all the attention instead of others more times, hold the topic for a time? 10? 100? 1000? 10000??? I close one eye and don't count on alcoholics, drug users, etc... I count only on the people with a low IQ and within 1000 people is 160 having a low IQ, or 160K per 1M
. In an independent manner, the chance that 1 person is naturally selected out of 160 people only 5 times (160^5) is 1 : 104 857 600 000 (1:105 billion) and, analogically, even the chances to win a lottery
(day by day), be multiple times hit by a lighting, or killed by a meteorite
are enormously higher. Only 2 Events? If it's not fabricated, the chance to be naturally the shiniest bad star only twice in 0.5 million's city is 1 : 6.4 billion. However, we should count on the whole population, not only 16%. How many times would be needed to be everywhere famous for own activities as a bad star (without media)? Do you expect that one could get over others all the times? At the same, you should think that one person can be on a daily basic hit by lightings or meteorites, day after day hit. Try to imagine the story of the meteorite guy that is day by day hit by meteorites and your brain will reject it. Rejected?
Diverse vocabulary, observations, timing... and probability, variations Each person uses a different vocabulary
, different personality types and genders don't use the same words
, and each one is annoyed by different things. So, what's the probability that 10 people independently assign the same nickname, or use the same combinations of words to express themselves? In a group of thousands of people, the vocabulary should be extremely rich, diverse... and each one should mind different things. It should be rather uncommon observations and often counter-productive to each other, different in accord to different situations/times and a personality reporting it, negotiated and overlooked between more groups of the society having different interests/lobbies/habits, or personality types.
It could be done if:
- TV or other media reported (something).
- 1 person said and do others repeat the words? It could be a report from a very small group of 1-10 people, not reports from 1000 people those would differ in used vocabulary (superlatively rich) and there'd be even non-harmonized counter-productive statements. Did you speak with 1 person or 1000 persons making own reports (those aren't just shared from the 1)?
Statistically, it is abnormal
It doesn't reflect characteristics of the population because the folk doesn't harass mafias or else violent (for behavior) and, also doesn't make famous intractable alcoholics (the vast majority of the population drink, right?
), 1/6 teens abusing prescription drugs, 1/4 of 18-20 years old consuming weed. It's fine, no reason to offend (drinkers/smokers, or anyone else), just it doesn't pass, there shouldn't be the frequency of a talk about a single person because none can always show up him/herself perfect, in a way (except narcissists, they're
). So the majority used to drink/smoke and how many even walked on 4?
Defeated by the gravity when even the gravitation is too difficult
. None of them became even a bit famous as you mentioned. Whereas, when people wanna bully someone then the abilities and behavior don't any matter...
The vast majority of the diagnosed people tend to behave as introverts avoiding the society and not speaking when really are in a society, or even isolating themselves (someone who doesn't communicate). It doesn't sound like you mentioned someone, which is able to make himself/herself famous. How could it be done? More and stronger symptoms of a disorder = fewer chances to be seen/heard. Not only that it negates itself, some people become totally vanished, there are zero records behind them (in the public life), none knows anything about them, anymore.
There's only one group that is characteristically communicative
. We talk about Bipolar, manic-depressive. Also, there's a research made on Mensa members
However, even if they don't speak too much and don't spend too much time in society, we know about 'introverts' famous for their work such as Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton
, Charles Darwin
, or Vincent Van Gogh
, but they've never been famous for their "weirdness" even under public eyes when they were superstars. There's a higher density, percentage of 'mentals' between Nobel prize winners, or authors of mandatory reading literature, but you don't know anything from their personal lives and, even, you don't know you're calling them 'mentals'. Wouldn't you discriminate the 'mentals'?