[schtitt]

In a given person's life, there might be plenty of reasons why they can't be one or the other, but that's just me being a pedant.

However, as I see it you can choose to invest time and resources into being 'useful' or 'interesting', but the one will usually divert said time and resources away from the other. E.g. you can do deep science, and help the scientific progress of humankind, or you can be 'interesting' like Nye or Tyson.

What really gets be is how fame, or 'interestingness' at times cloud our judgment so that the individuals who focus on that path are more recognized (often for much less actual useful work) than the sticklers who are actually doing most of the useful work.

[throwanem]

You're talking about fame. I wasn't; I took "interesting" to mean "not boring".

[schtitt]

I think much of the original point still applies: Should I put mental resources into being perceived as 'not boring' or should I disregard all that and focus on doing what I do well? Maybe I catch a lucky break and somehow just have an interesting personality without having to do much, but then again, maybe not.

Recognition of one's work is a lot of the time a function of how 'not boring' you are, as well. Thus, if you do excellent work but don't advertise it, the next promotion will very likely not go to you.

This is, IMO, an inherent weakness in how humans perceive the world and I'm not looking for a fix, just a way to cope with it, since the injustice of it all sometimes really gets me down.

[throwanem]

What gets you down isn't the injustice of it, if such there be - it isn't fair that some people are better at a given thing than others, but "fair" is something no one ever promised any of us life would be. What gets you down is that you can see how it would be a useful skill to have, but you don't want to invest the effort required to develop it. That's an internal contradiction, and those are uncomfortable to carry around. Either developing the skill, or abandoning the desire to have it, will resolve the contradiction. Just pick one and do it. You'll be fine.

And it's not even as though the skill is all that hard to develop! The first thing to know is that, to a good first approximation and in the general case, nobody in a social setting cares one way or the other about anyone else, so your actual personality doesn't really come into play here. What matters instead is that you be enjoyable to socialize with, and that's not a matter of personality but rather one mainly of wit, good cheer, and the ability to carry your share of a conversation. If you happen to have the kind of personality to which these traits come naturally, great! If you don't, they can be developed through observation, trial, error, and practice.

Worked for me, at any rate, and I've been a strong introvert all my life. Being so, I remain picky about when and how I socialize, because it costs me energy to do so and I don't always enjoy it - but socialization is a necessary aspect of full membership in a social species, and unless you can make a go of ornamental hermitage (good luck!), it's worth developing the skills to make the most of those social occasions in which you do necessarily participate.

[schtitt]

I appreciate you taking the time to write this, and for bringing to my attention the concept of an ornamental hermit - that's today's 'huh' moment!

Just for the record, it sounds like I am in quite the same situation as yourself (introvert but with acquired social skills) so it's not all that bad, and part of my lament is actually for those who have less of a disposition for this than myself.

But from time to time there will be people who have more developed social skills but less developed 'deep knowledge' about what they're doing than myself, and seeing that the world in general recognizes them more than me (or people even more able than me) for doing things that I do better smarts. (Especially when they're really dickheads in disguise ;) )

A 'solution' would be to go even more all in to be even better socially, but, like you, it costs me energy to do so, and it's hard not to feel like other people for whom this is a natural skill will always have the advantage here. But it's even more - it's a matter of principle. I don't want to prostitute myself to get recognition, to put it bluntly.

And I guess that leads to the conclusion that I should then abandon the desire for recognition, since I'm not willing to accept the alternative. Which I am trying, I guess, but which is quite hard, and which leads me to such questions as the one that started this thread..

Again, thanks for giving your thoughts, it's good to get the truth straight now and then!

[croon]

> What gets you down isn't the injustice of it, if such there be - it isn't fair that some people are better at a given thing than others, but "fair" is something no one ever promised any of us life would be. What gets you down is that you can see how it would be a useful skill to have, but you don't want to invest the effort required to develop it. That's an internal contradiction, and those are uncomfortable to carry around. Either developing the skill, or abandoning the desire to have it, will resolve the contradiction. Just pick one and do it. You'll be fine.

I don't think this is the point originally made. And I'll put it slightly differently:

You have a product team (unnamed scientists in the Nye/Tyson case), and then you have a sales team (Nye/Tyson themselves). What I realize is a fact on the market, and maybe inherently so, is that a good sales team can sell any product, no matter how crap, but a good product can't be sold without at least SOME marketing (and yes, word-of-mouth is natural and comes to good products, but it's no where close to a marketing division).

I believe this was the issue that OP believed was unfair, and at some level I agree. I think your point might still apply in that there's no point in lamenting it if you can't fix the system, because you either have to be better at marketing or stop caring about selling your product.

TLDR; He wasn't saying that it was unfair that some were naturally better at socializing/selling their product/skill, but that the fact that they were (good at selling) was the only relevant factor in getting a raise from the manager/company, and not how well they do the job.

Tyson/Nye aren't on TV/media because they're the best scientists, but because they're the best on TV.