Since I am going to go fishing today, I will keep today’s article brief. I will discuss something I realized after watching scandals on TV.
What is the point of spreading scandals?
Whenever I watched TV news, there was something I had always wondered about: the meaning of spreading scandals.
The news and media often cover celebrity scandals. Many people criticize gossip about famous people and look down on them as if to vent their frustration. Examples are divorce and infidelity. Although there is no direct benefit or loss for people who criticize, they seem to enjoy taking down a celebrity.
For empathic people like us, it appears pointless. Everyone has negative aspects, more or less. I thought it was acceptable as long as their work contributes to society. I felt that spreading scandals was harmful to society.
However, I recently changed my mind. Covering scandals has meaning: it eliminates people with complexity. That protects society from unnecessary risks. Today, I will explain why.
Protecting society from complexity
In my opinion, spreading scandals is a mechanism to protect society from complexity.
Humans are social beings. Dividing roles and cooperating helped people develop the economy.
Social cooperation requires clear role definitions. For example, a farmer provides a stable supply of the vegetables they grow. That reassures the restaurant manager, allowing them to continue buying those vegetables and serving dishes.
However, if the farmer keeps changing what they offer, such as suddenly switching to selling cars and insurance, the restaurant will be inconvenient.
That is why society requires simplicity and consistency toward contribution. It realizes large-scale human cooperation.
Complexity causes social confusion
Complexity, including mental complexity, often prevents a stable supply. It means that their reaction changes under certain special conditions.
For example, those with a mental complex sometimes change their behavior unreasonably. One example is when they are fatigued. Usually, when someone gets tired, they naturally limit their workload and announce it to their customers and the boss. They don’t associate it with their incompetence. That allows their surroundings to respond appropriately.
On the other hand, someone with an inferiority complex might suddenly get angry at customers or their boss without adjusting the workload on their own. Since the person considers limiting their job as their incompetence, they neither limit their work nor let others know what they cannot do. No one else can understand the person’s level of fatigue, so those around the person never know when the person might lose their temper and need extra consideration. That is inconvenient in social cooperation.
One effective way to judge whether someone has mental complexity is to consider their past improper social behaviors. People with fewer complexes tend to have fewer social scandals. A scandal differs from a problem or failure. A person can be trusted even if they made mistakes. However, betraying society causes the person to lose their credibility.
Placing a high-risk person in an influential position is socially risky, regardless of their abilities. Although past mistakes don’t necessarily define who a person is today, checking gossip is one effective way for less logical people to judge people.
That is why less logical people tend to like celebrities’ scandals and enjoy criticizing them.
Conclusion
That is my new understanding of scandals.
Revealing scandals is a mechanism to protect society from unnecessary risks that complexity causes.
This perspective might calm you and free you from unnecessary stress from the news.
Thank you for reading this article. I hope to see you in the next one.
