Bad Advice: Celebrities and the Appeal to Authority

We are conditioned to take advice from those we like and respect...sometimes regardless of whether the person we like and respect knows what the hell he or she is talking about. This is ingrained in us as an evolutionary adaptation, but like so many holdovers, it can often do more harm than good. Its active application is known as the Argument from Authority logical fallacy and it can be a very big problem, particularly when celebrities are the ones being emulated, as many celebs live in their own little world of wealth, prestige, and superiority. Fueled by sycophantic fans, fame, and sometimes illicit substances, many are pretty damned far off the beach as far as reality is concerned. Quite frankly, of all the people to not be listening to, some celebrities are only a short notch above pee-stained crazy homeless people...if they're even above that at all, Charlie Sheen.

Following people based on their appeal rather than their qualifications is clearly "a bug, not a feature" in our mental apparatus, but it continues to work. Even the dumbest of us knows that Michael Jordan is only saying he loves Coke because he's getting paid to - that he might even hate the shit out of Coke in reality - but it doesn't matter. Michael Jordan grins and drinks Coke, and it still pokes at the influence of enough of us to be effective, and sometimes this can have very bad results. Celebrities may spread a bad message incidentally, but others are aware of their status as influential people and may use it to deliberately spread their own ignorance among their fans and the media. Jenny McCarthy is perhaps the most prominent example, but just take it as a general rule - listen to an expert, not the guy who played in a TV show you like, and most definitely not Oprah or any of her verminous sycophants (Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, etc.).

But some people in authority - celebrities or not - have some extremely valuable insights and information, even in spite of their bad ideas. In these cases, what are we to do? Should we discredit them entirely based on their possibly lesser failings, or should we do the opposite and ignore them or try and justify them? In truth, this only seems to be an issue due to the weird idea that if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound - that you either follow someone completely or reject them on the whole. Why this idea exists I don't know, but I find it a bit frightening...the mere idea that another human being must be either essentially perfect or essentially flawed in order to influence your opinion of them is merely frank idolatry, but in any case the solution seems simple to me - simply call them to task for their successes as well as their failures. Pick and choose the ideas you want, and extol the good while criticizing the bad. Bill Maher is an excellent example to practice with. I appreciate Bill for the good things he does, but I am always quick to remember - and point out - the serious flaws in his logic that come about (inevitably) as a result of good ol' compartmentalization, mainly concerning vaccinations and scientific medicine in general. Doing this causes no conflict of interest. Drop your damned adoration and see people for what they are - imperfect - and only good will ever come of it.

See the links below this awesome image I made for more information.

Ten Most Wanted: Celebrities Who Promote Harmful Pseudoscience

The 6 Most Misguided Causes Ever Promoted by Celebrities

Jenny McCarthy Body Count