Comments on: On Tiger and Cultural Evolution

By: wendy

wendy — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:17:48 +0000

I do think that there is a certain level of increased tolerance for bad behavior – we're not nearly as shocked by certain things now as we might have been 10 or 20 or 30 years ago – but I also think that with the flood of information about people out there now, there is still the hunger for gossip and scandal and schadenfreude. As we become less private, it's inevitable we have to accept a certain level of judgment about our behavior, or otherwise learn to be very, very selective and discrete about what gets out.

By: wendy

wendy — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:17:48 +0000

By: Tweets that mention The Flying Change: Pain Is A Reliable Signal Coming Soon! -- Topsy.com

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:38:41 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sam Jacobs, Sascha M.. Sascha M. said: Very thoughtful piece. RT @theflyingchange: Tiger Woods and what it might mean for our cultural evolution. http://bit.ly/7dgf6o [...]

By: theflyingchange

theflyingchange — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:39:07 +0000

I agree with all you've written.

My point is somewhat different - namely wondering aloud if institutions
(employers, media networks, endorsers, etc.) will become more tolerant of
discretion and imperfection as more and more humanity (read: information) is
inevitably presented online. It seems somewhat unsustainable to assume that
with texting, status updates, blogs and the wealth of information about all
of us readily available we can maintain the same stance towards indiscretion
we've held in the past. Or not. Just wondering aloud.

By: wendy

wendy — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:03:42 +0000

My issue with Tiger, vis-a-vis the privacy angle, is that he gives up a certain measure of privacy when he makes the bulk of his (considerable) income off of endorsements, based upon his image as a disciplined, honorable sportsman who is to be emulated. Essentially, he's waived a certain measure of privacy by accepting money in exchange for selling “himself” – and the “himself” isn't just his skill as a golfer. His story – the multiracial prodigy, the squeaky-clean family man who posts pictures of his gorgeous wife and children on his website, the success which relies as much on discipline and hard work as it does on raw talent – is a huge part of why he is so popular, and thus so attractive to sponsors. If he didn't put himself out there for public consumption through his sponsors, but rather lived solely off of his winnings as a golfer, then I think he'd have more standing to simply tell the public to fuck off.

More on point with your post, we can choose what we want to put out there. But we can't complain if what's out there bites us in the ass by revealing us to be hypocrites, or when our lack of discretion paints a picture at odds with the picture we've tried to paint ourselves.