Many influencers, but no influence
By : Chokita Paul
Update: 2025-01-15 08:10 GMT
Arcane mathematician Grigori Perelman and influencer-turned-boxer Jake Paul illustrate the glaring differences in values modern society places on their respective fields of expertise. Perelman, who has an IQ surpassing 177 (SD15), solved the Poincaré Conjecture, a century-old riddle and the world’s hardest math problem, rewriting the world’s understanding of space and geometry. His triumph was met with polite applause from the academic world but near silence from the public. He lives humbly, declining fame, and even a $1 million prize. On the other hand, Paul boasts a net worth of $120 million but is rumoured to have an IQ of 88, falling below the average range.
Though transformative within academic and scientific domains, Perelman's contributions fail to resonate broadly outside these spheres.
While Paul’s ability to cater to the public’s appetite for beer and skittles is effortless and uncomplicated. The difference in their ‘popularity’ (or lack thereof) indicates the inclination of modern culture towards the immediately gratifying.
POPULAR VS. TRANSFORMATIVE
This isn’t a new phenomenon, but something that has grown worse. Paul thrives on clickbait headlines and viral clips. Perelman, who refuses interviews and flouts the limelight, is anathema to this ecosystem.
“The term ‘influencer’ has lost its meaning,” says author Devesh Purohit.
He explains that while entertainers offer ‘escapism, and relatability’ to audiences — and brands eagerly capitalise on their popularity — the real opinion makers and thought leaders should be responsible creators who trigger conversations and consequences in their fields.
Purohit also points out how mainstream media fuels the imbalance by focusing heavily on the gossip surrounding entertainers, simply because the populace inclines toward such content.
“The problem isn’t just that people fail to recognise genius. They actively reject it when it doesn’t entertain. Nikola Tesla died penniless despite revolutionising modern electricity, while his rival, Thomas Edison, mastered the art of self-promotion and became a household name. Mathematicians Alan Turing and Katherine Johnson only received their due recognition decades after their work changed history. Intellect, it seems, is only celebrated when it is conveniently repackaged into digestible narratives,” he notes.
AMUSEMENT VS. INTELLECTUALITY
Aditya Sesh, a member of the Development Committee at Rishihood University, feels that intellectual accomplishments are often complex and demand effort to comprehend, thus naturally appealing to a smaller, exclusive audience. To him, intellectual work exists in a “zone of prime bandwidth,” affecting the masses but less accessible to them.
The obsession with amusement over intellect breeds a dangerous cultural bias,
he warns, as it signals to young people that it’s better to be flashy than brilliant. Flagging an erosion of respect for expertise, he says, “Scientists and academics are frequently depicted as isolated figures whose work feels distant and impractical though it may be groundbreaking. Their achievements, while transformative, rarely reach beyond niche circles.” He elaborates - “A scientist might revolutionise medicine, but a celebrity’s rags-to-riches journey feels more immediate.”
MANAS VS. GYANA
Entertainment isn’t inherently bad. The world needs laughter. But when those pursuits consistently overshadow contributions that advance humanity, it says something about the society. Glorifying Paul over Perelman is a statement about what we value as a civilisation. Sesh ties this state of affairs to Vedic philosophy. “Most people,” he explains, “live in the ‘Manas’ state, monopolised by distractions and a desire for instantaneous bounties. Intellectual stimulation connects with the higher ‘Chitta’ or ‘Gyana’ states, requiring a deeper focus that few people reach. Intellectual work often lacks immediate results or simple answers, leading many to dismiss it. A mindless craving for simplicity explains why philosophy and other in-depth specialisations are continually discounted.
Though transformative within academic and scientific domains, Perelman's contributions fail to resonate broadly outside these spheres.
While Paul’s ability to cater to the public’s appetite for beer and skittles is effortless and uncomplicated. The difference in their ‘popularity’ (or lack thereof) indicates the inclination of modern culture towards the immediately gratifying.
POPULAR VS. TRANSFORMATIVE
This isn’t a new phenomenon, but something that has grown worse. Paul thrives on clickbait headlines and viral clips. Perelman, who refuses interviews and flouts the limelight, is anathema to this ecosystem.
“The term ‘influencer’ has lost its meaning,” says author Devesh Purohit.
He explains that while entertainers offer ‘escapism, and relatability’ to audiences — and brands eagerly capitalise on their popularity — the real opinion makers and thought leaders should be responsible creators who trigger conversations and consequences in their fields.
Purohit also points out how mainstream media fuels the imbalance by focusing heavily on the gossip surrounding entertainers, simply because the populace inclines toward such content.
“The problem isn’t just that people fail to recognise genius. They actively reject it when it doesn’t entertain. Nikola Tesla died penniless despite revolutionising modern electricity, while his rival, Thomas Edison, mastered the art of self-promotion and became a household name. Mathematicians Alan Turing and Katherine Johnson only received their due recognition decades after their work changed history. Intellect, it seems, is only celebrated when it is conveniently repackaged into digestible narratives,” he notes.
AMUSEMENT VS. INTELLECTUALITY
Aditya Sesh, a member of the Development Committee at Rishihood University, feels that intellectual accomplishments are often complex and demand effort to comprehend, thus naturally appealing to a smaller, exclusive audience. To him, intellectual work exists in a “zone of prime bandwidth,” affecting the masses but less accessible to them.
The obsession with amusement over intellect breeds a dangerous cultural bias,
he warns, as it signals to young people that it’s better to be flashy than brilliant. Flagging an erosion of respect for expertise, he says, “Scientists and academics are frequently depicted as isolated figures whose work feels distant and impractical though it may be groundbreaking. Their achievements, while transformative, rarely reach beyond niche circles.” He elaborates - “A scientist might revolutionise medicine, but a celebrity’s rags-to-riches journey feels more immediate.”
MANAS VS. GYANA
Entertainment isn’t inherently bad. The world needs laughter. But when those pursuits consistently overshadow contributions that advance humanity, it says something about the society. Glorifying Paul over Perelman is a statement about what we value as a civilisation. Sesh ties this state of affairs to Vedic philosophy. “Most people,” he explains, “live in the ‘Manas’ state, monopolised by distractions and a desire for instantaneous bounties. Intellectual stimulation connects with the higher ‘Chitta’ or ‘Gyana’ states, requiring a deeper focus that few people reach. Intellectual work often lacks immediate results or simple answers, leading many to dismiss it. A mindless craving for simplicity explains why philosophy and other in-depth specialisations are continually discounted.