The analogy is not to what people think but to what part hypocrisy plays into understanding and using a message. People may be even less simple-minded than the above. Perhaps they are able to perceive the validity of the message in spite of the hypocrisy. Also, people are in reality unaware of personal sacrifices of doctors as well as the personal lifestyles of celebrities. They consume the results, all else being constant. They learn of these details only when someone chooses to publish them. Hence the eagerness of opponents to publish them in order to use the "hypocrisy" card, and the reluctance of those who accept the validity of the argument to propagate personal critiques.
>> Except celebrities cannot (generally) influence other celebrities,
>> and the few who do campaign for mass changes will not make any impact
>> on the issue, even if they act in the manner above. [ravi]
>>
>
> If you believe this you do not understand celebrity behaviour.
> Celebrities greatly influence other celebrities and they do so much
> more
> than they actually influence non-celebrities. [JT]
Well, I guess if celebrity X bought a Ferrari then there is pressure on his or her peers to do the same. Similarly for houses in Venice, etc, etc. i.e., things that enhance their celebrity status and conspicuous consumption. But this would not apply to a celebrity who adopts a lifestyle that runs counter to the celebrity impulse. There are after all celebrities who drive Priuses and so on, to make the point, but I do not see that as having much impact. It is possible that in the future this could turn into environmentalism chic, but I don't see that yet.
>> This begs the question on what does raise the consciousness of
>> society. I believe consciousness is raised by learning something (a
>> "hypothesis") that is meaningful, true ("verification"), explanatory,
>> etc. Whom I learn it from, what they do, etc is mostly irrelevant to
>> this process.
>
> This is the same error in thinking that Chomsky unfortunately succumbs
> to. The mistaken idea that if only people were presented with the
> facts
> of an issue then consciousness raising will naturally follows.
> Unfortunately this isn't how things work in the real world. Changing
> peoples minds is more complex.
I am not sure Chomsky commits the error of thinking only a presentation of facts is enough. I certainly do not. I (and perhaps Chomsky too) do think that it is a necessary condition for one type of consciousness raising (I say one type because there are possibly other types of consciousness raising). In multiple lectures, when he is asked the frustrated question "what can I do", Chomsky states that the choice is clear (in terms of the path to take) and the thing to be done is to use the relatively greater freedom we enjoy to act to block or prevent the acts we find unjust. I am not sure he uses the specific term "civil disobedience" but that for instance, is one option.
So there is both a presentation of fact and a prescription arrived at by reasoning from those facts. I agree that it often takes more than just that to change people's minds.
But I think that additional effort has mostly to do with overcoming the built-in psychological, cultural and biological impulses and facilities that tend to work against following the fact/prescription mechanism, not so much to do with emulation, etc.
--ravi