Author: Andrea Mai

I have been seeing a lot of TikTok videos lately. Young fans — many of them new to Michael Jackson’s music — are posting about their sudden, uncontrollable obsession with him. They describe it almost like a possession: they cannot stop thinking about him, they watch videos for hours, they feel like they know him personally, and some even believe they are receiving messages from him. They feel crazy. They do not understand why this is happening or why it feels so consuming.

Since the release of the Michael biopic, his popularity has surged, and with it has come a new frenzy of obsession. The film introduced him to a generation that did not grow up with his music, and the response has been overwhelming. But this is not just a case of great music finding new ears. There is something else happening — something mechanical.

As a Human Design observer, I have identified a pattern that explains exactly why certain celebrities attract obsessive devotion, and why certain fans fall into the projection loop. What feels like a spiritual calling or a cosmic connection is often a mechanical configuration — one that can be recognized, understood, and eventually released.

This article explores that template.

The Celebrity With Many Open Centers

There is a pattern I have noticed in my research on fan obsession. It is not the celebrities with the most energy defined centers who attract the most intense fixation. It is often the ones with the most open centers.

When a celebrity has many open centers, their energy is not fixed. It is fluid, receptive, and changeable. To a fan with open centers, this feels like resonance — a sense of recognition, familiarity, and connection. But what is actually happening is that both parties are open, amplifying each other’s projections without a stable anchor.

A celebrity with open centers does not emit a consistent, fixed frequency. Instead, they reflect back whatever the fan projects onto them. This makes them feel accessible, relatable, and deeply personal to each individual fan. They become a blank screen for the fan’s longing, identity, and desire for connection.

This is why Michael Jackson and John Lennon — both of whom had many open centers — continue to attract such intense, obsessive devotion. Their openness allowed millions of fans to feel personally connected to them, as if they were close friends, soulmates, or even twin flames.

The Celebrity With Many Defined Centers

On the other end of the spectrum are celebrities with many defined centers. These individuals emit a strong, consistent frequency. They are unshakable, fixed, and powerful in their energy. This can also attract massive followings, but the dynamic is different.

When a celebrity has many defined centers, they are not reflecting the fan’s projection back at them. They are projecting their own fixed energy outward. Fans with open centers may feel drawn to this energy, but the connection is one-sided. The celebrity does not change to match the fan’s projection. They remain who they are, and the fan must either accept that or move on.

This type of celebrity can still attract obsession, but the obsession is often rooted in admiration or awe rather than identification. The fan does not feel like they are the celebrity — they feel like they want to be like them, or be near them. The energy is more about power and presence than resonance and recognition.

Why Open-Centered Celebrities Attract More Obsession

When a fan with open centers encounters a celebrity with open centers, both are receptive. The fan’s open G center can feel like it has found its direction. The fan’s open Solar Plexus can feel emotional resonance. The fan’s open Head and Ajna can project narrative and meaning onto the celebrity’s life and work.

The celebrity, being open, does not push back. They reflect. And the fan feels seen, known, and connected — even though the celebrity has no idea who they are.

Celebrities with mostly open centers have the highest likelihood of fan obsession, as it increases the chances of a feeling of resonance with them. This can make them highly popular, but it can also bring with it a great deal of obsession.

The Double-Edged Sword

This dynamic can make a celebrity wildly popular. Fans feel personally connected to them in a way that feels intimate and real. They buy the music, attend the concerts, defend the legacy. The celebrity becomes not just an artist but a companion — someone who feels like they know them. This also lends itself well to parasocial relationships.

But the same dynamic attracts the projection loop. Fans who are mechanically predisposed to obsession — those with defined G centers, defined hearts, undefined Solar Plexuses, and undefined minds — will take that feeling of resonance and lock it into identity. They will believe they have a special, exclusive connection. They will defend it against anyone who challenges them. And they will attack anyone who claims a similar connection.

The celebrity becomes a screen for their longing. And because the celebrity is open, they cannot push back. They cannot correct the projection. They can only exist, unknowingly, as the center of someone else’s identity.

The Closed Loop of Projection

After studying the chart of a fan who was obsessively attached to Michael Jackson, I noticed a specific configuration that was responsible for her fixation. The harmonic resonance was real. She did have a genuine intuitive hit toward him. But her design did not stop there. It locked that hit into a closed loop that she could not escape.

Her defined spleen gave her a strong, undeniable intuitive hit — a felt sense of truth. Her undefined head and ajna projected meaning onto that hit, filling in the gaps with narrative. Her defined G center locked the projection into identity, making it part of who she was. Her defined heart center added willpower, competitiveness, and the need to prove it. And her undefined solar plexus amplified the emotional charge, making it feel urgent and consuming.

When these centers combine, the person experiences a felt sense of recognition, a compelling story about what it means, an identity built around that story, a mission to prove it is real, and an emotional urgency that never lets them rest.

This is not a spiritual calling. This is a mechanical loop. And it is nearly impossible to break without conscious awareness.

Why It Feels So Real

For the person caught in this loop, the experience is not imaginary. The spleen signal is real. The recognition is real. The emotional intensity is real.

What is not real is the interpretation. The undefined mind has taken a genuine intuitive hit and projected a story onto it. The defined G center has locked that story into identity. The defined heart has turned it into a mission. And the undefined solar plexus has made it feel like life or death. The person is not lying.

They are not faking it. They are trapped in a mechanical projection loop that feels undeniable because every part of their design is confirming it.

The Signs of the Fan Obsession Template

There are several signs that indicate this template is at play. The person feels a deep, inexplicable sense of recognition toward a public figure. They are convinced the connection is real and unique. They attack anyone who challenges their claim. They post constantly, check for signs, and cannot stop thinking about them. The connection feels urgent, consuming, and undeniable. It is not just something they feel — it is who they are.

And real-life relationships often suffer because the obsession takes priority. These signs are not random. They are the behavioral expression of a mechanical configuration.

Other Forms This Template Can Take

The fan obsession template is not limited to celebrities. The same mechanical configuration can produce other forms of obsessive fixation.

Romantic obsession is one expression — projection onto a partner, ex-partner, or someone they have never met. Spiritual obsession is another — projection onto a deity, spirit guide, or religious figure. Conspiracy obsession involves projection onto hidden systems, “the truth,” or secret knowledge. Scrupulosity is projection onto moral or religious purity — fear of being “bad” or “unworthy.” Political obsession is projection onto a leader or cause — the belief that “they” are the answer. And self-obsession is projection onto their own narrative — the belief that they are special, chosen, or destined.

In every case, the mechanics are the same: a genuine intuitive hit is projected into meaning, locked into identity, and fueled by willpower and emotional charge. The content changes. The machinery does not.

The Difference Between Resonance and Relationship

People can feel a deep, undeniable connection to someone — complete with all the hallmarks of harmonic resonance — and it does not mean there is any relationship, soul connection, or contract with them. It is just design mechanics that happen to fit.

She would have hated the label.

Ayn Rand despised the feminist movement of her time. She called it a movement of victims and refused to align herself with women who demanded special protections or blamed the patriarchy for their struggles. She would never have called herself a feminist.

But here is the irony. In 2026, the way many women are actually living their lives looks a lot more like Ayn Rand than like the activists of the 1970s. I am talking about the everyday women who focus on self-care, setting boundaries, achieving financial independence, and decentering romantic relationships with men as the sole source of their identity and worth. They are not necessarily reading Rand’s novels, but they are practicing her philosophy.

The Quiet Revolution of Self-Interest

Look at what is happening now. Women are decentering men, not as an act of hatred, but as an act of self-preservation. They are building careers, friendships, and entire lives that do not revolve around male approval or the pursuit of a partner. Women are setting boundaries like never before, learning that “no” is a complete sentence. The culture is finally recognizing that burnout from over-giving is a health crisis, not a badge of honor.

Women are rejecting the martyr complex, the idea that a good woman must sacrifice herself endlessly for everyone else. Self-care is no longer seen as selfish. It is understood as survival. Women are charging fairly for their work, refusing to give away their expertise for free out of guilt or a need to be liked. They are owning their authority, not apologizing for their competence, and refusing to shrink to make others comfortable.

And crucially, women are refusing to see themselves as victims. They acknowledge that real obstacles like systemic sexism and unequal pay exist, but they do not stop there. They take responsibility for what they can control and build their lives anyway. That is not the feminism of the past. That is Randian self-interest in practice.

What Rand Actually Believed

For those who have only heard the caricature, it is worth remembering what Rand actually stood for. She argued for rational self-interest, not short-term greed, but the long-term, thoughtful pursuit of your own life and happiness. This means taking care of yourself so that you can be genuinely generous, not sacrificing yourself so that others do not have to try.

She taught the importance of integrity, refusing to compromise your values for approval, money, or a sense of belonging. She championed personal responsibility, the idea that you are not merely a victim of your circumstances. You can acknowledge that life is deeply unfair and still choose to act. And she defended the right to your own labor, the principle that what you create is yours and that no one is entitled to the fruits of your work simply because they need or want them.

That is the playbook that thousands of women are quietly following in 2026.

The Sexism Rand Faced

Rand was dismissed by the academic philosophy establishment for decades. The official reasons given were that she lacked credentials, that she wrote novels instead of journal articles, that her arguments were simplistic, and that her fans were cultish. But what is rarely said out loud is that she was a woman.

She was a confident, brilliant woman who refused to defer to male professors, refused to play the academic game, and refused to apologize for her certainty. Compare her treatment to male philosophers with similarly controversial views. Nietzsche was also arrogant, also dismissed in his time, and also wrote in an unconventional style. Yet he is taught in universities as a serious thinker. Rand is still dismissed as a cult figure.

Part of the difference is political. Her libertarian views offend the left-leaning academy. But part of it is also that men in philosophy have never quite known what to do with a woman who out-argues them. When they cannot beat her logic, they attack her reputation. They call her a pseudo-philosopher. They say she is not taken seriously. They point to her personal life as if that invalidates her ideas.

The Straw Man Strategy

When you cannot argue with someone’s logic, you argue with a version of them that does not exist. Rand’s critics rarely engage with what she actually wrote. They call her selfish while ignoring her emphasis on integrity, productivity, and mutual trade. They claim she worships greed while ignoring her condemnation of fraud and exploitation. They say she is cold and unfeeling while ignoring her passionate defense of romantic love, art, and individual happiness.

These are straw men, easier to knock down than the real thing. The same pattern appears in many spaces today. When a woman shows up with evidence, confidence, and a framework that challenges the existing order, she is often dismissed as elitist, dogmatic, or arrogant. A man doing the same thing might be called a visionary. A woman is called difficult.

This is the strategy of someone who cannot win on the merits. They have to twist the argument because they cannot refute it.

Rand’s Unintentional Feminism

Rand would have rejected the feminist label entirely. She did not want special protections. She wanted to compete in the world of ideas on equal terms. But in 2026, that is exactly what feminism means for many women. It is not the feminism of waiting for the patriarchy to be dismantled by someone else. It is the feminism of taking responsibility for your own life. It is refusing to sacrifice your happiness for anyone else’s comfort. It is setting boundaries, charging for your work, and walking away from relationships that drain you.

It is saying, “I am not a victim. I am a sovereign individual.”

That is Rand. And that is also the quiet revolution happening in women’s lives right now.

A Final Thought

Rand faced sexism not because she was weak, but because she was strong. She threatened the comfortable assumption that men are the natural authorities on logic, philosophy, and how to live. Her confidence was read as arrogance because it came from a woman. Her certainty was read as dogmatism because she refused to defer.

She kept working anyway. And in 2026, millions of women are quietly doing the same thing. They may not call themselves Randians. They may not even like her books. But they are living her principles. They are building lives of integrity, self-respect, and rational self-interest.

That is not just feminist. That is heroic.

There’s a frustrating pattern I see whenever Ayn Rand comes up in conversation. People don’t argue with her ideas. They argue with her. Her personal life. Her harsh tone. Her outdated views on gender, race, or feminism. And then they conclude: “See? She was wrong about everything.”

That’s not logic. That’s avoidance.

Rand was a product of her time. She was born in 1905 in Tsarist Russia. She lived through the Bolshevik Revolution, fled the Soviet Union, and arrived in America in 1926. She watched collectivism destroy her homeland. She saw firsthand what happens when the individual is sacrificed to the state.

Those experiences shaped her personal views — including some that have not aged well. Her comments about feminism, about the “metaphysical dominance” of men, about women in leadership — these were products of her era. They were not central to her philosophy. And they can be set aside without abandoning her core insights.

This post is about Objectivism for our current times — applying Rand’s principles to the realities of 2026, without the baggage of her personal opinions that would be outdated today.

What Is Actually Central

The core of Objectivism is simple and timeless:

• Reason is our only means of knowing reality
• Your life belongs to you, not to the tribe
• Rational self-interest is not greed — it’s long-term flourishing
• The initiation of force is evil
• You are responsible for your own life

None of that depends on Rand’s personal views about anything. None of it requires you to approve of every opinion she expressed in interviews or letters.

(more…)