“no one would know who the fuck she was“
The show has roughly 171.000.000,000 million viewed Hours and both seasons make up to 12,3 hours of length. 12,3/2=6,15 (average length of one episode). 171.000.000,000/6,15=27.804.878,0488 People. thats roughly yet simply MilkMath. So atleast 27,8 million people know Alba Baptista - solely from her show Warrior Nun.
but she had more projects. roughly 1,4 million to 2,8 million people knew alba already from earlier projects.
1,4/27,8*100 =5,036 = 5%.
2,8/27,8*100 =10,0719 = 10%
so, 5-10% knew Alba baptista before Warrior Nun. If we subtract the maximum of plausible people who knew alba before, we‘d have 2,8 million people subtracted from 27,8 million people over all.
27,8-2,8=25 Million people roughly that didn‘t know her before (if we take the highest percentage).
but over all, atleast 27,8 million people know of alba Baptistas existence. And 150.000-300.000 People were behind the 15.000.000 „warrior nun revival“ tweets.
-unhealthy Obsession with Chris Evans
Its not secret, that someone, who openly claims to be obsessed with Chris Evans also finds himself hating on the reallife partner of named actor. an obsession, being emotionally involved with someone, or something often is caused by an immense emotional instability in your private Life.
either, that you‘re single, unloved or you do have a partner - that is not nearly as attractive or similiar to Chris Evans. Its a proven fact, that parasocially involved people, who have a relationship lose their Love to their reallife partner due to the sudden, yet strong emotional involvement to their partner, simply because of the principle: „if you really would love your partner, you wouldnt have fallen for Chris“.
„In individuals with strong parasocial attachment, obsession explains up to 21% of the variance in their overall life satisfaction and emotional investment – energy that is often lacking in real-life partnerships.“ ^https://ojs.interpersonajournal.com/index.php/ojs/article/view/252/3475.html#:~:text=A%20small%20percentage%20of%20celebrity,et%20al.%2C%202004).
how many people actually fall into the risk zones:
3% to 5% of the population reach the "borderline-pathological" stage, in which reality testing diminishes and the bond with the celebrity can be perceived as more real than the bond with a partner.
10% to 14% are in the "intensely personal" range, where the celebrity is often declared a "soulmate," which demonstrably leads to neglect and lower satisfaction in real-life relationships.
^https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11220816/
HOW HIGH ARE THE CHANCES, THAT YOU ARE A MENTALLY ILL BULLY?
High correlation with cyberbullying: Research (e.g., Zhang et al., 2025) shows that celebrity worship is a positive predictor of cyberbullying. ->((This means that the higher someone scores on the scale (CAS), the more likely they are to harass others online.))
The 3–5% group (borderline pathological) —>This group exhibits symptoms bordering on behavioral addictions (compulsiveness, loss of control). The likelihood of extreme behavior (such as hate campaigns or stalking) is highest in this group because the emotional bond with the celebrity is often perceived as more "real" than actual relationships.
The 10–14% group (intense personal): These fans see the celebrity as a "soulmate." If the celebrity enters into a real-life partnership, this is often perceived as a personal betrayal or a threat to their own (parasocial) bond, which massively increases the likelihood of hate posts.
And the probability, that one of those 5%+14%=0,19 =19% is actually going online, to hate on the Celebritiys partner also able to be calculated through simple maths!
The probability that an online harasser comes from one of these two risk zones is almost 100%, since the control group (the remaining 81–87% of the population) shows no significant motive for harassing behavior towards celebrity partners, according to CAS research.
To make this probability mathematically quantifiable, we calculate the size of the "perpetrator pool" within a hypothetical fan base.
Definition of the Risk Groups
First, we add up the percentages of the population who, according to your data, have a pathological or intensely personal relationship with celebrities:
we have P(Borderline) 3–5%
And P(intense Personal) 10–14%
lets take the plausible middle for this one…
p(A)+P(b)= 0,04+0,12=0,16 = 16%
which means from 100%
100%-16%=0,84 = 84% are not involved with Chris Evans for example and therefore dont participate in any hate campaigns against Alba Baptista. Which tells us, that YOU definitely fall into the Parasocially engaged percentage AND!!! The chances are against zero, that you are not P(parasocial v hateful).
conclusio: The chance that a harasser is not parasocially disturbed is close to zero, since without this bond, the motive for the hatred (jealousy, betrayal, loss of reality) is missing.
Why is 100%? Well, Here an example… so stupid fellars can understand it better:
This calculation requirieres Probability-calculations and STOCHASTIC:
Statistically speaking, the question is: How likely is it that someone from the group of "normal fans" (84%) would write hateful messages?
Since this group has no emotional dependence, their motivation for investing time and risking (reporting, banning) is zero.
-> If we assume that 100% of all hate posts against celebrity partners come from people who have a problem with that relationship, then all the perpetrators come from the 16% pool.
The calculation:
Imagine 1,000 people.
840 people (normal): Post 0 hate comments.
160 people (high-risk): Produce 100% of the hate.
The probability that a perpetrator comes from the 16% is therefore 100%, because the other 84% don't even participate in the "game."
and since you participate in the „game“, you do fall into the 16% pool.
Now you would argue, that 16 percent isnt alot. but it actually is.
The "selection factor" (Why 16% is a lot)
In crime statistics, a 16% share of the total population responsible for a specific behavior is enormous.
For comparison: People with clinically diagnosed psychopathy make up only about 1% of the population, but are responsible for a massive proportion of violent crimes.
The 16% figure is "high" because it is the only relevant source for this specific behavior. A person without this parasocial bond simply has no reason to waste their time hating a stranger (the celebrity's partner).
