I differentiate between two versions of celebrity.

Type One is what i call “identificational celebrity”. The protagonists of this form are very good at creating celebrity, at making and keeping themselves celebrities. They are hard working, disciplined and usually ready to take any amount of shit in order to become and stay a celebrity. Being a celebrity is the goal. 
They serve as an “identificationial” mirror to the multitude who can either positively or negatively compare to them.

Type Two is what i call “inspirational celebrity”. These people are extremely good at one (or more) things either through talent or disciplined hard work, but they excel on such a grand scale that they become visible to the relevant crowd in their respective field. Being a celebrity is a by-product. 
They serve as an inspirational idol, something to live up to in your own life.

Since the first type needs to be able to mirror a multitude of people in some way, it can be deducted that its protagonists represent an average of the relevant population. In other words, they are mediocre.

Based on these assumptions you can measure your Mediocracy-KPI in the following way.

1. Count all celebrities you adore of type One
2. Count all celebrities you adore of type Two
3. Calculate your Mediocracy-KPI with the following formula: 
M-KPI = COUNT(Type Two) + ( COUNT(Type One) x -1 )
(more complex versions of this formula are easily possible, but this one serves the purpose well)
4. The higher your M-KPI, the better. Anything below 0 should make you worry.

Thomas Schindler