Allocation of IQ to thinking about relationships–different in men and women. So argues this article, which is linked and discussed in a thread by Rob Henderson at Twitter.
The Great Untethering–school choice and remote work.
East of the Mississippi–19th century American landscape photography.
How Allied mass production drove the victory over the Axis powers. A YouTube documentary, which I haven’t seen yet but which looks promising.
What kinds of people are attracted to mass movements? “(Eric) Hoffer emphasizes that creative people–those who experience creative flow–aren’t usually attracted to mass movements.” (Twitter) Makes sense, but is this really true? Seems to me that there were quite a few creative scientists and artists who were strongly attracted to Communism, and I can think of at least one supposedly-creative philosopher who was strongly attracted to Naziism.
The Real Roaring Twenties Was… the 1720s. So argues Anton Howes in this article. His Twitter feed is here.
Tove K makes some good points in his discussion about women allocating their cognitive resources (I wish he wouldn’t use IQ as a shorthand for that. Not accurate.) toward relationships while men allocate toward…anything else. However, I am not convinced. Perhaps that is because my own situation is the opposite, and this was true during my dating career many decades ago as well.
Put me in the unimpressed by Tove’s article column. By the way, I’m betting Tove is her.
I have anecdotes too. some of mine concern women that managed to “work” themselves out of long term, stable relationships into a series transient, exploitative and even seriously abusive relationships through obsessing over the supposed failing of their spouse. As often as not, including the amount of time required to make a living.
Also unaddressed is the daily evidence of women that continue to “work” at abusive relationships to both their and their children’s detriment, not to mention considerable physical danger.
Then there’s the mounting evidence of women as the abuser in abusive relationships. That they might be as common as men.
Overall, a series of cliches, that rigidly adheres to the convention that any comparison of the differences between men and women must show the women as superior.
In a less tendentious vein, an interesting early film on IBM’s early computer development:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAnbb8ZEkBk
“(Eric) Hoffer emphasizes that creative people–those who are attracted to mass movements–aren’t usually attracted to mass movements.” (Twitter) Makes sense, but is this really true? Seems to me that there were quite a few creative scientists and artists who were strongly attracted to Communism, and I can think of at least one supposedly-creative philosopher who was strongly attracted to Naziism.
Yup. Perhaps the reason is that the creative types who ended up supporting the Commies of the Nazis didn’t see themselves as members of the masses, but as members of the vanguard, the leaders of the masses.
re the Tove article and the point by MCS….the fact that someone is focused on something, even obsessively, does not necessarily mean they are *good* at it….for example, there are obsessive day traders who lose a lot of money.
Obsessive – there are people who obsessively pursue the man/women/it of their dreams, but only manage to chase the pursued further away.
I’ve observed that professionally, however strong a woman’s talents may be at technical/logical work…coding, legal analysis, financial analysis, etc….she will generally prefer jobs that also have a considerable amount of human interaction, or, sometimes, aesthetic aspects.
Re: Hoffer
I’m still cleaning my screen from reading that Sutherland tweet that David linked to. Twitter/X isn’t a good medium for people who are impulsive, perhaps Rory is one of those people. The first thing you think of when presented with the word “creative” is “comedian” ? Sure that was the epitome of creativity in the West during the 1920s-40s. Leave aside the Communist infiltration of Hollywood, artists like Picasso, and front organizations like the League of American Writers.
Hoffer felt that the ideal condition within which to grow totalitarianism was boredom. He stated that given that they were internally driven, he thought that creative people would not be suceptible to such politics. By contrast Dismet (I’m current reading his ‘Psychology of Totalitarianism’) and others point to a combination of fear and anxiety. I am surprised that neither have mentioned Nietzsche with his statement “God is Dead” foretold man-created ideologies to fill the social and spiritual void left by the death of religion and the chaos of modernity
I am with Gringo as far as why creative types DO tend to be drawn to authoritarian movements not only because they see themselves as vanguards of the masses but because of their self-image they see themselves as transgressive toward the status quo and tradition. Nothing like breaking new ground on the way to the ultimate creation, that of the bight new future of an earthly paradise.
David, I corrected a typo in your quote of Rory Sutherland re creative people and Hoffer.
I agree with you and Gringo about creative people and mass movements. However, there are “creative people” and creative people. Creative people, like everyone else, don’t necessarily have a clue about topics outside of their specific areas of expertise. And plenty of supposedly creative people are hacks or operators who take fashionable positions for advantage. (Is Stephen Colbert a creative person?)
Of course one has to evaluate individuals individually. Ezra Pound and Antoine de Saint Exupery could both be called creative people, for example.
“And plenty of supposedly creative people are hacks or operators who take fashionable positions for advantage”…this ties with Andre Maurois’ assertion that people who are intelligent, but not creative, tend to be eager followers of intellectual systems created by others. Ideologies are intellectual systems, as are structures of categorization.
Miss Tove: “Less devoted types of wives will be on the look-out for their ideal building blocks [i.e. males]. If one who seemed promising enough is not keeping up to expectations, they will discard him and search for a new one.”
Largely missing from Miss Tove’s analysis is mention of the essential factor in the maintenance of societies and in the evolution of the human race — bearing children and doing the very hard work of socializing those offspring into productive human beings. For most of history, that has been the key role of women, and the reason for the very high regard in which women/mothers were traditionally seen.
Now modern “feminism” has women stamping pointless bureaucratic papers in government cubicles instead of creating & guiding the next generation. This behavior of the modern woman (who is the focus of Miss Tove’s article) is the historical anomaly. As women whose thinking is dominated by feminist ideology fail to reproduce, their genes will be removed via the evolutionary process — with a probable (and healthy) alteration in the nature of humanity.
Gavin…”Largely missing from Miss Tove’s analysis is mention of the essential factor in the maintenance of societies and in the evolution of the human race — bearing children and doing the very hard work of socializing those offspring into productive human beings.”
According to the ‘about’ section of the Substack, “We live in the countryside of southern Scandinavia with our five children. We spend most of our time child rearing, house building and providing sustenance the old-fashioned way.” Not sure if ‘we’ is the editorial We, or if it refers to the author and her husband (assuming the author is female, which appears to be the case), but someone clearly bore them, it sounds like they are being raised at home.
David,
Going to your and Jonathan’s points about creative people and “creative people” perhaps it would be useful to take a look at what we clearly define as true creative people today and where they are politically. The definition can simply be fairly imprecise and based on observation, there must be creative people in entertainment and media (even if Colbert isn’t one of them) because we do seem creative output from people like Christopher Nolan. While there are plenty of hacks and mediocrities in academia there must be some creative people there because occasionally we do see some creative output. The same for the arts and literature. We can disagree on exact numbers and names but no matter how you tally them up it seems there are a lot people on one side and few if any on the other. Pick a creative profession and it sure seems that while not all members are creative, all of those who are creative adhere (at least publicly) to the same ideology.
This information is more than anecdotal, because we see the what happens to those who stray from the ideological orthodoxy, they get canceled by their own profession. Think J.K. Rowling, a celebrated feminist and gay-rights activist, when she went off on the transgender movement. The diversity statements that academics are forced to sign. What happened to Carlos Santa when he made a comment caught on tape “a woman is a woman and a man is a man — that’s it”; he was forced to grovel and apologize which was picked up and reported on in the media. You could even throw Musk being sued by the feds for not hiring non-Americans, This is all about power and intimidation meant to enforce an ideological uniformity. Silver or lead So maybe that painter or graphic designer might disagree with the ideology, but they have to observe it… or else
What’s the ideology? Well, that’s the multi-trillion dollar question. Woke? Progressiveness? Environmentalism. How about just plain old anti-Liberal Bourgeois Transgressiveness?
So take a look around and tell me what creative types if not actively not on that ideology train or silent about it? This isn’t just opportunists who want to get ahead, but the absence of any deviation. This is all eerily reminiscent of what the various communist- party-affiliated in arts and literature auxiliary groups in the USSR and Eastern Europe.
So are they active followers of the ideology or merely silent? Does it matter? I have been drawn through Milan Kundera and Havel to study the rise of the writer’s movement in Czechoslovakia during the 1960s which laid the foundation for the Prague Spring against much heavier odds than what are creative types face today. Their silence because of fear breeds more fear which can only harm the creative endeavors they claim to support. Havel wrote in his essay “Power of the Powerless” of a single grocer who decides to no longer display mandated pro-regime signs in his window or votes in farcical elections, in short he decides to no longer live by lies. He decides to no longer live in a state of tacit humiliation, but instead in truth. The result of his actions? He shows people the example of living in truth and for it he is effectively canceled, crushed but his example is remembered.
I find the parallels frightening. So the creative types, even if they aren’t active followers in the ideology, are complicit in it by remaining silent. They betray themselves and their profession by subjecting themselves to humiliation. They are cowards and traitors to what they hold dear.
DF referenced Miss Tove: “We live in the countryside of southern Scandinavia with our five children. We spend most of our time child rearing, house building and providing sustenance the old-fashioned way.”
From the article, the writer is definitely female. Also from the article, the author makes almost no reference to children, especially not when describing how women put all their effort into finding the perfect relationship. If Miss Tove is living a conventional “get married and raise kids” lifestyle, the reader would never guess that from her article.
Of course, it is Scandinavia. Maybe we should not assume that the “We” refers to a man and a woman?
Elon Musk is certainly a creative person. He doesn’t fit the categories because the categorization is done by the hacks and operators who are the main beneficiaries. So Elon is a mere businessman while the most unimaginative person with a fine arts degree is a creative person. Maybe it’s better to ignore categories and look at the behavior of individuals – does this person create things/ideas of value or not?
Speaking of terms and categories, I think the best term for current leftist politics is Stalinist.
Few Scandinavians have that many children – even fewer than here. I think it makes her opinion interesting, but not representative, and perhaps requiring some explanation.
Gavin…” Also from the article, the author makes almost no reference to children, especially not when describing how women put all their effort into finding the perfect relationship.”
Of course, finding and maintaining a good relationship is extremely valuable when it comes to raising children. It is indeed odd, though, that the author doesn’t explicitly write about the direct importance of relationship skills in raising children. I doubt that there is a 100% overlap between the skills required for a good relationship w/another adult and the skills required for a good relationship w/a young child, though there is surely a considerable overlap.