I think this is mixing up the mythology of Zuckerberg with the reality. There's no indication that he is exclusively or even primarily driven by money or power.
Go watch any long-form interview with him, such as with Lex Fridman. It becomes rather clear that he wants to be more like how Steve Jobs is seen by the wider public: as an innovator and pioneer, not as a power-hungry moneymaker.
He isn’t doing a great job at that. I see him as a rather analytical CEO. Nothing of the charisma or clarity of ideas that Steve Jobs had. Steve Jobs was rather ruthless when it came to quality (source : Guy Kawasaki) and no idea how Zuckerberg is irl, but my impression it isn’t favorable.
What I am trying to say is, with how Facebook is managed isn’t at all like Apple.
I'm 5'3" and haven't needed to take 'drastic measures' to find women interested in me, both in real life and online. I would say that the majority of women 5'4" or under don't consider my height a dealbreaker, even if it's a disadvantage (which it definitely is). Yes, taller women are another story, but the average height of a woman in the US is 5'4".
So why does my experience differ with the conclusion you've drawn? My guess: I have a pretty good looking face, a reasonably fit body, and I'm a musician. In other words, height excluded, I'm above-average in attractiveness. And that's evidently enough to take away the whole dealbreaker thing, if it existed in the first place.
I know it's an n=1, but your statement is so profoundly certain that an n=1 is enough weaken it.
Face is a pretty big deal. If you have model looks - many women can overlook other attributes.
But again - should we use something that is innately genetic and unchangeable as a means for “compensating”?
You’re not even ripped. You just say reasonably fit - so I assume something barely above skinny fat. Your face (genetics) are doing you favors here a lot.
It also depends a lot on where you are and where you’re pulling women from. Personally - there’s not a single woman I know who would date a man who is 5’3”. Heck - most don’t even want to date a man under 5’10” and will only do such when someone in person sweeps them off their feet. (Relying on repeated forced interaction - they’ll never go on a date with them from OLD)
I can't upvote your comment enough. There is a lot of negativity in men that have a hard time dating. It's all the fault of some external thing that can't be fixed of course. While in reality, there are plenty of things you can do.
I would much rather be a physically unattractive guy than a physically unattractive woman. Women consider so many different traits that it's easier for guys to work on becoming attractive for women.
I also think there's a key point being missed. That is: being a futurist with high accuracy is useless if your predictions were already obvious.
I can score a 100% accuracy rate by predicting things that everyone knows are going to happen (humans will still exist in 2025, the sun will rise in 2050, etc.). A futurist is not useful when they are merely accurate, but when they are accurate about events that no one else expected.
It is inappropriate to compare someone like Kurzweil to Caplan. Caplan is just trying to be correct. Kurzweil is trying to make predictions about black-swan events -- the things people don't see coming. These are different ballgames, and the ballgame of predicting unexpected events is inherently more difficult.
> Clinical depression rarely has anything to do with what you've done or events in the outside world.
Do you have any evidence for this? This contradicts some studies I've seen on the matter, for example, one where 75% of chronically depressed patients reported clinically significant histories of childhood trauma.[1]
Not to mention that your second cure, sunlight, is literally an example of things we've done or events in the outside world (i.e. time spent outside).
> This contradicts some studies I've seen on the matter, for example, one where 75% of chronically depressed patients reported clinically significant histories of childhood trauma
There is no contradiction here; the correlation you think you see is not causation. Generally, if there is an external trigger for depression, it is more immediate than having an abusive childhood decades ago, such as recently losing a loved one, or recently getting fired, or recently being physically abused. But in essence, our bodies make us feel the way we do, and more specifically, the brain and its electrical and chemical processes, no matter what external trigger we may want to point to for a cause, the reaction is fundamentally an internal process.
> Not to mention that your second cure, sunlight, is literally an example of things we've done or events in the outside world (i.e. time spent outside).
We evolved on a rotating planet. Daylight regulates mood as it does circadian rhythms. Sunlight will cure depression; it does not cause depression.
You've linked me to a summary article on depression by Verywellmind. Please provide actual specific evidence for your blanket assertion that depression is very rarely caused by lifestyle or life events. Remember, you've made this assertion as if it were fact, and I'm merely asking you to actually prove it. If you can't, then stop asserting it as if it were fact.
> There is no contradiction here; the correlation you think you see is not causation.
You're doing literally the exact same thing. You're pointing to chemical differences in people with depression and saying "there, that's causation! it has nothing to do with lifestyle or life events!". Consider that the chemical differences that result in depression could be caused by lifestyle factors and life events (and it's undisputed that these things cause chemical differences).
> You misunderstood. Daylight regulates mood. Sunlight can cure depression; it does not cause depression.
No, it's you who misunderstood me. If sunlight cures depression, then our basic actions in life are the issue, i.e. our lifestyle is a low-sunlight lifestyle (something very much in conflict with the environment our brains evolved in).
You simply haven't given enough evidence to back up your confidence on the idea that depression isn't caused by our actions in life, or life events. Yes, brain chemistry is involved, we know that. But our actions and experiences affect our brain chemistry. So you're going to have to work a lot harder than you have to rule it out.
The most I can see you saying is that the start of the causal chain (life events) doesn't matter because you only care about the end of the causal chain (brain chemistry). But this is a wildly different statement to saying that actions or life events aren't part of the causal chain, which you appear to be asserting.
You're basically saying "getting shot doesn't kill you, bleeding to death does!"
I would posit that the person you're replying to is challenging the title, not the article. The title and the article are incongruent.
The article essentially suggests that considerable solitude is required to really take one's writing to a higher place. That might be the true, or it might not be true, and it depends on how we define 'good writing'. But we can agree that it's not so easy to dismiss.
On the other hand, the title plainly states: 'creativity requires solitude'. That's a clear-cut statement. And it's extremely debatable. Not to mention that Rilke never even said that.
That seems to be a reflection of our society, rather than a reflection of our nature.
Civilization is highly alienating and dislocating, but we evolved in an environment in which we were near-permanently embedded within a tribe (or village) of people we knew extremely well. Strangers were relatively rare.
Rilke confused his alienating environment for a fundamental truth.
> On display in any jam session is thousands of hours of (solitary) practice, study, and reflection.
But not necessarily. Some musicians exclusively learn to play through being taught and jamming with others. I admit it's rare, and even as an extrovert it's not true for myself.
However, for a more damning condemnation of this "creativity requires solitude" viewpoint, we only need to venture into the world of improv theatre. Almost everyone in improv is unleashing non-stop creativity, but they've almost never practiced improv alone. It's the total counterpoint to this unnecessary association between artistry and isolation.
Highly extroverted artists exist. They rarely create alone. They rarely practice alone. I urge people to acknowledge that this is a worthy way to be a compelling artist, rather than acting like the preference of the introverted artist is the only worthy way of doing things.
>Highly extroverted artists exist and do not create alone.
Find me one professional jazz musician that is "100% extroverted" and I can find you twenty places or quotations that clearly demonstrate that s/he has listened and studied the history of the music.
I'm not saying who is "worthy", whatever that means. I'm saying what needs to be done to be educated, to understand.
You've shifted the goalpost from "any jam session" to "professional jazz musician".
Yes, I'd agree that all professional jazz musicians have spent considerable time working on their craft alone. That doesn't detract from what I was saying. Professional jazz musicians aren't the only type of people who do jam sessions, and they're not the only type of compelling artist.
In fact, even if every single artist in the world had spent considerable time studying alone, that doesn't necessarily mean it's required. The fact is, every single piece of music theory, every single thing you can read from a book or hear from a record, every single practice session, can be done in a group. It may just be that people prefer not to do that, or don't have the resources to do that.
I am very curious now, because you seem to be alluding to it: is there any real world example of any kind of artist who is both "compelling" and did most of their studying or work in a group? Or is this just all in theory, like "Johnny Thousand-Livers"? https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/organs
The vast majority of human beings throughout time lived in extremely communal situations without separate bedrooms, without sheet music, without books, and without records. Solitude in the home was rarely available. Virtually all folk music around the world was developed in these contexts. We barely know their names or their work, and that's simply because sheet music and historic record were limited to the interests of the rich.
The availability of prolonged solitude to practice an instrument is an aberration in human existence. Modern humans, and the historic rich, do not represent the wider experience of human existence. Unless you think compelling musicians are also an aberration in human existence, I personally believe a wider perspective is needed.
GROHL: Well, I remember we talked about this. I think we were talking about practicing. . . .
STARR: I never practice [laughs].
GROHL: Nor do I! Because I don’t like playing alone. I only like playing when there’s music.
STARR: I’ll play with you all night, but on my own, after two and a quarter seconds, I’m like, “Ugh. That’s not what it’s about.” When I’m doing shows, and people hold up their little seven-year-old: “This is Tommy. He loves you, and he’s taking drum lessons.” And I always say, “I hope he’s not taking too many!”
I find this classical viewpoint of "create only for yourself" to be essentially suited to only the most individualistic of people.
Many, if not most people want to have value to others. Including introverts. We want to behave in a prosocial manner within an embedded social context. Art itself was borne out of social contexts, especially music and storytelling. Most of us gain untold fulfilment from creating art that is valuable to others, i.e. art that people like.
I can speak to this myself: I have little motivation to create anything outside of a social context. When I create something exclusively for myself, it feels hollow. When the social context is there, I come alive. It brings me deep fulfilment to bring someone joy with art. Of course, I have to also like the art myself, otherwise it's just excessively sacrificial.
If you're individualistic enough to gain fulfilment from only creating for yourself, then all the power to you. But I'm tired of this being expressed as the only valid way to do things, especially since many people will be less fulfilled with this mindset.
I think the idea is that Artists should ideally pursue art, not the approval of others.
If the intention is to please others, the art is at risk of being made in a top-down manner. The extreme extension of this being a public survey, the results of which determine what the artist does.
"People like boobs, so let's add more boobs". Or "people in the test screening didn't like the sad ending, we need to make a happy, audience-friendly ending".
There's always crossover. Artists must do things to make money (mass production of their work, selling their song to advertisers).
> "Of course, I have to also like the art myself"
And if not the art, then at least the pay day.
Some of the confusion in this thread is about the word "creativity". We can be creative in the kitchen tonight by adding a new ingredient to the sauce. We can't suddenly be artists in the kitchen tonight though.
Okay, well look, we have to step back and admit that what makes art valuable is a subjective question.
If I understand correctly, your belief is that the art of 'highest value' is created in a vacuum from the approval of others. That's okay. However, for myself, and usually for most others, the most valuable art is simply that which brings them the greatest joy.
When it comes to creating art, I receive the greatest joy when I'm also giving others joy. I'm much better able to give others joy when I consider their tastes. So I take my own (actually quite extreme) desire for experimentation, my own sense of aesthetics, and find where that overlaps with people's tastes. It's a hybridization. Not top-down, or bottom-up.
My argument is that most people, being essentially prosocial, gain the most fulfilment when they incorporate the tastes of others. And sometimes, our value system can make us feel less fulfilled. In this case, I believe that the value system of 'ignoring the approval of others' makes most people feel less fulfilled.
Simply put, it's like sex: the best sex is simultaneously self-focused and other-focused. I view art exactly the same.
Talking about "what is art" gets foggy quickly! One more post from me.
The original point about isolation is simple. It can be good for the creative process. That's not a controversial idea. Writers often get away, painters hide out in their studios. It doesn't mean they don't routinely draw inspiration from their social worlds.
By tapping into your own humanity, you tap into the joy of others. Your tastes will likely be shared by others. So in satisfying your own taste, you will be satisfying others. This can all be done in complete social isolation!
> I consider their tastes
Okay cool, but generally artists don't know the taste of their audience, other than they like art. That's why artists get nervous showing their work, because you're baring soul. The tastes and joy in others isn't relevant for the creative process that aligns with raw "truth-telling" artistic pursuits. Pleasing others is a nice secondary consequence of whatever you created, but when pleasing others is a key driver of the creative process, you might be limiting your work.
Here’s a delightfully pessimistic answer: The moment I reached 10 years in the field, unhappy with every development job I’ve had. I realised I’m built for it because I don’t have the capacity to escape from it.
Go watch any long-form interview with him, such as with Lex Fridman. It becomes rather clear that he wants to be more like how Steve Jobs is seen by the wider public: as an innovator and pioneer, not as a power-hungry moneymaker.