> people who are really good at things do them because they like them
This, I think, is wrong. A myth at best, flat out untrue empirically, and very misleading at worst.
What you need is a positive feedback loop. The nature of that feedback look probably DOES play a role in the rate of success as well as the qualities of the resulting outcome. But the positive feedback loop is the driver, and while it can be borne of liking what you do (which again must split into very different kinds of scenarios!), it can also be slavish, devoid of the satisfaction of self-realization.
Young kids want to please their parents, this I postulate as a fact here. Complicated, maybe, but another discussion. The most common start of a prodigy is simply parents or other important adults praising the kid for whatever they happen to naturally do. Praise is what ignites the natural talent. Mozart didn't play the violin because "he liked it". He probably did though, because by playing well, he received praise. Self-realization is not prominent on a 5-year-old's hierarchy of needs.
> Making good art requires having a long attention span and an appreciation for the thing-in-itself
As for art, the traditional source of praise would be a mentor of sorts, an older master or a sensei. It could be your parents, but... let's just say, I beat my dad in chess when I was 6, and I didn't much respect him since, intellectually (later I've learned to appreciate different kinds of people, but kids can be like that). If you're lucky, your parents are your artistic masters as well (like for Mozart), but it's by no means necessary: the sensei can be any adult person taking note of properly ignited natural talent.
The positive feedback loop then shifts naturally from praise from parents (who will praise you, really no matter what you did) to praise from the masters. And the masters, knowing what True Art™ is, only dish out praise when the apprentice's work approaches that vision. And when the artist surpasses their masters, this way of working has already been ingrained: chasing a vision, appreciating the "thing-in-itself", even if now it's your own vision and you no longer need that feedback loop.
The feedback loop may just as well be money: you do it, you get paid, you indulge your passions in your free time. How many senior software engineers go to the work every morning for the thing-in-itself?
The feedback loop may be praise from the public, stroking the need for validation that many young people have. When a 13-year-old video maker breaks in Youtube, the positive feedback loop is a mass of people (who have no natural reason to care for the well-being of the video maker...), and while this may work just as well as "directed praise", the dynamic and also the end-result are going to look very different.
I can imagine it's common that an 8-year-old would watch the 13-year-old tube celebrity and develop a sort of "virtual older sibling" relationship, much like with the pop idols of the past. With the added bonus, of course, that the idol will actually answer their comments and read out loud their chat messages (unlike the past pop idols who would receive a million letters, handled by their managers). The feedback loop then becomes a 13-year-old stroking the feel-good receptors of a mass of 8-year-olds. I can imagine this – instead of developing a direction towards a vision – simply running directionless in a spiral that occasionally bumps to limits of moderation, laws, or propriety.
I'm a zoomer (16M), low attention span, started reading the article but scrolled forward a bit because I got bored. I then saw the attention span heading and felt pretty called out. Had to read it word-by word.
Anecdotally, and based on my experiences with other teenagers, I agree with all your points, and admittedly it's pretty bad.
I don't think we've become more conservative, it's just that there's no incentive to participate in risky behavior (e.g. asking someone out) when social media makes sex and dopamine so accessible. We don't do risky stuff but there's no evidence of an increase in impulse control. We're just pacified, docile cattle.
would note people in tech, becoming more status seeking, could be just the consolidation of the industry. Before tech was big the only people who opted for it had an honest interest in tecnology, nerds, but with the computer\internet it became high-status, thus it started to attract status-seekers
Zoomers are the first generation since WW2 without their own music subculture. The last major new ones were the emo and the hipsters, both populated by millenials and based on older trends like the goths. We also witness endless recycling of older music and fashion trends. Pop culture is stuck in a swamp of postmodern slop awkwardly combining past trends so it's hard to see how a genius could even manifest now. Add to this lack of originality the cult of ugliness and we have a pop culture that is very forgettable.
Even online culture is less vibrant now than it was a decade ago at the peak of 4chan and r/the_Donald due to online censorship and cancel culture.
I don't actually see anime and kpop as foreign. In many cases they are more of a continuation of past western cultural trends than american pop culture which is anti-western and somehow both crass and anti-beauty at the same time. Anime usually avoids that and can be even appreciative of traditional western aesthetics in a way that is taboo in the West. Kpop is obsessed with beauty contrasting with the mid looks of most western stars.
A couple of years ago it looked like AI will provide new venues of artistic experimentation but the cultural backlash from the gatekeepers and the deluge of slop led to AI tools being disregarded and abandoned by the most creative types.
I've made this point before but our era reminds me of Paris as described in 19th century novels of Maupassant, Balzac. The promise of riches, ambition, social mobility -- if you think about it, there is an unprecedented amount of people in content creation, podcasting, YouTubing, etc, from lower class backgrounds; unlike the 20th century, where career tracks were more rigid. This possibility of social mobility makes status more visible. Conversely, downward mobility is stronger as well, and many nominally elite find themselves in a lower social class than their class of origin.
Hi, Sebastian! I have some questions which are not related to this topic, but may be interesting to your viewers as I do not know if they are usually brought up on hereditarian circles.
1. Can you change your genetic code or at least some of it through your action?
For example, if you read a lot of books and force yourself to think in new ways, adopt new mindsets in problem-solving, learning, etc. will you make a difference to your intelligence, which as argued by many is highly genetic.
Or if we look at physical activities and diet. Are you more likely not to have some illness programmed in your DNA, when you exercise and eat diverse and rich in nutrients food?
2. Excuses about non action.
Is it a fallacy to say that I cannot do something because of my biology?
Many times people defend themselves with phrases like "I have inherited X, Y, and Z from my parents. It's just the way it is!" Exactly how much control do we have on our own destiny based on our own unique genes and actions?
3. What determines our ceiling?
I have seen a graph often shared by hereditarians that people with 120+ IQ learn forever, while people with less have ceilings (it was about education if I recall correctly). Can we breakthrough our own limitations or this is just a myth?
4. This is maybe the best one. Can you tell me mistakes - frequent and occasional, made by scientists in your circle like Ed Dutton, Genetic Pfiller, E. O. Kirkegaard or others? If I am not mistaken, Gruev tweated that Kirkegaard makes statistical mistakes, misinterprets data and so on. Will you share if they also sometimes underplay environment?
5. What other questions do you think are left unanswered by scientists like you on the importance of environment on your outcomes and abilities?
I just want to add that I sometimes read what hereditarians say on such issues and I find myself accepting their views as opposed to environmentalists like Sasha Gruev, but I am quick to point out that I am not well read on science, and so I cannot fully understand all your arguments, however I hope to change this in the future.
> people who are really good at things do them because they like them
This, I think, is wrong. A myth at best, flat out untrue empirically, and very misleading at worst.
What you need is a positive feedback loop. The nature of that feedback look probably DOES play a role in the rate of success as well as the qualities of the resulting outcome. But the positive feedback loop is the driver, and while it can be borne of liking what you do (which again must split into very different kinds of scenarios!), it can also be slavish, devoid of the satisfaction of self-realization.
Young kids want to please their parents, this I postulate as a fact here. Complicated, maybe, but another discussion. The most common start of a prodigy is simply parents or other important adults praising the kid for whatever they happen to naturally do. Praise is what ignites the natural talent. Mozart didn't play the violin because "he liked it". He probably did though, because by playing well, he received praise. Self-realization is not prominent on a 5-year-old's hierarchy of needs.
> Making good art requires having a long attention span and an appreciation for the thing-in-itself
As for art, the traditional source of praise would be a mentor of sorts, an older master or a sensei. It could be your parents, but... let's just say, I beat my dad in chess when I was 6, and I didn't much respect him since, intellectually (later I've learned to appreciate different kinds of people, but kids can be like that). If you're lucky, your parents are your artistic masters as well (like for Mozart), but it's by no means necessary: the sensei can be any adult person taking note of properly ignited natural talent.
The positive feedback loop then shifts naturally from praise from parents (who will praise you, really no matter what you did) to praise from the masters. And the masters, knowing what True Art™ is, only dish out praise when the apprentice's work approaches that vision. And when the artist surpasses their masters, this way of working has already been ingrained: chasing a vision, appreciating the "thing-in-itself", even if now it's your own vision and you no longer need that feedback loop.
The feedback loop may just as well be money: you do it, you get paid, you indulge your passions in your free time. How many senior software engineers go to the work every morning for the thing-in-itself?
The feedback loop may be praise from the public, stroking the need for validation that many young people have. When a 13-year-old video maker breaks in Youtube, the positive feedback loop is a mass of people (who have no natural reason to care for the well-being of the video maker...), and while this may work just as well as "directed praise", the dynamic and also the end-result are going to look very different.
I can imagine it's common that an 8-year-old would watch the 13-year-old tube celebrity and develop a sort of "virtual older sibling" relationship, much like with the pop idols of the past. With the added bonus, of course, that the idol will actually answer their comments and read out loud their chat messages (unlike the past pop idols who would receive a million letters, handled by their managers). The feedback loop then becomes a 13-year-old stroking the feel-good receptors of a mass of 8-year-olds. I can imagine this – instead of developing a direction towards a vision – simply running directionless in a spiral that occasionally bumps to limits of moderation, laws, or propriety.
I'm a zoomer (16M), low attention span, started reading the article but scrolled forward a bit because I got bored. I then saw the attention span heading and felt pretty called out. Had to read it word-by word.
Anecdotally, and based on my experiences with other teenagers, I agree with all your points, and admittedly it's pretty bad.
I don't think we've become more conservative, it's just that there's no incentive to participate in risky behavior (e.g. asking someone out) when social media makes sex and dopamine so accessible. We don't do risky stuff but there's no evidence of an increase in impulse control. We're just pacified, docile cattle.
would note people in tech, becoming more status seeking, could be just the consolidation of the industry. Before tech was big the only people who opted for it had an honest interest in tecnology, nerds, but with the computer\internet it became high-status, thus it started to attract status-seekers
Zoomers are the first generation since WW2 without their own music subculture. The last major new ones were the emo and the hipsters, both populated by millenials and based on older trends like the goths. We also witness endless recycling of older music and fashion trends. Pop culture is stuck in a swamp of postmodern slop awkwardly combining past trends so it's hard to see how a genius could even manifest now. Add to this lack of originality the cult of ugliness and we have a pop culture that is very forgettable.
Even online culture is less vibrant now than it was a decade ago at the peak of 4chan and r/the_Donald due to online censorship and cancel culture.
I don't actually see anime and kpop as foreign. In many cases they are more of a continuation of past western cultural trends than american pop culture which is anti-western and somehow both crass and anti-beauty at the same time. Anime usually avoids that and can be even appreciative of traditional western aesthetics in a way that is taboo in the West. Kpop is obsessed with beauty contrasting with the mid looks of most western stars.
A couple of years ago it looked like AI will provide new venues of artistic experimentation but the cultural backlash from the gatekeepers and the deluge of slop led to AI tools being disregarded and abandoned by the most creative types.
I've made this point before but our era reminds me of Paris as described in 19th century novels of Maupassant, Balzac. The promise of riches, ambition, social mobility -- if you think about it, there is an unprecedented amount of people in content creation, podcasting, YouTubing, etc, from lower class backgrounds; unlike the 20th century, where career tracks were more rigid. This possibility of social mobility makes status more visible. Conversely, downward mobility is stronger as well, and many nominally elite find themselves in a lower social class than their class of origin.
Agree with your points, and would add that the obsession with status seems to be why Gen Z wants to avoid being cringe more than millennials did.
What are the best correlates of artistic/musical ability in your opinion?
g, high openness, and mental profile that is directed towards solving open problems (e.g. will AGI come, what shirt matches a given set of pants)
Hi, Sebastian! I have some questions which are not related to this topic, but may be interesting to your viewers as I do not know if they are usually brought up on hereditarian circles.
1. Can you change your genetic code or at least some of it through your action?
For example, if you read a lot of books and force yourself to think in new ways, adopt new mindsets in problem-solving, learning, etc. will you make a difference to your intelligence, which as argued by many is highly genetic.
Or if we look at physical activities and diet. Are you more likely not to have some illness programmed in your DNA, when you exercise and eat diverse and rich in nutrients food?
2. Excuses about non action.
Is it a fallacy to say that I cannot do something because of my biology?
Many times people defend themselves with phrases like "I have inherited X, Y, and Z from my parents. It's just the way it is!" Exactly how much control do we have on our own destiny based on our own unique genes and actions?
3. What determines our ceiling?
I have seen a graph often shared by hereditarians that people with 120+ IQ learn forever, while people with less have ceilings (it was about education if I recall correctly). Can we breakthrough our own limitations or this is just a myth?
4. This is maybe the best one. Can you tell me mistakes - frequent and occasional, made by scientists in your circle like Ed Dutton, Genetic Pfiller, E. O. Kirkegaard or others? If I am not mistaken, Gruev tweated that Kirkegaard makes statistical mistakes, misinterprets data and so on. Will you share if they also sometimes underplay environment?
5. What other questions do you think are left unanswered by scientists like you on the importance of environment on your outcomes and abilities?
I just want to add that I sometimes read what hereditarians say on such issues and I find myself accepting their views as opposed to environmentalists like Sasha Gruev, but I am quick to point out that I am not well read on science, and so I cannot fully understand all your arguments, however I hope to change this in the future.