My wife's father gave her one of the best pieces of advice I can think of on this subject:
You need to pursue a career that people are willing to pay you for.
"Meanwhile, we’ve spent decades ironizing the trappings of both middle-class respectability and white-collar success, representing the former as boring and conformist and the latter as exploitative and selfish."
Really? What is wrong with respectability and conformism? And if white collar success is exploitative and selfish, what about these insane narcissistic influencers and celebrities in this generation who think every facet of their lives needs to be broadcast on social media?
I say find a career or vocation that people will pay you for, and if you want to pursue art, music, whatever, have at it as a hobby. If you get really good and can make a living, go for it. It's called
I am so happy to see Freddie cover this topic. It is one of my favorites related to explaining our social and economic challenges.
I worked in blue collar physical jobs before I got interested in computers and business and converted to a professional class worker. Now, some of my family and friends tell me that I was always too intelligent to work in careers of physical labor. I laugh at that noting some of my friends that did not go to college and now own contracting companies where they make more money than me.
In one business I own I hire C4 certified pipe welders that bill $150 per hour. Those welders drive nice vehicles, live in nice homes and take nice vacations.
I am reading Ian McGilchrist’s book The Master and Its Emissary that covers the left vs right brain topic. I think another related consideration is that as our economy has migrated away from product manufacturing and related services to become largely one focused on entertainment, too many people are duped by their entertainment feeds to think they are talented enough to be entitled to making a living and then fame for their talent.
Just go on YouTube and watch travel Vlogs. 98% of them are crap. The 2% worth watching are done by people with talent, skills and knowledge. But ask around and you will discover that millions of young people think they too can make a living traveling and video-recording their experience.
Yes creating artistic content has never been cheaper or easier, but the talent pool has not really changed. Artistic success has always been a pyramid and will always be a pyramid where there is a small population of truly talented people at the top, and the rest of us need to find a job making some widgets.
Mostly, I strongly agree with you. However, in some important respects, technology has actually made the situation worse. In 1870, if you wanted to listen to music, the music had to be live. This created a large market for musicians who weren't the best of their era, but could perform. After recording was invented, only the best musicians had any hope of surviving.
The same now holds for YouTube, Spotify, TikTok, Instagram, etc. If you aren't Taylor Swift, you have no market.
I think the Pyramid is larger and maybe a slightly different shape, and there is definitely an increase in mastery of musical instruments (there are astounding guitar players today that only 20 years ago would have been seen as sensations, but today they are in a sea of others just as amazing), but artistic talent is artistic talent.
Now there are some that just make it from hard work and luck... but without having the genetic traits of top artistic talent. But Taylor Swift was born with that top level artistic talent and she managed to have all the other things needed to make her mega-successful.
One big issue is the lack of time to consume the art that so many want to make. You can only play music so fast, and appreciation comes even more slowly.
I think this issue is tied into the problem that society does not properly appreciate the creative character if may jobs, for example construction. Skilled workers cannot get through the day without addressing numerous issues that require novel solutions. If done properly these are never noticed because the product silently stands and functions.
The phrase 'starving artist' has always been around. Indeed, I have probably used the phrase more than once. What is different is that society (and each individual) blamed their hunger (as starving artists) on their own failures. Now society is to blame. That is different and (as the author points out) destructive as well.
A related point is that ordinary jobs are no longer esteemed. At one time, a coal miner (this is not about climate change, use school teacher if you would prefer) could take pride in his work. What about now? At one time, the US (and other countries) had an entire political party (in the US, the Democrats) who were essentially blue-collar. Now both US parties are quite white-collar. Indeed, the Democrats may be more white-collar than the Republicans.
I ‘ve known many coal miners. They are proud that they are tough enough to be coal miners. Extra points if you’re second or third generation coal miner!
Actually, if you type "coal miner proud of their work" into Google you will get 9.6 million hits. The first hit reads "I am a retired coal miner and very proud of that work!". Indeed, Etsy has many "Proud to be a coal miner" products.
Not to mention those proud to be a coal miner's daughter (or son, for that matter). RIP, Loretta. I am an Appalachian, and can testify that you voiced the feelings of many.
My kids watched Disney Channel in the 90s and early 2000s. Every Disney Channel Original Movie had a similar theme: the kid wanted to be a creative, or pro athlete, or something cool, and had to fight against their mean old dense parents to pursue it. In the end the parents always came around, and all was good. The tag line for the Disney Commercials was “FOLLOW YOUR DREAMS!”
Is there a unified theory that can accommodate your piece here ("It’s hard to see a future without a large number of young people who will settle for nothing but artistic success") AND the recent New Yorker essay about the precipitous drop in college humanities majors because everyone wants a steady job writing code? I am interested.
If what you mean by "elite" is people who go to college then, yes, there are far more of those than high-paying career openings. But if we're talking about a natural elite of those with outstanding innate intellectual capability overproduction of same is hardly the problem! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000470
The question is, were the Victorians born that way as opposed to modern people, or have we just eliminated critical thinking our of our modern society?
It's the result of a trend that could be called "reverse evolution," which is a result of dysgenic fertility.
Over the course of thousands of generations the mean intelligence of our hominid forebears (as indicated by brain capacity, among other things) had gradually and substantially increased -- which could only occur if those of less innate intellectual capability had fewer offspring survive to adulthood than those who were more intelligent. That reproductive skew was attenuated in the 19th century by improvement in the lot of the poor and medical advancements that reduced infant mortality. It was completely flipped in the 20th century in the US and other First World countries, due mainly to the advent of convenient and effective means of birth control and the associated rise of modern women's lib -- i.e., not merely agitation for female legal equality ala the suffragettes but the idea that women should seek fulfillment and social status through career advancement rather than through marriage and raising children. As potential for career advancement (and prerequisite educational attainment) is positively correlated with innate intelligence, the most intelligent women had the most to gain by pursuing elite careers, postponing child-bearing while seeking advanced degrees and vying for promotion in fulltime working careers. Consequently they have fewer children than women whose intellectual limitations preclude any realistic hope of earning a bachelor's degree from a selective college, let alone obtaining a postgraduate degree that would enable them to pursue an elite career. In "The Bell Curve," first published in 1994, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein noted that there was a reverse correlation between female educational attainment and childbearing. The median lifetime birthrate of female high-school dropouts in the US was well above replacement level (i.e., 2.1 children); that of women who graduated from high school but did not go to college was at about replacement level; that of those who went to college but did not earn degrees was below replacement level; that of those who got 4-year degrees but did not go on to grad school was still less; and that of those with postgraduate degrees was lowest of all. If you can convince yourself that there's no correlation between innate female intelligence and educational attainment you can dismiss concern about a dysgenic trend and consequent decline in mean population intelligence. Good luck with that!
Right. Of course some do, but median lifetime childbearing by women of above-average intelligence falls well short of replacement level, and the shortfall widens toward the upper end of the intelligence distribution.
Interesting. But if you add this to a deterioration in education, and dumbing down from excess of media exposure, we have some real intelligence problems.
I don't doubt there's been deterioration in the quality of education, which is only to be expected if mean population intelligence has been steadily declining.
A related (closely related) point is that the US has turned its collective back on "blue-collar" jobs. These days the US imports illegals (and legal immigrants) to get necessary work done. The decline of "shop" in high schools is one metric of this social change. A typical article is "The Death of Shop Class: The History and Decline" (https://solutions.dunnlumber.com/projects/the-death-of-shop-class-history-and-decline).
Years ago it was said of a lot of Third World countries that one of their problems as too many educated people and not enough suitable jobs, so unrest. Now it’s the United States. To paraphrase Fitzgerald and Hemingway, the rich countries are different from you and me - they have more money.
Freddie, thanks for the article. There are many insightful and valid points mentioned regarding status, productivity and desires. As a social entrepreneur and "creative" (or creative class) person I can share my experience with finding it difficult to earn enough money from time to time. One of my colleagues has written this article about how things can be for the poorer parts of the creative class around the world.
My wife's father gave her one of the best pieces of advice I can think of on this subject:
You need to pursue a career that people are willing to pay you for.
"Meanwhile, we’ve spent decades ironizing the trappings of both middle-class respectability and white-collar success, representing the former as boring and conformist and the latter as exploitative and selfish."
Really? What is wrong with respectability and conformism? And if white collar success is exploitative and selfish, what about these insane narcissistic influencers and celebrities in this generation who think every facet of their lives needs to be broadcast on social media?
I say find a career or vocation that people will pay you for, and if you want to pursue art, music, whatever, have at it as a hobby. If you get really good and can make a living, go for it. It's called
"working".
I am so happy to see Freddie cover this topic. It is one of my favorites related to explaining our social and economic challenges.
I worked in blue collar physical jobs before I got interested in computers and business and converted to a professional class worker. Now, some of my family and friends tell me that I was always too intelligent to work in careers of physical labor. I laugh at that noting some of my friends that did not go to college and now own contracting companies where they make more money than me.
In one business I own I hire C4 certified pipe welders that bill $150 per hour. Those welders drive nice vehicles, live in nice homes and take nice vacations.
I am reading Ian McGilchrist’s book The Master and Its Emissary that covers the left vs right brain topic. I think another related consideration is that as our economy has migrated away from product manufacturing and related services to become largely one focused on entertainment, too many people are duped by their entertainment feeds to think they are talented enough to be entitled to making a living and then fame for their talent.
Just go on YouTube and watch travel Vlogs. 98% of them are crap. The 2% worth watching are done by people with talent, skills and knowledge. But ask around and you will discover that millions of young people think they too can make a living traveling and video-recording their experience.
Yes creating artistic content has never been cheaper or easier, but the talent pool has not really changed. Artistic success has always been a pyramid and will always be a pyramid where there is a small population of truly talented people at the top, and the rest of us need to find a job making some widgets.
Mostly, I strongly agree with you. However, in some important respects, technology has actually made the situation worse. In 1870, if you wanted to listen to music, the music had to be live. This created a large market for musicians who weren't the best of their era, but could perform. After recording was invented, only the best musicians had any hope of surviving.
The same now holds for YouTube, Spotify, TikTok, Instagram, etc. If you aren't Taylor Swift, you have no market.
I think the Pyramid is larger and maybe a slightly different shape, and there is definitely an increase in mastery of musical instruments (there are astounding guitar players today that only 20 years ago would have been seen as sensations, but today they are in a sea of others just as amazing), but artistic talent is artistic talent.
Now there are some that just make it from hard work and luck... but without having the genetic traits of top artistic talent. But Taylor Swift was born with that top level artistic talent and she managed to have all the other things needed to make her mega-successful.
One big issue is the lack of time to consume the art that so many want to make. You can only play music so fast, and appreciation comes even more slowly.
I think this issue is tied into the problem that society does not properly appreciate the creative character if may jobs, for example construction. Skilled workers cannot get through the day without addressing numerous issues that require novel solutions. If done properly these are never noticed because the product silently stands and functions.
The phrase 'starving artist' has always been around. Indeed, I have probably used the phrase more than once. What is different is that society (and each individual) blamed their hunger (as starving artists) on their own failures. Now society is to blame. That is different and (as the author points out) destructive as well.
A related point is that ordinary jobs are no longer esteemed. At one time, a coal miner (this is not about climate change, use school teacher if you would prefer) could take pride in his work. What about now? At one time, the US (and other countries) had an entire political party (in the US, the Democrats) who were essentially blue-collar. Now both US parties are quite white-collar. Indeed, the Democrats may be more white-collar than the Republicans.
What evidence is there that coal miners were ever proud of their occupation?
I ‘ve known many coal miners. They are proud that they are tough enough to be coal miners. Extra points if you’re second or third generation coal miner!
Actually, if you type "coal miner proud of their work" into Google you will get 9.6 million hits. The first hit reads "I am a retired coal miner and very proud of that work!". Indeed, Etsy has many "Proud to be a coal miner" products.
Not to mention those proud to be a coal miner's daughter (or son, for that matter). RIP, Loretta. I am an Appalachian, and can testify that you voiced the feelings of many.
My kids watched Disney Channel in the 90s and early 2000s. Every Disney Channel Original Movie had a similar theme: the kid wanted to be a creative, or pro athlete, or something cool, and had to fight against their mean old dense parents to pursue it. In the end the parents always came around, and all was good. The tag line for the Disney Commercials was “FOLLOW YOUR DREAMS!”
It should be "Follow your Dreams, but keep sight on reality"
Get grounded and get real - says the guy who still believes in socialism.
Is there a unified theory that can accommodate your piece here ("It’s hard to see a future without a large number of young people who will settle for nothing but artistic success") AND the recent New Yorker essay about the precipitous drop in college humanities majors because everyone wants a steady job writing code? I am interested.
If what you mean by "elite" is people who go to college then, yes, there are far more of those than high-paying career openings. But if we're talking about a natural elite of those with outstanding innate intellectual capability overproduction of same is hardly the problem! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000470
The question is, were the Victorians born that way as opposed to modern people, or have we just eliminated critical thinking our of our modern society?
It's the result of a trend that could be called "reverse evolution," which is a result of dysgenic fertility.
Over the course of thousands of generations the mean intelligence of our hominid forebears (as indicated by brain capacity, among other things) had gradually and substantially increased -- which could only occur if those of less innate intellectual capability had fewer offspring survive to adulthood than those who were more intelligent. That reproductive skew was attenuated in the 19th century by improvement in the lot of the poor and medical advancements that reduced infant mortality. It was completely flipped in the 20th century in the US and other First World countries, due mainly to the advent of convenient and effective means of birth control and the associated rise of modern women's lib -- i.e., not merely agitation for female legal equality ala the suffragettes but the idea that women should seek fulfillment and social status through career advancement rather than through marriage and raising children. As potential for career advancement (and prerequisite educational attainment) is positively correlated with innate intelligence, the most intelligent women had the most to gain by pursuing elite careers, postponing child-bearing while seeking advanced degrees and vying for promotion in fulltime working careers. Consequently they have fewer children than women whose intellectual limitations preclude any realistic hope of earning a bachelor's degree from a selective college, let alone obtaining a postgraduate degree that would enable them to pursue an elite career. In "The Bell Curve," first published in 1994, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein noted that there was a reverse correlation between female educational attainment and childbearing. The median lifetime birthrate of female high-school dropouts in the US was well above replacement level (i.e., 2.1 children); that of women who graduated from high school but did not go to college was at about replacement level; that of those who went to college but did not earn degrees was below replacement level; that of those who got 4-year degrees but did not go on to grad school was still less; and that of those with postgraduate degrees was lowest of all. If you can convince yourself that there's no correlation between innate female intelligence and educational attainment you can dismiss concern about a dysgenic trend and consequent decline in mean population intelligence. Good luck with that!
In other words- intelligent women aren’t having kids?
Right. Of course some do, but median lifetime childbearing by women of above-average intelligence falls well short of replacement level, and the shortfall widens toward the upper end of the intelligence distribution.
Interesting. But if you add this to a deterioration in education, and dumbing down from excess of media exposure, we have some real intelligence problems.
I don't doubt there's been deterioration in the quality of education, which is only to be expected if mean population intelligence has been steadily declining.
A related (closely related) point is that the US has turned its collective back on "blue-collar" jobs. These days the US imports illegals (and legal immigrants) to get necessary work done. The decline of "shop" in high schools is one metric of this social change. A typical article is "The Death of Shop Class: The History and Decline" (https://solutions.dunnlumber.com/projects/the-death-of-shop-class-history-and-decline).
Years ago it was said of a lot of Third World countries that one of their problems as too many educated people and not enough suitable jobs, so unrest. Now it’s the United States. To paraphrase Fitzgerald and Hemingway, the rich countries are different from you and me - they have more money.
Freddie, thanks for the article. There are many insightful and valid points mentioned regarding status, productivity and desires. As a social entrepreneur and "creative" (or creative class) person I can share my experience with finding it difficult to earn enough money from time to time. One of my colleagues has written this article about how things can be for the poorer parts of the creative class around the world.
https://metamoderna.org/hackers-hipsters-hippies/