4 ms·

Okay, that's some wonky high brow elitism. I'm trying to break into fiction writing as a career and even though I'd like to prop up writing's value in society,

Okay, that's some wonky high brow elitism. I'm trying to break into fiction writing as a career and even though I'd like to prop up writing's value in society, you're going too far. First off, everyone needs fun hobbies to distract them from their day to day. While many gravitate to hobbies similar to their career, it should never be a requirement. Its whatever recharges your batteries. However you achieve that, whether chess, reading, woodworking or nature walks, it doesn't matter. Again, as a fiction writer, the academic elitism of it really pisses me off. Not all entertainment needs to broaden your horizons. It first has to entertain and make you lose track of the miserable real world. Teaching you something is second on the list. Not first. Shoving the "it must enrich you or it's not art" is the most heinous elitist gatekeeping there is. This is the exact reason people dont like reading. Being told, "you're not reading the right books" turns people off, thus will never read said books.

bostonsre 6y ago
> Shoving the "it must enrich you or it's not art" is the most heinous elitist gatekeeping there is. I'm not sure he said that it must enrich you or it isn't art. His point was whether or not the effort one puts into a particular thing saps or uses up intellectual intelligence of a person. Is the task a hamster wheel where no benefits are experienced by anyone other than the hamster or is the hamster wheel connected to a capacitor and providing electricity to the other hamsters. I don't see a reason to get into the elitist arguments. All of these activities fall somewhere on the spectrum of the amount of good provided to humanity. Closed loop activities that only recharge one's battery provide less benefit to humanity and can be said to sap or use up our intellectual intelligence. There is no elitism about this argument, it's just a 30k foot view of us hamsters and which ones use more or less intelligence that benefits the rest of the hamsters.
- Fern_Blossom 6y ago
  What is with this closed loop fascination? 100% of your time has to be devoted to benefiting humanity? I'm all for ranking certain careers and their value to society, but if someone who is apart of Doctors Without Borders likes to drink shitty Pats Blue Ribbon and watch a Kardashian show at the end of a long day... so? Whatever they have to do to ready for the next day with enthusiasm, who the fuck cares? Why does their relaxing, time off endeavor have to benefit someone else? Get off your Silicon Valley, always got to hustle hamster wheel. Go watch a sunset.
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    > 100% of your time has to be devoted to benefiting humanity? I don't see him saying that, or even implying it. Rather, he seems to be indicating that is a valid vector by which the activity can be rated. It is not the only thing it can be rated on, nor is it even necessarily _worth_ rating it on that. But it is a thing that can be discussed.
  - bostonsre 6y ago
    Where at all did I say you need to devote 100% of your time to humanity? Where at all did I say a person is better or worse than another based on how productive their intellectual interests are? Not sure my response deserves that much hostility. The original article is purely about whether or not eve online and similar pursuits burn intellect without any positive impact on society. I am on the nihilistic end of the tech spectrum. I made no argument that working on apps in their free time makes one better than one that spends their free time writing novels. The reality is that intellectual activities can have some meaningful benefit to humanity and some activities benefit humanity more than others. That is what the article is attempting to tease out and measure.
kiba 6y ago
Chess knowledge doesn't really transfer to anything else but chess as far as I know. Fiction can have the potential to broaden knowledge if only by making writers doing some research.

bostonsre 6y ago

> Shoving the "it must enrich you or it's not art" is the most heinous elitist gatekeeping there is. I'm not sure he said that it must enrich you or it isn't art. His point was whether or not the effort one puts into a particular thing saps or uses up intellectual intelligence of a person. Is the task a hamster wheel where no benefits are experienced by anyone other than the hamster or is the hamster wheel connected to a capacitor and providing electricity to the other hamsters. I don't see a reason to get into the elitist arguments. All of these activities fall somewhere on the spectrum of the amount of good provided to humanity. Closed loop activities that only recharge one's battery provide less benefit to humanity and can be said to sap or use up our intellectual intelligence. There is no elitism about this argument, it's just a 30k foot view of us hamsters and which ones use more or less intelligence that benefits the rest of the hamsters.

Fern_Blossom 6y ago
What is with this closed loop fascination? 100% of your time has to be devoted to benefiting humanity? I'm all for ranking certain careers and their value to society, but if someone who is apart of Doctors Without Borders likes to drink shitty Pats Blue Ribbon and watch a Kardashian show at the end of a long day... so? Whatever they have to do to ready for the next day with enthusiasm, who the fuck cares? Why does their relaxing, time off endeavor have to benefit someone else? Get off your Silicon Valley, always got to hustle hamster wheel. Go watch a sunset.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  > 100% of your time has to be devoted to benefiting humanity? I don't see him saying that, or even implying it. Rather, he seems to be indicating that is a valid vector by which the activity can be rated. It is not the only thing it can be rated on, nor is it even necessarily _worth_ rating it on that. But it is a thing that can be discussed.
- bostonsre 6y ago
  Where at all did I say you need to devote 100% of your time to humanity? Where at all did I say a person is better or worse than another based on how productive their intellectual interests are? Not sure my response deserves that much hostility. The original article is purely about whether or not eve online and similar pursuits burn intellect without any positive impact on society. I am on the nihilistic end of the tech spectrum. I made no argument that working on apps in their free time makes one better than one that spends their free time writing novels. The reality is that intellectual activities can have some meaningful benefit to humanity and some activities benefit humanity more than others. That is what the article is attempting to tease out and measure.

kiba 6y ago

Chess knowledge doesn't really transfer to anything else but chess as far as I know. Fiction can have the potential to broaden knowledge if only by making writers doing some research.