I'm not sure how one could possibly interpret any of my statements as being condescending towards art, so perhaps the problem is your inability to understand th

I'm not sure how one could possibly interpret any of my statements as being condescending towards art, so perhaps the problem is your inability to understand the topic at hand rather than my "condescending attitude". Like I've pointed out numerous times, I like things beyond the sciences, like every other human being on this planet. Lawyers don't just do law, they listen to music, they play sports. People don't do just one thing. You mentioned that I didn't read poetry in college. You're right. As a matter of fact, I didn't complete college. I got out after a year. So if you wouldn't mind keeping your presumptions to yourself, that would be great. Like I have said before, economics is king. You have acknowledged that your narrow idea of "art" is not economically viable. In the normal definition of art, which encompasses music, dance, film, orchestral performance, design, etc, I'm sorry but you have to be living under a rock to imply that people don't pursue these fields. So after reading your post I'm convinced your gripe is not math, it's not science, it's not history, and it's not literature. It's that people aren't paying tens of thousands of dollars to go to college to study what is really just an interest. Where the author's post reflected some one-dimensional, condescending view of people who don't just draw all day - essentially the artsy equivalent of "you haven't read Ulysses? well poo-poo you my illiterate friend" - your posts reflect a condescending view towards people who don't share your singular world view of "art". The fundamental argument, to put it as simply as I can, has been that the cornerstone of our education system has rested in the classics, literature, and art. That is what you need to be considered cultured and creative and educated. Knowledge of the liberal arts (which by the definition of the word should include the maths and sciences) has been restricted to those fields. One doesn't tell people one can't read and feel proud of oneself. When one finds out you haven't read the Iliad, or you even deign to ask what "post-structuralism" is to our "intelligentsia" you are looked down on like an uneducated bonehead who has been living under a rock. To proclaim a lack of understanding of basic algebra, OTOH is almost a badge of honor. So again, you seem to be conflating economic viability with societal cachet. So really, the only thing I've gotten out of your posts is "my singular vision of art is not necessarily economically sustainable, and I'm angry that people don't pursue it as a career". Furthermore, I did not "stigmat[ize] the creation of art as "doodling", I was calling into question your premise that because math is made compulsory for basic education in schools and art isn't, it reflects some general societal respect for sciences. Before the 1930's and 40's if an American wanted to do real research, they usually had to go to Europe. Even our highest of institutions looked down on research as being inappropriate for universities. Today, this disdain for the theoretical still lies in our culture. So why the giant about face vis-a-vis research? It became economically viable after the war, but especially during the space race. I became a programmer because that was a skill I had that I could make money with. I provided value because someone wanted to buy what I made. People become lawyers, doctors, engineers, historians, designers, etc because those are skills they have that they can assuredly provide value to other people with. Now if someone thought my piano playing was so beautiful that she would pay my rent just for me to play all day long, I'd become a pianist. It doesn't mean I love programming less, neither does me being a programmer mean I love piano and poetry less. So I feel you have to come to terms with the fact that what one does as a career is not an all-encompassing definition of who one is. In any case, the argument is not about careers, it's about a backwards, self-serving definition of creativity being purported by people who are upset that their privileged cachet to the use of that word, without question is being threatened by the "analytical baby killers".