Zooming out, I think that were you to graph happiness levels vs. intelligence across the population, you'd get an inverted U shape. Hence the tortured artist trope. (Realize I'm making a leap here on mainly anecdotal evidence. There are a few small studies on this but nothing I feel so confident as to link to.)
A negative worldview is what pushes us forward - the people who can envision the difference between an ideal and what society currently looks like are the ones who affect change in the world.
If anything shouldn't that make us pay more attention to his outlook? The "I've seen the top and the world still sucks" point of view is pretty compelling to me.
>"Glover, 30, says he has been feeling down of late – though he shies away from describing his current state as depressed. 'If I’m depressed, everybody’s depressed,' he says. 'I don’t think those feelings are that different from what everybody’s feeling. Most people just don’t tell everybody.'"
In any case, I have a hard time with the idea that we should dismiss somebody's critique of the world because they're upset about the world.
When I first heard Kanye's "New Slaves" I thought I was learning something profound about the black experience. But if you watch his interviews on the song the whole thing is about his fking clothing line. I still like Kanye and I still like "New Slaves" but I like them for how I see them and not how they are. I think I feel the same way about Atlanta now.
Glover's opinions on race and society are just...stupid. He reminds me of "Darius". Even if he's right it doesn't seem like he's given it much thought.
I only mean to say this interview didn't do him any favors from one person's perspective.
It can be both of these things. Postmodernism weaves commerce, irony, and sincerity together, for better or worse.
“But Ryan Coogler said the most real-as-fuck shit to me about it. He said, ‘It sounds like you’re not ready to get off the couch.’ ”
There are a few good non celebrities we should be listening to. Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson's, etc. Highly educated, high signal to noise, experts in their fields and not fking celebrities (at least not originally).
I have nothing to gain by listening to a performers opinion about anything outside of what they perform in. I don't think these are smart people.
If someone is talking about a personal experience, why can't that be valuable to see another perspective?
You can get Zimbardo talking about how Evil people aren't always evil, but sometimes evil due to their environment, and then you can see that reflected in art like Atlanta where characters are robbing their friends because they need resources to survive. Then you can hear a song by The Animals that shows the narrative across eras and ethnicity.
Is this an "art isn't valuable" sort of option or "artists I don't like make art I don't like" sort of thing?
Okay, Got it. If you can't see why art is useful, I'm not going to try and waste time debating you. Good luck fighting the capitalists.
Not sure why you thought I am sitting here waiting to "debate" you. This is just my opinion. Please don't take an abstract opinion so personally.
Doesn't are reality then get warped by whatever people have the biggest megaphone for their personal experiences?
What about conflicting statistics? How do you decide which is better? Answer: a deeply complex personal series of metrics, built on your opinion of logic.
There's no perfect choice tree for a person. You're always affected by emotion. You can try and pretend that doesn't exist, or you could use it, but you can't eliminate it.
He has a PhD in Neuroscience, but he's become so disconnected from the field I'd say it's ridiculous to think he's an expert in it. Even if this expertise is granted, Harris spends so little time in his life talking about Neuro it's of little relevance.
In this noisy world that we find ourselves in today, one MUST cultivate critical thinking skills.
I don't trust phds because they "sound smart". Indeed, true smartness lies in simplifying complex concepts without much loss of information. I know the types of faux intellects you are referring to. Beware of them.
I trust phds more because my prior on their ability to use critical thinking is much higher than a Hollywood dimwit who is paid to express emotions in people.
It is still your job to trust, but verify. It is just easier to verify logically sound arguments or insights.