Upon seeing the adult world in detail, teens often lament “But it’s all so boring!” And in a standard trope of fiction, a spark of art infuses life, energy, and vitality into dull adults whose lives have lost all meaning.
The strategy of concealing the signals given to predators (camouflage?) could be one explanation, but I think an interesting alternative explanation is that in a commercial society community relations are not as necessary as in a traditional society. I currently live in Brazil and it is curious that people in rural communities take an almost instinctive pleasure in being opinionated and sociable with other people; sometimes even inviting strangers into their homes to show off their personal possessions. My theory is that this is necessary in a small community like theirs to create bonds of trust and information sharing among its members (politics in the Aristotelian sense). In modern commercial societies, as Constant well noted, we are no longer subject to the "tyranny of the majority" of the Polis and it turns out that our obligation to have passionate bonds with others is no longer necessary to guarantee our freedom and well-being.
You forget those who go around provoking anger on purpose, and can afford it either because they have little to lose or because they have made a business out of it.I'm thinking of conservatives, but I'm sure you can find the liberal equivalent
I suppose I didn’t focus on that distinction because it seems like such a truism. Of course we don’t disclose as much in public or with acquaintances as we do in a clover circle. Even if we wanted to, it’s obviously impossible. Imagine trying to be as open and communicating as much with everyone as one does with their spouse or closest friend, for example. I think the scarcity of time, energy, and affinity explains an order of magnitude more of this effect than social predation.
Who said 'society is more hostile to interesting ideas than it used to be'? Neither I nor Hanson said that, nor is such a cross-temporal trend relevant to the within-person comparison. (The only cross-temporal comparison he invokes, medieval banditry, would suggest that society is *less* hostile, as one worries less about footpads and cutpurses today. And I personally think that society is less hostile, and this is in line with Hanson's farmer-forager paradigm.)
And yes, adult life can be rote, both in public and in private. (Doing house chores is hardly more vivifying than office chores.) This has always been true, and still doesn't explain why these worn-out automatons zombifying in front of the TV in private can, nevertheless, be more interesting in private than public.
Somewhere along the lines, I think some of these positions went from uber-rationalist to "here's a thought I had in the shower." Is there any actual evidence for this take?
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a solution at all, merely a just-so story. Are we actually talking about solving anything?
There's no reason to think society is more hostile to interesting ideas than it used to be. We are now much more accepting of sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, and niche lifestyles than we used to be.
Adult life is often somewhat rote. You have a job, you have kids, and you have various other responsibilities that tend to be repetitive. You may not have a lot of time or energy to be "interesting." Also, I suspect that a lot of people are bored with their own lives, leading to avoidance in the form of TV, gaming, drinking, or other forms of escapism. This becomes a vicious cycle because you can't really come up with anything interesting if you're busy avoiding dealing with life. I would argue that's the null hypothesis.
I like that theory about narcissists & anti-social psychopaths being easily bored. Like a spoiled kid in denial about adult life not being their playground. Ever.
Disclaimer: This was written before my Irish Coffee could even kick me awake. No warranties!***Dunno, but it reminds me of `trolling´. Boring = we are busy with something legal or legitimate. Lively = We seem flying high, better off, so being troll bait & kinda sharky test-bites happen. Outraged = Alike guerrilla warfare, we copycat what we learned from the bandits, trying to score with our very own foul play.
The way I understand the argument is that the reason ordinary people seem boring is because there are other people (bandits) out there to get them. Ergo, it's the fault of the environment, the public sphere, that everyone is so boring. But as you pointed out, this was always the case. Back then it was real bandits, now it's outraged people on Twitter. So, to me, it seems that what has actually changed is us - we've become more risk-averse and soft. Which is interesting if you consider that the most that happens for espousing "wrong" beliefs on the internet is that you get flamed. Sure, occasionally people lose jobs... but they don't get burned at a stake anymore. In other words, it seems that we live an environment where being interesting should actually be easier, yet very few people take the chance.
Explain the bell curve to me without explaining the bell curve.
Seeing gwern's thread below, I'll expand. 1) some people are more interesting than others and it probably correlates to intelligence (is interesting synonymous with creative?)2) the older people get, the more conservative and risk averse they become3) human institutions are naturally conformist, so taking an outside stance risks alienation which is bad for humans4) conformity has a strong psychological component in addition to the sociological pressures; it is hard to break away from fear and desire to not stand out; people are more afraid of public speaking than death so the joke goes
I think the point about "spark of art" is that art is risk in a lot of ways. You have something to say (presumably, something you don't currently see a lot of people saying) and you execute a technique to express it. It's exhilarating to partake in artistic expression if you've been conservatively staying in one lane for a long time.
The risks of non-conformity are probably overblown in much of the developed world but our brains are still wired to take it very seriously, hence the cognitive dissonance. I'm guessing a lot of behavioral therapy works along the same lines that even if I can rationalize newer, better behaviors, I still feel really apprehensive about engaging them.
Gwern's point about the private vs public differential is likely as Robin points out: there are too many social costs and not enough incentives. As T Cowen likes to say, context is that which is scarce.
Or maybe, Robin is just too interesting for his own good and can't believe there aren't more people like him to talk with.
The adult world is full of opportunities for excitement and passion, but they are easy to overlook in a society where caution is often the norm. However, with a bit of bravery and creativity, it is possible to bring colour and energy to the everyday. Those who dare to be lively and expressive in public are setting an example for others to follow and creating a more vibrant world for all of us.
Boring is as boring does....It's said that if you find people boring perhaps it's because you yourself are boring. Something to chew on. That said, I find lots of people just trying to get through the day which can often be challenging. Few people read much, contemplate, discuss or challenge others. It's the path of least resistance. So ya, I guess that can be boring.
Well, I agree that it's not a hard question because Hanson is offering what seems like a good solution. (And if you accept that solution, then sure, you can start to ask what amount of boringness it can account for: surely it doesn't account for 100% etc. But like the joke about prostitution, we are now just negotiating the price.)
It's only a hard question if you ignore the core example, and, like the comments I am criticizing like tyromania's, talk about only the peripheral examples and provide explanations which work only for the easy examples, while claiming to have solved it differently.
I edited a few times before you posted, e.g. I removed the wording "becomes more boring as they age."
You call it the hard question but it does not seem very hard to me. Hanson is right that some people have to hide interesting viewpoints because those viewpoints would get them attacked by "social bandits." He's right - but only a small percentage of adults actually have interesting viewpoints anyway. It takes a certain contrarian personality to cultivate original viewpoints, and a high level of intelligence to make them be interesting. Only a very small percentage of adults have that kind of personality. (And most adults who lack that personality wouldn't agree that those with it are "interesting"; they simply don't see the value in it).
So Hanson's explanation cannot answer the question of why the majority of adults are seen as boring. For that, other explanations, such as comparison of reality to fiction, are necessary.
The strategy of concealing the signals given to predators (camouflage?) could be one explanation, but I think an interesting alternative explanation is that in a commercial society community relations are not as necessary as in a traditional society. I currently live in Brazil and it is curious that people in rural communities take an almost instinctive pleasure in being opinionated and sociable with other people; sometimes even inviting strangers into their homes to show off their personal possessions. My theory is that this is necessary in a small community like theirs to create bonds of trust and information sharing among its members (politics in the Aristotelian sense). In modern commercial societies, as Constant well noted, we are no longer subject to the "tyranny of the majority" of the Polis and it turns out that our obligation to have passionate bonds with others is no longer necessary to guarantee our freedom and well-being.
Depressing. Going forward, I will try to be a bit less boring.
What's the mix of art/allies/energy? Given abundant resources, could one not nearly always choose lively and then eventually become elite?
You forget those who go around provoking anger on purpose, and can afford it either because they have little to lose or because they have made a business out of it.I'm thinking of conservatives, but I'm sure you can find the liberal equivalent
I suppose I didn’t focus on that distinction because it seems like such a truism. Of course we don’t disclose as much in public or with acquaintances as we do in a clover circle. Even if we wanted to, it’s obviously impossible. Imagine trying to be as open and communicating as much with everyone as one does with their spouse or closest friend, for example. I think the scarcity of time, energy, and affinity explains an order of magnitude more of this effect than social predation.
Who said 'society is more hostile to interesting ideas than it used to be'? Neither I nor Hanson said that, nor is such a cross-temporal trend relevant to the within-person comparison. (The only cross-temporal comparison he invokes, medieval banditry, would suggest that society is *less* hostile, as one worries less about footpads and cutpurses today. And I personally think that society is less hostile, and this is in line with Hanson's farmer-forager paradigm.)
And yes, adult life can be rote, both in public and in private. (Doing house chores is hardly more vivifying than office chores.) This has always been true, and still doesn't explain why these worn-out automatons zombifying in front of the TV in private can, nevertheless, be more interesting in private than public.
Somewhere along the lines, I think some of these positions went from uber-rationalist to "here's a thought I had in the shower." Is there any actual evidence for this take?
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a solution at all, merely a just-so story. Are we actually talking about solving anything?
There's no reason to think society is more hostile to interesting ideas than it used to be. We are now much more accepting of sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, and niche lifestyles than we used to be.
Adult life is often somewhat rote. You have a job, you have kids, and you have various other responsibilities that tend to be repetitive. You may not have a lot of time or energy to be "interesting." Also, I suspect that a lot of people are bored with their own lives, leading to avoidance in the form of TV, gaming, drinking, or other forms of escapism. This becomes a vicious cycle because you can't really come up with anything interesting if you're busy avoiding dealing with life. I would argue that's the null hypothesis.
I like that theory about narcissists & anti-social psychopaths being easily bored. Like a spoiled kid in denial about adult life not being their playground. Ever.
Disclaimer: This was written before my Irish Coffee could even kick me awake. No warranties!***Dunno, but it reminds me of `trolling´. Boring = we are busy with something legal or legitimate. Lively = We seem flying high, better off, so being troll bait & kinda sharky test-bites happen. Outraged = Alike guerrilla warfare, we copycat what we learned from the bandits, trying to score with our very own foul play.
The way I understand the argument is that the reason ordinary people seem boring is because there are other people (bandits) out there to get them. Ergo, it's the fault of the environment, the public sphere, that everyone is so boring. But as you pointed out, this was always the case. Back then it was real bandits, now it's outraged people on Twitter. So, to me, it seems that what has actually changed is us - we've become more risk-averse and soft. Which is interesting if you consider that the most that happens for espousing "wrong" beliefs on the internet is that you get flamed. Sure, occasionally people lose jobs... but they don't get burned at a stake anymore. In other words, it seems that we live an environment where being interesting should actually be easier, yet very few people take the chance.
Explain the bell curve to me without explaining the bell curve.
Seeing gwern's thread below, I'll expand. 1) some people are more interesting than others and it probably correlates to intelligence (is interesting synonymous with creative?)2) the older people get, the more conservative and risk averse they become3) human institutions are naturally conformist, so taking an outside stance risks alienation which is bad for humans4) conformity has a strong psychological component in addition to the sociological pressures; it is hard to break away from fear and desire to not stand out; people are more afraid of public speaking than death so the joke goes
I think the point about "spark of art" is that art is risk in a lot of ways. You have something to say (presumably, something you don't currently see a lot of people saying) and you execute a technique to express it. It's exhilarating to partake in artistic expression if you've been conservatively staying in one lane for a long time.
The risks of non-conformity are probably overblown in much of the developed world but our brains are still wired to take it very seriously, hence the cognitive dissonance. I'm guessing a lot of behavioral therapy works along the same lines that even if I can rationalize newer, better behaviors, I still feel really apprehensive about engaging them.
Gwern's point about the private vs public differential is likely as Robin points out: there are too many social costs and not enough incentives. As T Cowen likes to say, context is that which is scarce.
Or maybe, Robin is just too interesting for his own good and can't believe there aren't more people like him to talk with.
The adult world is full of opportunities for excitement and passion, but they are easy to overlook in a society where caution is often the norm. However, with a bit of bravery and creativity, it is possible to bring colour and energy to the everyday. Those who dare to be lively and expressive in public are setting an example for others to follow and creating a more vibrant world for all of us.
Boring is as boring does....It's said that if you find people boring perhaps it's because you yourself are boring. Something to chew on. That said, I find lots of people just trying to get through the day which can often be challenging. Few people read much, contemplate, discuss or challenge others. It's the path of least resistance. So ya, I guess that can be boring.
Well, I agree that it's not a hard question because Hanson is offering what seems like a good solution. (And if you accept that solution, then sure, you can start to ask what amount of boringness it can account for: surely it doesn't account for 100% etc. But like the joke about prostitution, we are now just negotiating the price.)
It's only a hard question if you ignore the core example, and, like the comments I am criticizing like tyromania's, talk about only the peripheral examples and provide explanations which work only for the easy examples, while claiming to have solved it differently.
I edited a few times before you posted, e.g. I removed the wording "becomes more boring as they age."
You call it the hard question but it does not seem very hard to me. Hanson is right that some people have to hide interesting viewpoints because those viewpoints would get them attacked by "social bandits." He's right - but only a small percentage of adults actually have interesting viewpoints anyway. It takes a certain contrarian personality to cultivate original viewpoints, and a high level of intelligence to make them be interesting. Only a very small percentage of adults have that kind of personality. (And most adults who lack that personality wouldn't agree that those with it are "interesting"; they simply don't see the value in it).
So Hanson's explanation cannot answer the question of why the majority of adults are seen as boring. For that, other explanations, such as comparison of reality to fiction, are necessary.