Artistic pursuits may be “upper-class”, but they are not unproductive. They serve to keep the upper classes practiced in physical cognition, counteracting a tendency to shift entirely into social modes of cognition (gossip and status-signaling games) as one ascends the social ladder.
I’m having trouble understanding this. Why do artistic pursuits constitute practice in physical cognition as opposed to social cognition? It seems obvious to me that artistic pursuits are (among other things) a type of status signaling, so I’m confused why you’re contrasting the two. Please explain?
With this level of resources (distributed in whatever way within a portfolio of financial, social, and intellectual capital), there is no excuse for conceiving oneself at any level below 4 of the Maslow hierarchy. Probably 5, really.
(Aside from not being sure how valid the Maslow hierarchy is) I agree with this. But I don’t see art/music/dance classes as a particularly good way to prepare most kids to fulfill their level 4 and 5 needs, mostly because there is too much competition from other parents pushing their kids into artistic pursuits. The amount of talent, time, and effort needed to achieve recognition or a feeling of accomplishment seem too high, compared to other possible pursuits.
Aside from not being sure how valid the Maslow hierarchy is
Basically, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a myth, and everyone would be better off forgetting about it entirely.
… critics point to dozens of counter-examples. What about the famished poet? Or the person who withdraws from society to become a hermit? Or the mountaineer who disregards safety in his determination to reach the summit?
Muddying things slightly, Maslow said that for some people, needs may appear in a different order or be absent altogether. Moreover, people felt a mix of needs from different levels at any one time, but they varied in degree.
There is a further problem with Maslow’s work. Margie Lachman, a psychologist who works in the same office as Maslow at his old university, Brandeis in Massachusetts, admits that her predecessor offered no empirical evidence for his theory. “He wanted to have the grand theory, the grand ideas—and he wanted someone else to put it to the hardcore scientific test,” she says. “It never quite materialised.”
However, after Maslow’s death in 1970, researchers did undertake a more detailed investigation, with attitude-based surveys and field studies testing out the Hierarchy of Needs.
“When you analyse them, the five needs just don’t drop out,” says Hodgkinson. “The actual structure of motivation doesn’t fit the theory. And that led to a lot of discussion and debate, and new theories evolved as a consequence.”
Basically, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a myth, and everyone would be better off forgetting about it entirely.
Not necessarily; it depends on what one’s default or alternative theory would be. Let’s be Bayesian, after all.
As I interpret it, “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs” is little more than the claim that people’s goals depend on their internal sense of security and status (in addition to whatever else they might depend on).
When I speak about it, I’m usually talking about something like a spectrum of exogenous vs. endogenous motivation: at one end you have someone being chased by a wild animal (thus maximally influenced by the environment), and at the other, the Nietzschean “superhuman” who lives only according to their own values, rather than channeling or being a tool of anyone or anything else (thus minimally influenced by the environment in some sense, although obviously everything is ultimately a product of some external force).
Not necessarily; it depends on what one’s default or alternative theory would be.
Self-determination theory is the standard alternative theory I usually point to (which also incorporates the spectrum of exogenous vs. endogenous motivation, but which I don’t think the hierarchy of needs as usually conceived does).
Thanks for the link; that’ll be useful to refer to.
Of course, I on the contrary do think the hierarchy of needs is suggestive of this, as evidenced by the fact that I specifically interpreted it that way!
It’s certainly not a myth because it’s a theory (or a hypothesis) which actually exists. Its weak forms are rather obvious, famished poets notwithstanding. Psychology is not physics and should not pretend to be physics, it deals in weak generalizations and fuzzy conclusions. Maslow’s hierarchy should not be thought of as an iron law which applies everywhere to everyone—it’s merely a framework for thinking about needs.
Psychology is not physics and should not pretend to be physics, it deals in weak generalizations and fuzzy conclusions.
Sure, but we’re talking about a theory that isn’t even accepted as a psychological theory: psychologists themselves have examined it, decided there was no reason to believe in it, and moved on.
Why do artistic pursuits constitute practice in physical cognition as opposed to social cognition? It seems obvious to me that artistic pursuits are (among other things) a type of status signaling, so I’m confused why you’re contrasting the two
Artistic pursuits involve a synthesis of physical and social cognition. (This is essential to their nature and is what makes them special among human activities.) There is certainly a social aspect, but it’s crucial that that isn’t all there is. That there is also a physical aspect is also pretty obvious, if you consider what is involved in playing an instrument, for example—but importantly, it goes beyond that, to encompass the ways one thinks about something like music (in terms of motion, as well as ideas like connectedness, and so on).
Generally speaking, whenever we think of something as being “technical”, we’re talking about the involvement of physical cognition. Art is social, yes, but it is also highly technical.
Many people, unfortunately, underappreciate the physical, or technical, side of artistic thought. This is what I was warning against in my comments on Otium.
The amount of talent, time, and effort needed to achieve recognition or a feeling of accomplishment seem too high, compared to other possible pursuits.
This is actually not really true, but it’s understandable that you might perceive it that way. Even so, the time and effort are part of the point: anything fulfilling this role has to involve extensive amounts of interaction with the objects or processes in question.
Generally speaking, whenever we think of something as being “technical”, we’re talking about the involvement of physical cognition. Art is social, yes, but it is also highly technical.
For certain arts—e.g. music—this is true (in the sense in which I understand “physical cognition”—the body is intimately involved). But a counter-example would be something like digital art where your tools are on Photoshop palettes. The physical skill involved is moving a mouse and I don’t think this qualifies. And yet, digital art is highly “technical”.
Generally speaking, whenever we think of something as being “technical”, we’re talking about the involvement of physical cognition. Art is social, yes, but it is also highly technical.
(in the sense in which I understand “physical cognition”—the body is intimately involved
That is not what I meant—as the excerpt you quoted was intended to communicate.
Musical composition is one of the archetypal instances of a physical-cognition-loaded activity (in the sense that I mean), and yet there your physical tools are a pencil/pen and paper (or, sometimes, indeed, a mouse).
These programs seem to have been disfavored by history’s great scientific innovators, who tend to make statements like “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble...” or “What do you care what other people think”, which sound like endorsements of physical over social cognition.
For some reason, it’s not overly surprising to me that both Isaac Newton and Richard Feynman would directly endorse physical cognition—what with them being natural philosophers/physicists. It’s less clear however that such “physical cognition” is directly relevant to e.g. music composition, except inasmuch as both physics and music composition are linked to self-actualization—as opposed to ‘mere’ love, belonging and self-esteem, which (if pursued in excess, due to a lack of “self-actualizing” pursuits) might “lead[] to increased unethical behavior” or “produce anti-social narcissism” according to the essay you link to.
I’m having trouble understanding this. Why do artistic pursuits constitute practice in physical cognition as opposed to social cognition? It seems obvious to me that artistic pursuits are (among other things) a type of status signaling, so I’m confused why you’re contrasting the two. Please explain?
(Aside from not being sure how valid the Maslow hierarchy is) I agree with this. But I don’t see art/music/dance classes as a particularly good way to prepare most kids to fulfill their level 4 and 5 needs, mostly because there is too much competition from other parents pushing their kids into artistic pursuits. The amount of talent, time, and effort needed to achieve recognition or a feeling of accomplishment seem too high, compared to other possible pursuits.
Basically, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a myth, and everyone would be better off forgetting about it entirely.
Not necessarily; it depends on what one’s default or alternative theory would be. Let’s be Bayesian, after all.
As I interpret it, “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs” is little more than the claim that people’s goals depend on their internal sense of security and status (in addition to whatever else they might depend on).
When I speak about it, I’m usually talking about something like a spectrum of exogenous vs. endogenous motivation: at one end you have someone being chased by a wild animal (thus maximally influenced by the environment), and at the other, the Nietzschean “superhuman” who lives only according to their own values, rather than channeling or being a tool of anyone or anything else (thus minimally influenced by the environment in some sense, although obviously everything is ultimately a product of some external force).
Self-determination theory is the standard alternative theory I usually point to (which also incorporates the spectrum of exogenous vs. endogenous motivation, but which I don’t think the hierarchy of needs as usually conceived does).
Thanks for the link; that’ll be useful to refer to.
Of course, I on the contrary do think the hierarchy of needs is suggestive of this, as evidenced by the fact that I specifically interpreted it that way!
It’s certainly not a myth because it’s a theory (or a hypothesis) which actually exists. Its weak forms are rather obvious, famished poets notwithstanding. Psychology is not physics and should not pretend to be physics, it deals in weak generalizations and fuzzy conclusions. Maslow’s hierarchy should not be thought of as an iron law which applies everywhere to everyone—it’s merely a framework for thinking about needs.
Sure, but we’re talking about a theory that isn’t even accepted as a psychological theory: psychologists themselves have examined it, decided there was no reason to believe in it, and moved on.
Has it been falsified? That is, empirically shown to be not true with regard to large populations (as opposed to individual counter-examples)?
That’s what the quote I posted said; the individual counter-examples are one thing, but the main thing is the complete lack of evidence for it.
Fair point, the quote did say that. Interesting.
Artistic pursuits involve a synthesis of physical and social cognition. (This is essential to their nature and is what makes them special among human activities.) There is certainly a social aspect, but it’s crucial that that isn’t all there is. That there is also a physical aspect is also pretty obvious, if you consider what is involved in playing an instrument, for example—but importantly, it goes beyond that, to encompass the ways one thinks about something like music (in terms of motion, as well as ideas like connectedness, and so on).
Generally speaking, whenever we think of something as being “technical”, we’re talking about the involvement of physical cognition. Art is social, yes, but it is also highly technical.
Many people, unfortunately, underappreciate the physical, or technical, side of artistic thought. This is what I was warning against in my comments on Otium.
This is actually not really true, but it’s understandable that you might perceive it that way. Even so, the time and effort are part of the point: anything fulfilling this role has to involve extensive amounts of interaction with the objects or processes in question.
For certain arts—e.g. music—this is true (in the sense in which I understand “physical cognition”—the body is intimately involved). But a counter-example would be something like digital art where your tools are on Photoshop palettes. The physical skill involved is moving a mouse and I don’t think this qualifies. And yet, digital art is highly “technical”.
That is not what I meant—as the excerpt you quoted was intended to communicate.
Musical composition is one of the archetypal instances of a physical-cognition-loaded activity (in the sense that I mean), and yet there your physical tools are a pencil/pen and paper (or, sometimes, indeed, a mouse).
So what do you mean, then? I don’t understand what “physical cognition” in this context points to. What is the word “physical” doing in there?
It failed.
See here. (This was linked in the original comment...)
Sorry, still don’t understand it. gjm has a fairly detailed list of complaints and I concur with them.
Do you think you use the term physical cognition in the way it’s used in the literature? Or do you think you use it in a different way?
“The literature” that is relevant here consists of Michael Vassar’s 2013 Edge essay.
It’s relevant in the way that it doesn’t use the term “physical cognition”?
From the fourth paragraph:
For some reason, it’s not overly surprising to me that both Isaac Newton and Richard Feynman would directly endorse physical cognition—what with them being natural philosophers/physicists. It’s less clear however that such “physical cognition” is directly relevant to e.g. music composition, except inasmuch as both physics and music composition are linked to self-actualization—as opposed to ‘mere’ love, belonging and self-esteem, which (if pursued in excess, due to a lack of “self-actualizing” pursuits) might “lead[] to increased unethical behavior” or “produce anti-social narcissism” according to the essay you link to.
You can use ballet dancing or piano playing for status signaling but first you need to learn to dance ballet or play the piano.