« Implementation | Main | Cognitive biases in football punditry »

June 14, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Shinsei1967

Actually aren't Austen's books (and her life) all about upper-middle class suffering.

Sense & Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice are all about the looming financial & social disaster that faces well-brought up young women if they don't marry well by the age of 25.

Metatone

I've noticed this mental bias in discussions of innovation. The everlastingly fashionable memes run from "necessity is the mother of invention" to "you only create new things under pressure and hard limitations."

The history of innovation is very different - all the studies show that invention and innovation are the bounty of plenty. Without slack in the system, nothing new happens. But people, esp. managers and economists like to believe in scarcity - so here we are...

Churm Rincewind

It strikes me that the idea of the "suffering artist" is simply a lazy hangover from European Romanticism, which sought to establish that creativity cannot be learned or taught and as a result made no distinction between a work of art and an individual's creative process. So an artist who speaks of suffering must, by definition, suffer.

There is no evidence for this.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad