Artists attracted to scientists/geeks?

Post Reply New Topic

She was jealous! Go and blow new life into your interest!

Funny, though, but some categories can't fit for all of us. My twin brother and I are both somewhat "artsy" and "scientific", he falls for towards the latter than me, however, he is very intuitive in thought and socialization, even admitting that his math is often very "intuitive"... My more skeptical brain often clashes with his intensely novel one, even though I'm more "artsy" of the two of us.

Artists and scientists both draw on intuition. That´s what makes them alike.

Indeed. The reason I prefer science in the end is that then a scientist tests their intuition, while artists, specifically authors, create realities where the intuition is true. English students then misinterpret the reality as a "message" about the real world that they should "glean" from the book. Similar story with other arts.

The 'real' world. What's that?

The reality we all ostensibly share, that we can't leave by closing a book.

So if the main character in the book finds comfort in their family, the students write down, "The moral of the story is that family will help you."

I personally don't believe in objective 'right or wrong' or 'truth or false'.

I'm not particularly spiritual or religious, but also not overly-logical and scientific. I believe science isn't completely about fact - it is about seeking fact, but all the time there are contradictions, or new discoveries which change everything.

I despise the quote 'You can't disagree with science, because it's true!'

Plenty of ideas or theories that were thought to be correct can be slightly altered, significantly altered, or even just be discovered to be completely wrong.

"Indeed. The reason I prefer science in the end is that then a scientist tests their intuition, while artists, specifically authors, create realities where the intuition is true. English students then misinterpret the reality as a "message" about the real world that they should "glean" from the book. Similar story with other arts."

The arts are just a form of expression and, in the case of philosophy, which I consider an art, a reflection of life, reality, counciousness, etc.

The sciences are the seeking of knowledge, and seek of truth, Nietzsche says a lot about it Beyond Good and Evil and how silly he thinks man's seeking of truth is, and thinks it's based on a false premise.

Similarities I find are:

- Intuition
- Sharing alternative views of the world - scientists and artists may see the world differently.
- Shared goals of the world, but in different ways: scientists want to discover to mold the world, artists want to express to mold the world.
- An understanding of differing ideas, views and perspectives of the world - artists are all about having creative, different views of the world, scientists need to see the world from different perspectives to find knowledge.

I don't take issue with art, I take issue with its interpretation.

Of course science isn't infallible. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't have what it takes to be a scientist. The majority of scientists I've met are aware of its fallibility: thus, they can experiment and change understandings.

Too many self-described "English nuts" out there are worse than pseudo-scientist A Brief History of Time thumpers: "The moral of this story is true because I like the story."

For example, online, I came across a paraphrased comment:

"This story where the girl accepts her monster boyfriend shows me that there are some people in this world who will love no matter what!"

A fine sentiment, but no story can show the commentator anything. I could write a story where clapping your hands behind your back three times makes polka dots grow on your ears, but that doesn't mean it will.

I love art, but my art is about engaging and provoking the observer: "How do I feel," they should say, "About this presentation?". It should get people to care about the questions the books ask and question for themselves. No answers, more questions.

Finally, I would suggest trusting grounded science over your intuitions unless you either have the resources for extensive and pain-free experimentation, (which would be wonderful), or the intuition of a god.

Personally, I have a hard time being around artists. Now, I mean the 'fine artists', not the commercial artists. They appear spacey, but they aren't, just very, very, very esoteric. Kinda rubs the logical side of me wrong on so many levels and I can't follow half of them. The rest are just snobs. So, no win there. I do prefer intellectual people. Not always intelligentsia per se, but just very intelligent. And it's really nice when they are intelligent and logical as well.

You definitely seem like the "flip side" of me, i.e. you're like the kind of girls I like, and the girls you like are similar to me.

While I'm very nerdy in the sense of being into science and abstract, technical fields, I've never been into anime, yet every "geek" sort of group I've been to has lots of people who like anime. Even many of the aspie groups do.

Another common "geek hobby" that I don't get are hardcore board games--the ones where you have to study the instructions for a half hour before you even know all the rules, and where there is one card that cancels the effect of another card, but only until that one itself becomes overruled by a third card...
I don't see the point of, as an intellectual exercise, studying something that other humans have invented on purpose to be complicated, when there are so many actual mysteries in nature and the universe. And, those games do nothing to address the deep existential questions of "Why?" that both artists and scientists are working on from different angles. I'd much rather learn a new programming language, look at some huge molecule, or read a book.

Even a very out-there and silly theory about something like the cause of cancer, with no experimental data at all to back it up, seems more worthwhile for me than the rules to some game. And if I am tired of thinking hard and want a break with friends, I'd play something like Cranium or Taboo (I love Taboo!)--something that makes me laugh. Or maybe ultimate frisbee if I want to run around. But those "gamer" board games just seem pointless to me, although many nerdy people like them so they must be doing something right.

Why prefer science to art, if that reason is a particular way some students may falsely interpret the experience of reading a book? The book is part of the 'reality' we share, we didn't go anywhere when we opened or shut it. Art as you say, is not about providing answers. It is concerned with the human soul. Nothing comes unannounced, ignore intuition, and you may miss the signs. I don't think authors/artists (good ones) create 'realities' where their intuition runs free and untested, for students to then misconceive as 'reality'. It is for the artist prick the mind of the reader/viewer, to raise questions, about all things, if you keep yourself as the final arbiter you will be less susceptible to infection by cultural illusion.

I'm arty fascinated by science haven't got a great understanding of a lot of it, it fascinates me none the less. I wouldn't go for either as my first choice.

Do you mean you aren't attracted to either artsy or science-geeky people?

The easiest person to fool is yourself, that's why things can be objectively true whether people "believe" them or not

What do you mean?