[Theory] Why most inventors and artists are males

[Eric Tarpall]

I think females are capable of inventing and creating beautiful things but they don't do it because they have no incentive. They can have as much sex as they want. If a male wants to have sex he has to do a bunch of crazy impressive things. Because female humans are hard to impress. That's what drives males to go to mars and make mona lisas.

[BjarkeT]

I don't think elon musk want to go to mars to have sex but rather to save humans from doom from the suns expansion which will happen in the future and leonardo da vinci was interested in men not woman. 

I think we do these things because we are craftsmen and actually enjoy things just from the craft it self which is called passion. So good they can't ignore you by cal newport talks a bit about this.

I remember elon musk have said that he does what he does because there need to be a reason to get up in the morning there need to be a bigger reason than just solving problems so he is doing it for a bigger purpose than him self. Not to get girls. In this case it's probably more to get life not feel meaningless than to get girls.

Edited May 6, 2019 by BjarkeT

[Emerald]

Most artists are female. Women outnumber men in fine arts programs 4 to 1. When I went to college, you'd have tons of women but only a few guys in the class.

But most famous artists are men.

 

 

[now is forever]

the mona lisa guy was gay.

[Forestluv]

@Eric Tarpall You seem to really like filtering people into male or female categories - especially when related to sexual intercourse.

I think there is some truth that, in some contexts, the male of a species puts in "extra effort" for sex. For example in many bird species males are brightly colored and often perform elaborate mating rituals to attract a female. In some contexts, I think one could say some males put in more effort for sexual contact. Most females could easily hookup for sex tonight if they wanted to. Guys seem to put in a lot more effort for sex - all this stuff about how to score with women, pick up etc. Yet I think you are taking it waaay too far. A male's entire existence doesn't revolve around sex. The primary motivator of most creative geniuses is not to impress a women so they can get laid.

[Eric Tarpall]

1 hour ago, BjarkeT said:

I remember elon musk have said that he does what he does because there need to be a reason to get up in the morning there need to be a bigger reason than just solving problems so he is doing it for a bigger purpose than him self. Not to get girls. In this case it's probably more to get life not feel meaningless than to get girls.

I don't think that males are conscious that they're doing it for the sex. But there's other motivations too.

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

But most famous artists are men.

Indeed. And you can only become famous if you're skilled. And to get skilled at something you need some sort of driving force. I think males are inspired by female beauty. Some patriarchy could be involved but that's debatable.

18 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You seem to really like filtering people into male or female categories

I haven't seen people who aren't male or female. There's maybe 0.1% of people who believe they're a third gender or whatever and they have the right to believe that. But I'm not taking them into account because it's such a small minority.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Eric Tarpall said:

I haven't seen people who aren't male or female. There's maybe 0.1% of people who believe they're a third gender or whatever and they have the right to believe that. But I'm not taking them into account because it's such a small minority.

That is a highly dualistic framework of separating beings into categories of "male" or "female". There is an enormous amount of exploration available, yet if the mind insists on two categories - that's all you get - two categories. There are many many aspects of "maleness" and "femaleness" that won't be explored. There is nothing wrong with a highly dualistic orientation, it's just limiting. It's like visiting Paris and limiting Paris to either the Eiffel tower or Notre Dame Cathedral. Nothing wrong with that, they are both beautiful creations. Yet, your exploration in Paris would be very very limited. The Eiffel tower and Notre Dame cathedral is not Paris - it is within Paris. There is A LOT more to explore in Paris, yet one would not have that opportunity when contracted within that dualism. Notice the mind's resistance and desire to stay within that dualism. Stuff like, "Huh, the only pictures I see of Paris are the Eiffel tower and Notre Dame. My friends just talk about the Eiffel tower. I just don't see anything else, there can't be more". . . It's silly, but that's what minds do.

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Eric Tarpall said:

Indeed. And you can only become famous if you're skilled. And to get skilled at something you need some sort of driving force. I think males are inspired by female beauty. Some patriarchy could be involved but that's debatable.

That's incorrect in the case of the art world. Skill has little to no relationship to whether or not someone makes it big in the art world. It mostly has to do with connections and the big museums and collectors valuing your stuff.

Someone could have an abundance of skill and talent and never get their foot in the door of the art world. Their work may never be seen as high art.

But another person could tape a piece of string to a wooden plank and call it art and become famous if the art world accepts it as such... which is done mostly through nepotism and getting the wealthy folk to buy into its value. 

 

[Privet]

If we speak from the perspective of statistics, history and evolution, women create less things in the world than men because they are too busy raising kids and running household. Men are providers and protectors, if you create new valuable things you become a better provider because you can sell it, if you apply your creativity to advance yourself in the hierarchy of dominance you become a better protector.

If we speak exclusively from the perspective of human design it's tricky, maybe since females were designed by evolution to give birth and raise spring they are wired better for that genetically/biologically and therefore have whole 'nother set of abilities than men, here's the distribution of the IQ between men and women:

Among the population of women there's more women that have average level of intelligence, less misfits and geniuses, among men there's less average men, more misfits and geniuses. Yes, we don't know exactly the connection between IQ and creativity but anyways it's useful in this regard.

It's just statistics and there's nothing personal about that, any woman can become a creator, any man can become a stay at home dad. The problem with modern day feminism (unhealthy stage green/toxic masculinity of postmodern women) is that they view this statistical difference as a personal insult to women and fight against that. It's like butthurting because men are generally taller. Or if men would butthurt because women have soft warm tits that they can crumple every day, LOL, let's not allow women to have tits because it insults us, viva la tit equality!

Edited May 8, 2019 by Privet

[Rilles]

Most people who eat food have mouths, its quite fascinating.