[bluesnowmonkey]

You’re calling people uncreative farmers. Of course it’s insulting. But to someone who stays in one place for a long time, not because it feels good but because it’s what the world needs to keep turning, young job hopping engineers remind me of my kids, always wanting new legos.

It’s not about whether you’re a special creative snowflake, it’s about whether you have the disciple and emotional fortitude to keep working on something after the easy parts are done.

[obstacle1]

> after the easy parts are done

"Uncreative farmers" is insulting, and this isn't? The claim that your standard megacorp legacy maintainer is altruistically keeping the world spinning seems a little self-important, too.

[plutonorm]

But it feels good for you to help keep the world spinning, you gain pleasure from being a part of it. That is dedication to tradition and the love of what is. That is a character trait, a part of the character trait that I propose to call the 'farmer' mentality and its part of the low end of openness on the big 5. It is this emotion that I lack and may be a trait of others high in openness/creativity. It is not simply a conceit, it is not selfishness or a lack of a desire to give.

It is the result of not placing value in "what currently is" as a default position. The what 'is' and 'has been' has little value to many. "What we have now is not good. It is not worth my sacrifice.".

And thinking about it rationally there are many ways to justify this position: The world is heading towards ecological disaster. The world is a sickening mess of inequality, from the starving to the over fead. From the free to the stultifying world of North Korea.

Propping up the inner processes of facebook, is not worth my sacrifice. What 'is', is not worthwhile, what is important is what can be made, what can be created to better the lives of others. Continuing to do what we do is inadequate and counterproductive.

And while you may view this as childish and something to be grown out of, I contend this is an enduring personality trait. I also contend that it is a personality trait that has merit, it has utility to society as a whole. Who is it that is going to go out and change things for the better? The personality dynamic of the entrepreneurs and the artists (because they are very similar personalities) is one of dissatisfaction and it has to be, because the discomfort of being on the edge away from the herd has to be less than the discomfort induced by remaining in the herd, otherwise the creative behaviour would not be realised.

What you are saying in your response is simply that your emotional makeup allows you to function in a maintenance role without too much discomfort because while you would prefer more creative aspects to your job, you can find solace in contributing to society. And what I am saying is that there are some for whom their personality makeup does not permit this as a solution. For these people it is better to at least attempt to make something new. They will probably fail, but it is by evolutionary design that a certain proportion of people will be forced to try.

In the end there is value to maintenance and there is value to exploration. Some will be happy with a world dominated by maintenance, some will be mildly unhappy and learn to find value in it. But some will be so adverse to it that they will be forced to perform the role of exploration. All of these kinds of people contribute. I am making no value judgement here, what you hear in my voice is only resentment born of being in the minority.