09-19-2014, 10:07 PM
those interested in the (slightly humorous) topic of this thread may also be interested in the empiricism and rationalism debates, and linguistics and language acquisition, and the overlap into social sciences. I don't think it is fair or even sensible to measure humanities by their economics (and in doing so make the usual, speculative, impractical assumptions that follow the usual empirical dogma) though, which would suggest novelists are "better" writers than poets, and rhetoricians are the best of all, next to maybe screenplay writers.
Also then, pop musicians are more "talented" than classical violinists, etc.
among those who have monetary applications and outlets for their writing, we could attribute financial success to business savvy. (king being the brilliant business man featured in forbes who virtually invented the e-book). whether or not that type of savvy is innate, as well as whether it is also applied in the writing itself, and whether that type of study should be conducted by experimental or comparative methods is a different question entirely.
Also then, pop musicians are more "talented" than classical violinists, etc.
among those who have monetary applications and outlets for their writing, we could attribute financial success to business savvy. (king being the brilliant business man featured in forbes who virtually invented the e-book). whether or not that type of savvy is innate, as well as whether it is also applied in the writing itself, and whether that type of study should be conducted by experimental or comparative methods is a different question entirely.