One supposed rather inevitable hobby of mine is looking at the pressing questions on the internet and

answering them. And

one of the biggest ones is why are so many artists left leaning or

medium to far left as a whole? The answer to that lies in understanding the causality of observation.

Now, think about a lion and a zebra. Does the lion pay more attention to the zebra on the whole?

Or does the zebra pay more attention to the lion? We understand that as long as the lion is not hungry,

the lion pays no attention to the zebra whatsoever because the zebra is not a threat to the lion.

Of course, when the lion is hungry, he pays a lot of attention to the zebra, but on the average overall,

the zebra always has one eye on the lion. Whereas the lion ignores the zebra until the lion is hungry.

As a result of this, just the lion no more about the zebra or does the zebra know more about the lion.

Well, given that observation brings knowledge, we absolutely can know this is not even

inferred. This is direct, right? We can know for sure that the zebra knows a lot more about the lion

than the lion knows about the zebra. The lion knows the zebra will run, the lion knows that he's

got a creep up, the lion knows the zebra can kick, and the lion knows that the zebra is tasty.

And that's about it. So when you are prey, you study the predator extraordinarily deeply. Now,

what is the one central thing that separates a good artist from a bad artist? It is the

accuracy, specificity, and detail of the observation of personality types, of motivations, of

characteristics. We've all seen the sort of one-dimensional wooden characters, just this

is a cordless evil guy and the noble heroic empty guy and all about. But when you have a great

deal of specificity and detail in the observation of human nature, obviously I think a Shakespeare

I think of Dickens, I could think of Eugene O'Neill, Tennessee Williams as a past master,

noticing specific details and summoning them. Ernest Hemingway, Lesso, and I would say,

...