I think the article gave a well-rounded view of Glover. He came across as both depressing and egotistical, but at the same time as incredibly intelligent and funny. I was impressed by the fact that he seems to be grappling with existential questions on a much deeper level than most entertainers - many of whom seem to think that their fame entitles them to a valid opinion without any rational analysis. Glover has a solid grasp of Elon Musk's motivations (what he's trying to do with Neuralink) and his ability to seamlessly incorporate ideas like Bostrom's Simulation Argument into a comedy about race in America is striking.

Zooming out, I think that were you to graph happiness levels vs. intelligence across the population, you'd get an inverted U shape. Hence the tortured artist trope. (Realize I'm making a leap here on mainly anecdotal evidence. There are a few small studies on this but nothing I feel so confident as to link to.)

A negative worldview is what pushes us forward - the people who can envision the difference between an ideal and what society currently looks like are the ones who affect change in the world.

>His outlook on the world is pretty negative for someone who has been as successful as he has.

If anything shouldn't that make us pay more attention to his outlook? The "I've seen the top and the world still sucks" point of view is pretty compelling to me.

I don't see why that's important. I've seen the middle and the world is pretty amazing.

Or he is just depressive and his outlook says more about that than his station in life.

Possibly, but I'd rather not dismiss peoples' perspectives on the basis of unfounded assumptions about their mental health.

He's talked about dealing with depression extensively. E.g. http://people.com/tv/donald-glover-i-didnt-want-to-lie-about...

Actually he deliberately avoids calling it depression, granted what he describes sounds a lot like depression.

>"Glover, 30, says he has been feeling down of late – though he shies away from describing his current state as depressed. 'If I’m depressed, everybody’s depressed,' he says. 'I don’t think those feelings are that different from what everybody’s feeling. Most people just don’t tell everybody.'"

In any case, I have a hard time with the idea that we should dismiss somebody's critique of the world because they're upset about the world.

We live in negative times. Is there something specific that rubbed you the wrong way?

“If I was white, I wouldn’t be sleeping on no couch” For a guy who has 2 or 3 'homes' his choice of sleeping on the couch at the office appears more to be a personal preference, that he feels keeps him in the game at his highest level. I've read countless stories of white guys sleeping on couches for their startup, Elon musk for example crashing on Sean Parkers couch instead of going to his house.

With his next sentence, it seems to me he's very much aware of that.

“But Ryan Coogler said the most real-as-fuck shit to me about it. He said, ‘It sounds like you’re not ready to get off the couch.’ ”

His opinions on race and society.

When I first heard Kanye's "New Slaves" I thought I was learning something profound about the black experience. But if you watch his interviews on the song the whole thing is about his fking clothing line. I still like Kanye and I still like "New Slaves" but I like them for how I see them and not how they are. I think I feel the same way about Atlanta now.

Glover's opinions on race and society are just...stupid. He reminds me of "Darius". Even if he's right it doesn't seem like he's given it much thought.

I think when you talk about opinions on race and society, it is opinion, Glover's view on it may seem stupid to you but it isn't stupid to him and many others. Just as your views or even mine might be stupid to Glover. I don't think that is reason to dislike a person.

I don't dislike him because of his opinions. I still like him but I've lost some amount of respect or reverence for him. It seems like he hasn't put a lot of effort into his opinion. Maybe he has and when I learn more I'll regain some of that lost respect.

I only mean to say this interview didn't do him any favors from one person's perspective.

what if he doesn't have to "put alot of effort into his opinions" because they are his lived experience? The entire piece is littered with quotes and examples of the cultural effects of systemic racism, none of which is particularly controversial outside of say, the Breitbart comment section. The bit about his brother, being darker skinned and how that affected he's percieved, vs himself, being lighter skinned, and what that means in terms of his own perception.

> When I first heard Kanye's "New Slaves" I thought I was learning something profound about the black experience. But [...] the whole thing is about his fking clothing line

It can be both of these things. Postmodernism weaves commerce, irony, and sincerity together, for better or worse.

This is a country that worships celebrities. Kardashian, Trump, Donald Grover, etc. What one do about it...

There are a few good non celebrities we should be listening to. Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson's, etc. Highly educated, high signal to noise, experts in their fields and not fking celebrities (at least not originally).

I have nothing to gain by listening to a performers opinion about anything outside of what they perform in. I don't think these are smart people.

I don't see which field Harris is supposed to be an expert in. He's a 'best-selling' author, though his books haven't great received industry awards. He's a pop-philosopher maybe, but certainly not an expert. Actual philosophers like Dennett, P. Churchland, and H. Putnam has directly and strongly criticised Harris's philosophy.

He has a PhD in Neuroscience, but he's become so disconnected from the field I'd say it's ridiculous to think he's an expert in it. Even if this expertise is granted, Harris spends so little time in his life talking about Neuro it's of little relevance.

I would still trust a PhD in any field over some commercialized "artist". At least he went through the rigorous process of obtaining that degree. It changes people for the good, in my opinion.

My general impression about PhDs voicing opinions in a different field than the one they have expertise in is that they are able to apply a veneer of eloquence and complexity to the uninformed nonsense they spout, whereas celebrities are more transparently stupid. I'm not sure which is worse. In any case, if you want a good idea of the state of the art, you should know better than to listen to either group at all. You have to listen to top academics in the relevant field, and hope they agree (because unfortunately, unless you become an expert yourself, you're not qualified to figure which top academics are right, if they happen to differ).

Critical thinking is the most important tool for anyone, PhD or not.

In this noisy world that we find ourselves in today, one MUST cultivate critical thinking skills.

I don't trust phds because they "sound smart". Indeed, true smartness lies in simplifying complex concepts without much loss of information. I know the types of faux intellects you are referring to. Beware of them.

I trust phds more because my prior on their ability to use critical thinking is much higher than a Hollywood dimwit who is paid to express emotions in people.

It is still your job to trust, but verify. It is just easier to verify logically sound arguments or insights.

Why not?

If someone is talking about a personal experience, why can't that be valuable to see another perspective?

You can get Zimbardo talking about how Evil people aren't always evil, but sometimes evil due to their environment, and then you can see that reflected in art like Atlanta where characters are robbing their friends because they need resources to survive. Then you can hear a song by The Animals that shows the narrative across eras and ethnicity.

Is this an "art isn't valuable" sort of option or "artists I don't like make art I don't like" sort of thing?

Why should we put so much weight into the personal experiences we're told about instead of statistics?

Doesn't are reality then get warped by whatever people have the biggest megaphone for their personal experiences?

Because that's how humans are. We're terrible with statistics and great with stories. This is reflected in every aspect of culture and human decision making (it's why the field of Game Theory even exists, to demonstrate better systems of choice).

What about conflicting statistics? How do you decide which is better? Answer: a deeply complex personal series of metrics, built on your opinion of logic.

There's no perfect choice tree for a person. You're always affected by emotion. You can try and pretend that doesn't exist, or you could use it, but you can't eliminate it.

More like art isn't valuable, especially in the context of the hyper commercialized, capitalistic "art scene" in America. I mean, this is the Kim Kardashian country, Dr. Phil country. Where a reality TV star is president and mindless latenight shows pretend to be arbiters of morality. Donald Grover is no different, and people who see him are no different.

So what I said, but with more words.

Okay, Got it. If you can't see why art is useful, I'm not going to try and waste time debating you. Good luck fighting the capitalists.

Yes, what you said -- you gave me two options, I gave you an answer.

Not sure why you thought I am sitting here waiting to "debate" you. This is just my opinion. Please don't take an abstract opinion so personally.