Talk:Cultural Creatives
Modernism never claimed that its participants would identify themselves with its paradigm, and pointing out that a good chunk of the population does not identify with a particular paradigm is hardly justification for promoting -- via book sales -- a new paradigm. Shoehorn 19:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
link ad?
[edit]rm from page ... put back if needed ....
JDR 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
added paragraph
[edit]on integral term that used to belong to the "Integral movement" article, but which has been deemed to be unrelated given the article's new focus (it is related to the Cultural Creatives). Since this article is just a stub, another editor may want to use it or not, depending on how the article is eventually polished up.
[edit]
- Just under half of the CC population, this segment comprises the more educated, leading-edge thinkers. This group includes many writers, artists, musicians, psychotherapists, feminists, alternative health care providers and other professionals. They combine a serious concern for their inner life with a strong passion for social activism.
Alternative health care providers. Why only the "alternative" ones? And what about scientists generally? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
NPOV?
[edit]This article makes the book appear to be nothing but an attempt to make money by appealing to the world's innumerable gullible idiots with a naked emperor. Not having read it, I can't add anything to balance it and say anything in its favor if there is anything to be said. Is there really nothing?
Often those whose creative works lead to cultural progress are people who develop ideas that others don't understand until they see the finished work. Lonely work at times. And completely different from just following popular trends. But if you scan down the list of things that alleged "Cultural Creatives" are interested in, it looks as if they're just people who want to follow popular trends. That's the common thread. And the book congratulates them on their superiority, so they look down on their less trendy neighbors and feel warm fuzzies about how much better they are than those other people. Hence a market for the book, and the authors get rich. Developing new ideas that others don't understand until they see the finished work is completely different from that.
Is that all this book is? Or can something be said in its favor? If so, that should be added to the article, which in its current state makes the book out to be a fraud. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)