(If this would work better in the Jews Thread, please feel free to move it.)
My Israeli friends are often boastful of how many Nobel prizes are held by Jews. There is a thread on the subject. But does the same sort of effect hold true to Gay people? Are they really more creative in a stereotypical theatre and design way than straight people?
One obvious solution would be to say (lacking some sort of hard numbers) that we have observational bias. We expect more Gay people to be in the film industry (say) and so each time we observe one we note it. We do not however note all the non-Gay people who also work in The Industry.
Another possibility is Gay people also have preconceived ideas of what they are ‘supposed to’ be and so move toward some parts of society (film, Broadway, hairdressing, pick your stereotype) and away from others (deep sea divers? whatever a typically straight occupation might be). An adjunct to this would be Straight society steering Gay people into some fields, and so away from others.
And then we get to the really odd idea that Gay people really are especially talented at somethings. But that leads my bleeding-heart Liberal mind to the conclusion that this would also mean Gay people are bad at somethings. And this of course leads to ideas that really offend, Blacks can’t swim (but can play basketball), Jews can’t fight (but can do physics), Asian can’t drive (but are good in math).
**Is the observation that Gays have special talents in any way like the observation that Jews have special talents? Are these two observations examples of the same truth, or the same fallacy?
**
One idea might be that there are some jobs or areas of work which are percieved to be “safer” for gay people, or have a generally more welcoming environment for whatever reason. Which would mean both that gay people experiencing hardship or believing they would do so would be more attracted to such fields, and that gay people already in those fields would be more likely to come out (with of course the vice-versa, that people in, say, sporting careers would be less likely to).
Adding to the above, it’s OK for people to be “out” in the arts. Therefore gays are visible in that area, but still relatively invisible in other areas like major league pro sports. And there are other career areas where sexual orientation is a big “who cares?” That in itself is progress, but it means that successful people who are gay are not seen as gay - “merely” as successful.
I think all the answers so far are probably part of it.
As QSH and Typo point out, it’s simply more accepted in the arts community to come out. If you’re in the Toronto theatre scene, nobody you work with is going to say a word if you’re gay. If you’re a welder in Tillsonburg, you aren’t going to be as assured of acceptance.
The arts community tends to be in larger cities, too, where acceptance of gays is greater. I picked Toronto deliberately; it’s a huge city where gays have gained greater acceptance than in small towns and even have their own neighborhood, businesses, etc. that cater to them.
Consequently, gay people will, understandably, be likelier to be drawn to the arts. Even if they aren’t consciously making the decision “I am going to get into film rather than truck driving” the fact that the arts are more accepting of gay people pretty much from high school drama class on will simply make it likelier a gay person will find it a more comfortable place to work.
I don’t think there’s any reason at all to believe gays are inherently more artistic, any more than I think Dominicans are biologically specially suited to play baseball or Germans have special taste buds that make them like sausage. It’s a cultural thing, and it’s self-reinforcing; gays are welcome in arts, so they are more likely to choose it as a vocation, so the industry is increasingle welcome to them.
Let’s add confirmation bias to the list. Do we have any actual data on the proportion of gays in “the arts” as compared to the general population? “The arts” covers a lot of territory.
By chance alone, some area of human endeavor will have more gay people in it than any other field. Once that happens, that random prevalence will be reinforced by the human tendencies to hire people like oneself, to spread word of opportunities through pre-existing social networks, etc. This is the same kind of effect that causes some ethnic groups to over-represented in particular kinds of small businesses - it’s not that they was any particular disposition for Elbonians to be long-haul truckers, it’s just that when that business started, a few Elbonians were in on the ground floor.
In addition to what others have said, gay people are less likely to have kids than straight people, and far less likely to have unplanned kids. If someone wants to pursue a career in a risky/unstable field like the arts, it’s probably a little easier to stick with it through the starving artist years if providing for children isn’t a concern.
Perhaps being gay tends to put one at odds with much of society and have an increased awareness of one’s own relationship to society, and that (whatever the cause) tends to feed some kind of creativity. A test of that would be whether people at odds with much of society for other reasons are also strongly represented in the arts.
Add in the related “outsider hypothesis” as expressed by Malthus in that thread: being outside the box of the mainstream culture that you are nevertheless existing within in one way makes thinking outside the box a more natural and comfortable process, and that is a core requirement for creativity.
But yeah, like John Mace, I suspect there are tons of boring dullards who are gay that we just don’t hear about. Other than in very particular fields (which a gay person may be attracted to just because of the reputation of the field as being a place that is accepting of gays and where they may easily meet other gay individuals) is there any real reason to believe that the fraction of gays in “the arts” is much greater than in the general population? (Acknowledging that what with estimates in the general population vary from under 2% to over 10%, it is a hard question to have real data on.)
I am a gay artist, and I’m also generally creative, in ways other than my work. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with other people’s acceptance of me. In fact, I don’t really associate with other artists very much.
From an early age, I was always looking at things from different angles than most other people. I was always thinking of alternatives to the “straight and narrow” way of thinking that most people do. In fact, I find it much easier to think outside the box than within. And from an early age I exhibited obvious artistic talent. And I had my first sexual fantasy at the age of 5.
I have known people who came out when they were young, and other people who came out well into adulthood. The former have generally seemed more creative, and the latter not so much. I believe that wrestling with the nuances of one’s sexual identity at an earlier age exercises the same part of the brain that makes a person creative.
And if this has anything at all to do with other people: I’ve always found myself gravitating toward people whose brains worked like mine . . . people who viewed individuality as an important part of their personalities. But when I’m among “inside-the-box” people, I really have a hard time interacting with them in any meaningful way.
From my observation of gay men who are explicitly ‘flaming’, I’d say that their sense of taste isn’t any greater than anyone else. I think people take the flamer style as being “a style” rather than garish, but I’d judge that ineptness is the real explanation.
My only data point is those “creative” reality shows (cooking, clothes, decorating, modelling) and always more than half the guys are gay, with a substantial flaming component.
I’m sure that 2 or 3% of welders and bomb-squad guys are gay, but saing that the percentsge isn’t dramatically higher is disingenious.
If there is a biological component to sexual preference and there is a biological component to creativity, then it doesn’t seem too beyond the pale that some these of pathways that may link up. There is evidence that the brains of gay people are different than the brains of straight people. So I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a correlation between sexuality and cognitive patterns, personality features, emotionality, etc.
But I need data because I can seriously speculate. It sure SEEMS like there are a lot of artsy gay males out there, but how do I know that they are indeed over-represented in the arts? It may just be that artistic endeavors are more exposed to public view, so gay artists are more likely to be noticed than gay engineers or gay businessmen. Or that a lot of people we assume are gay–like lispy prettyboy hairstylists–actually are not gay. Creative fields may encourage a departure from traditional gender roles, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into sexuality.
Couldn’t the causation arrow be pointing the other way? Maybe the art community is gay friendlier because there are there’s a higher percentage of gay artists than the general population.
I’ve worked in graphic design and visual effects my entire career, and out of all the agencies and studios I’ve worked at, the vast majority of my co-workers were straight.
At my last studio gig, 30+ employees, the only openly gay guy was the lawyer.
Maybe this is more a question of openly gay, as opposed to anything else, as it does seem creatives are, by far, a more liberal set. Unless the OP is focusing on careers bent more on the feminine industry, like hair stylists, fashion designers, etc. But even at that, it just seems like a career that falls more in line with the individual’s interests than any inherent “homosexual” creativity.
That’s true. I can think of at least two times – one very recently – where I mistakenly assumed that an artistic guy who wasn’t a “lispy prettyboy” but who didn’t dress like most other young straight guys, appeared to have a strained relationship with his family, and didn’t mention his love life, was gay. In both cases there were also other things I took as indications that these guys were gay (e.g. living with an openly gay friend), but a lot of my “evidence” was stuff that was related to these guys being artsy rather than their sexual orientation. Their family relationships were strained because their parents/grandparents wanted them to pursue careers in other areas, and at least one of them probably had no time to date; he was basically either at his day job or working in the studio.
I see no reason that the arrow isn’t pointing both ways; the arts community is more accepting of gays because there are more gays in it, and therefore tends to attract more gays. It’s a self-reinforcing phenomenon, and will not be broken until either the outside world becomes equally accepting of gays or the artistic world becomes less so.