Although the discussion on magic is really secondary here (a catalyst, methinks), let me try to add something. And although I think it won't be as valuable as the insight that magic seems to mimic psychology and so is more (obviously) romantic than science (not un-romantic, just less obviously so), that insight itself fits here. As well as graduate school which, I think, has all to do with our views on magic. And then I will finish with my one tidbit on why I think those of nerdy-bent would prefer a world with magic to a world of science.
While there are many "schools" of magic, they seem to exist as convex combos of the two main theories of formal education in economics: signaling vs human capital formation. For signaling, its all about (natural) type; for human capital, it's all about learning (factual and procedural). Of course, stepping outside the formal models, we intuitively know it's both; the question is how to assign the weights.
So is with magic. There are those "systems" in which having been born with the special gift explains most of the success; there are others in which years of training and hard work do the trick (talent helps, it's just not sufficient).
Among kids, fans of the "escapist" lit, and people who turn their back on higher education, systems that lean towards the first are more likely to be popular: our here is discovered as the Chosen One; from then on, though his/her struggle is epic and his/her self-sacrifice daunting, our hero can worry about things like a love life and socializing with friends because you really don't have that much training to do. There is a lot of this aimed at kids, since obviously a kid wants to identify with the character and telling them to wait until the character is 30+ because he was busy studying won't help. Something similar applies to grown-up kids.
Those with a bent for higher formal education (graduate students), are more likely to identify with a grueling struggle necessary to acquire the knowledge, a prerequisite to being able to start doing some cool, epic stuff. (Escapism here kicks in after that: no need for funding or dealing with committees... Hypothesis: empathy with fantasy warlocks diminishes after tenure.)
This, of course, has all to do with feeling more empathy for characters who are more like us (or at least, for systems that coincide more with our world view).
Having said all this, there is one aspect of fantasy lit in which magic will always be WAY COOLER than science. No matter if the "system" is gift-based or education-based, fans of magic tend to come from the pool of kids picked-upon in school. Magic gives agency of a kind that science cannot: it gives the mind DIRECT powers over the physical world and so, direct power over the life and death of individual enemies and loved ones. Science can only achieve that in the most indirect fashion (and that at its most optimistic... sprinkle dissertation, tenure, or funding committees and you'll reach for your spell book any day!).
Of course, scientists came up with all the mass-murder machines we have, but c'mon, knowing that you designed it or came up with the theory that was crucial in building the doomsday machine will not give you the same satisfaction as looking into the eye of the arch-enemy (lit incarnation of the playground bully or the popular guy who "got" the girl) and blasting him with a spell or two.
I am totally agreeing with Eliezer: such a need for empowerment is rooted in an emotional obstacles to happiness in the real world. Of course we mature an overcome those. But if some of it remains deep inside our emotional playground, I think it can help explain why so many of use nerds would prefer a magical world to the real one: agency of the mind in the now over the physical world.
Although the discussion on magic is really secondary here (a catalyst, methinks), let me try to add something. And although I think it won't be as valuable as the insight that magic seems to mimic psychology and so is more (obviously) romantic than science (not un-romantic, just less obviously so), that insight itself fits here. As well as graduate school which, I think, has all to do with our views on magic. And then I will finish with my one tidbit on why I think those of nerdy-bent would prefer a world with magic to a world of science.
While there are many "schools" of magic, they seem to exist as convex combos of the two main theories of formal education in economics: signaling vs human capital formation. For signaling, its all about (natural) type; for human capital, it's all about learning (factual and procedural). Of course, stepping outside the formal models, we intuitively know it's both; the question is how to assign the weights.
So is with magic. There are those "systems" in which having been born with the special gift explains most of the success; there are others in which years of training and hard work do the trick (talent helps, it's just not sufficient).
Among kids, fans of the "escapist" lit, and people who turn their back on higher education, systems that lean towards the first are more likely to be popular: our here is discovered as the Chosen One; from then on, though his/her struggle is epic and his/her self-sacrifice daunting, our hero can worry about things like a love life and socializing with friends because you really don't have that much training to do. There is a lot of this aimed at kids, since obviously a kid wants to identify with the character and telling them to wait until the character is 30+ because he was busy studying won't help. Something similar applies to grown-up kids.
Those with a bent for higher formal education (graduate students), are more likely to identify with a grueling struggle necessary to acquire the knowledge, a prerequisite to being able to start doing some cool, epic stuff. (Escapism here kicks in after that: no need for funding or dealing with committees... Hypothesis: empathy with fantasy warlocks diminishes after tenure.)
This, of course, has all to do with feeling more empathy for characters who are more like us (or at least, for systems that coincide more with our world view).
Having said all this, there is one aspect of fantasy lit in which magic will always be WAY COOLER than science. No matter if the "system" is gift-based or education-based, fans of magic tend to come from the pool of kids picked-upon in school. Magic gives agency of a kind that science cannot: it gives the mind DIRECT powers over the physical world and so, direct power over the life and death of individual enemies and loved ones. Science can only achieve that in the most indirect fashion (and that at its most optimistic... sprinkle dissertation, tenure, or funding committees and you'll reach for your spell book any day!).
Of course, scientists came up with all the mass-murder machines we have, but c'mon, knowing that you designed it or came up with the theory that was crucial in building the doomsday machine will not give you the same satisfaction as looking into the eye of the arch-enemy (lit incarnation of the playground bully or the popular guy who "got" the girl) and blasting him with a spell or two.
I am totally agreeing with Eliezer: such a need for empowerment is rooted in an emotional obstacles to happiness in the real world. Of course we mature an overcome those. But if some of it remains deep inside our emotional playground, I think it can help explain why so many of use nerds would prefer a magical world to the real one: agency of the mind in the now over the physical world.