What is the point of a sentence like "A Hungarian psychology professor once wrote …" without the actual name? His/her mythical study is a recurrent theme in the article, but not once the name of the author is mentioned. This diminishes the value of the text.
> When setting out to write his book Creativity, Hungarian psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi contacted 275 creatives whose habits he wanted to study. The idea was to gain insight into their processes so that others could apply these practices in their own lives. But in many cases, the answer to his very inquiry was actually the secret to creativity. Out of all the subjects he asked, one third of them said no to being studied. The reason? Most simply did not have time. In order to be creative, many explained, it was vital they say no to any request that would take away from their time spent creating. Several who rejected Csikszentmihalyi knew of the respected author's work, yet they still maintained their hours were best spent on their own output.
While I agree it is not really relevant, it reminded me of the kind of articles some mass media produce that are basically along the lines of "scientists discovered [whatever]". Reading those is basically a waste of time, so seeing a similar sentence at the start of HN submitted post was a bit unexpected to me.
I hear ya. I just escaped from Academia about two years ago, where adding $country to everything counts as cred. It's especially powerful when multiple countries are combined. I cringe when I recall the false delight audience members experience when presenters start with something such as "We got an artist from Greece on board and a physicist from Austria, even some magicians from Latvia." These statements have absurdist, Babel-ish, and feel-good value, but are by no means indicators of practical success. More likely, it's a bunch of bored people from around the world uniting briefly to achieve a highly idiosyncratic and quickly forgotten result.
It's fun to imagine statements like: "We put together one developer from Connecticut, a graphic artist from Rhode Island, and -even a web hacker from Massachusetts-". This contrast shows how the practice of making something exotic and worshiping it takes place. It's one form of how we Americans inhibit ourselves from greatness - when we tell ourselves that people from $country are automatically more skilled, wise, experienced than us. Their introductions should lead with their benefits, not where their parents knocked boots.
I have also been on the mailing list of more than one musician who lists countries to build social proof with statements such as "I received grants to perform in Belgium, Holland, England and Germany." It's really only a weak form of imperialism to be invited and funded by a single individual or a committee, rather than to have populist acceptance and/or paying customers. Surely some national funding is key to maintaining the freshness within any culture, but confusing top-down support such as cultural grants, which inevitably introduce artisans from @countries with public support, with loyal customership is a blinding error.
Time and attention management doesn't necessarily preclude a social network. Be creative all you like, but without downtime and some time to laugh the duration of that creativity is going to be sharply limited.
Mine? It sucks. I've noted that the 4-hour limit is pretty accurate for actual focused work, but I've drifted into some areas (technical translation) that don't always need a lot of focus.
I am consistently dissappointed with links pointing to medium.com. I wish there was a feature of HN to block webistes from view. I no longer want to see any articles referencing medium.com.
Most articles are shite. I feel that casual users upvote anything medium because it has sort of established itself as an important platform for good developers. However, if you read most of them, it's just rambling and you don't learn anything. A lot of it is very ranty.
I do a lot of HN reading on the train. Medium.com articles only show 1 sentence of content and the rest of the page breaks (or at least doesn't load or appear on my screen).
medium.com is just a blogging platform. Others on HN have expressed the desire to block links to certain sites with particular agendas - do you see medium.com as having an agenda that you find distasteful?
The site is shown in the little parenthetical section next to the link text. You could just mentally filter by not clicking on links with (medium.com) next to it.
Not to be confused of taking creative avenues along same lines of work. Tunnel vision helps. But walking into a post is not always necessary. So taking up and extra 'distraction' project may well be beneficial to mail line of work. Alot of painters I know do it to avoid myopic vision of work of art at hand.
There was an article here, mentioned that developer guy got involved in another project and started moving faster that before on the main project.
Ideas need 'rest time' time. Photographers take pictures and mature them for a while.
I think people forget that time is really money or something like it.
Most people would never dream of taking a few pennies out of your account even if they could do it without asking. When someone spams me with an email or sends me on a detour with a link bait title, they are taking precious moments from my life "account".
We're not all as busy as we make ourselves out to be. People love to give others the impression they are swamped in order to say "no," not the other way around. "No, I can't go to dinner with you tonight, I'm sorry, I'm just so backlogged with work..."
...and many creative people end up bitter and disappointed when their work goes unrecognized and they lack the ability to make changes in their life or work.
The word "no" is a powerful thing. It's probably the first word that as infants we discover has the power to alter our environment. But when we move out of the nursery, it's a word, a tool, and a habit with profoundly negative impact to the wielder.
How many times in your life have you been frustrated with a gatekeeper over some process? Chances are, they embraced saying "no".
You can say "yes". That doesn't mean that you drop everything and do exactly what is asked, either. Try it sometime, it's a transformative thing. In big bureaucracies, saying "yes" is fun, because you get these bizarre reactions... people are trained to hear "no" and lobby for you to change your mind.
Recently two problems I was stuck into were solved outside working hours, one while having a beer at a friend's house and another while taking a bath... I'm unconvinced starting to avoid all activities really is going to help me get more creative...
Was one of your problems concerned with a social method for getting inebriated? And did the other concern itself with a relaxing full body cleaning method?
The post has little to do with creativity. It is all about high-achieving and thus renowned people who achieved what they have by concentrating on their work.
The same 'ignore everybody' approach works well for any activity, including not very creative kinds like bodybuilding, when you know what to do, and all you need is a lack of distraction.
This approach also has obvious problems: you can end up with a useless result because it falls out of context, or shadowed by a vastly better approach you chose to not pay attention to.
And, of course, you can be brilliantly creative with little or no lasting output, like someone showering others with mots and impromptus on a party. Researcher rarely interview such people, though.
I also have to wonder whether such high-achieving and renowned people, being quite busy and in-demand, would of course decline an interview with someone who couldn't further boost their status or spread their message and would otherwise just compete for scarce time.
I am noting that even the author of this article did not identify the anonymous hungarian professor.
If Barbara Walters was calling for a feature interview on prime time television, the answer might very well be "yes".
The psychologist is Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and all of the quotes that the blog's author posted come directly from Csikszentmihalyi's book Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Csikszentmihalyi is most widely know for his term 'flow.'
Maybe they said no because they thought they'd be asked a bunch of low-brow intellectual-tourist questions and essentially treated like whores. There are lots of possible explanations for someone not wanting to speak to you.
Well, we've always had to deal with opportunity cost. If your style involves high focus, a distraction's cost is that much higher. Most "normal" people don't really gets this.
Additionally, the freer you are from routine obligation, the harder it is to politely say no. I've long said fill up your schedule or others will fill it for you.
I appreciate this article. It is a slap in the face, a pail of cold water poured on me while I'm sleeping, a match under my toe.
Too often I am pulled away from my personal pursuits because someone wants something from me. Come drink with me, come have dinner with us, go on this trip with us this weekend. I'm never going to get anything done or 'get ahead' in this life without saying no every now and then.
Some people may be OK with living in this HO HUM world we live in; punching the clock and sitting in the cubicle or whatever their version of the cubicle is but point is they're trapped. Maybe they're happy though.
I look forward to my next 'no' - maybe then I can actually sit down and code to my heart's content and fulfill my dream of being my own boss, of creating something, and pulling myself out of the muck to reach true freedom.
Too often I am pulled away from my personal pursuits because someone wants something from me. Come drink with me, come have dinner with us, go on this trip with us this weekend. I'm never going to get anything done or 'get ahead' in this life without saying no every now and then.
A good perspective on this is that time is a scarce resource, and by choosing to allocate it to one thing you also choose not to allocate it to everything else.
That being said, I'd imagine if most people (myself included) chose to prioritize personal pursuits over everything else, they'd end up exactly as unhappy as otherwise.
Just make sure you're not chasing a fallacy. Most people find that creating "your own thing" isn't the path to freedom, but a prison far worse than any cubicle. Trust me, I've experienced it.
If you want real freedom, then find a job that provides that. You probably won't make the money you want. Or live the lifestyle you think you need. In the end, however, you'll be much more free to pursue life the way you want.
For instance, my wife dedicated herself to a PhD. She makes FAR less as a professor than she otherwise would, but she takes her summers off and gets to spend time out in the world. It's not a life of glamour, but it's a life of freedom.
There are jobs that offer equal levels of freedom. You just have to often be willing to compromise some things to find them.
This article really says "1/3 of creative people contacted said no". That's it really.
It certainly doesn't jive with my real world experience. I've always been absolutely floored at how far really well-known people will go to help me when I need it. Whether it be spending an hour over coffee or just exchanging a few emails, the really creative (and successful) people I've reached out to in my life have generally been willing to spend their time to help me out.
I should note that often these requests are completely blind. I don't have a business school background with lots of contacts (I went to a small state school in the south). I don't have lots of friends with friends to help me out.
I suppose my experience is about the same as the study in the article. 33% of folks fall over backwards to help me out, at no real benefit to themselves. Another 33% are kind of difficult to tie down. The rest say no. To draw a conclusion as definite as "creative people say no" is hard for me to accept.
45 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] thread(http://www.good.is/posts/secret-to-creativity-learning-how-t...)
> When setting out to write his book Creativity, Hungarian psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi contacted 275 creatives whose habits he wanted to study. The idea was to gain insight into their processes so that others could apply these practices in their own lives. But in many cases, the answer to his very inquiry was actually the secret to creativity. Out of all the subjects he asked, one third of them said no to being studied. The reason? Most simply did not have time. In order to be creative, many explained, it was vital they say no to any request that would take away from their time spent creating. Several who rejected Csikszentmihalyi knew of the respected author's work, yet they still maintained their hours were best spent on their own output.
While I agree it is not really relevant, it reminded me of the kind of articles some mass media produce that are basically along the lines of "scientists discovered [whatever]". Reading those is basically a waste of time, so seeing a similar sentence at the start of HN submitted post was a bit unexpected to me.
I see substantial similarities in the content and no attribution. I don't think this would pass muster if it were a newspaper column.
It's fun to imagine statements like: "We put together one developer from Connecticut, a graphic artist from Rhode Island, and -even a web hacker from Massachusetts-". This contrast shows how the practice of making something exotic and worshiping it takes place. It's one form of how we Americans inhibit ourselves from greatness - when we tell ourselves that people from $country are automatically more skilled, wise, experienced than us. Their introductions should lead with their benefits, not where their parents knocked boots.
I have also been on the mailing list of more than one musician who lists countries to build social proof with statements such as "I received grants to perform in Belgium, Holland, England and Germany." It's really only a weak form of imperialism to be invited and funded by a single individual or a committee, rather than to have populist acceptance and/or paying customers. Surely some national funding is key to maintaining the freshness within any culture, but confusing top-down support such as cultural grants, which inevitably introduce artisans from @countries with public support, with loyal customership is a blinding error.
what's your "Time and attention management" like?
It varies.
(Using Opera on Android)
There was an article here, mentioned that developer guy got involved in another project and started moving faster that before on the main project.
Ideas need 'rest time' time. Photographers take pictures and mature them for a while.
Most people would never dream of taking a few pennies out of your account even if they could do it without asking. When someone spams me with an email or sends me on a detour with a link bait title, they are taking precious moments from my life "account".
We're not all as busy as we make ourselves out to be. People love to give others the impression they are swamped in order to say "no," not the other way around. "No, I can't go to dinner with you tonight, I'm sorry, I'm just so backlogged with work..."
The word "no" is a powerful thing. It's probably the first word that as infants we discover has the power to alter our environment. But when we move out of the nursery, it's a word, a tool, and a habit with profoundly negative impact to the wielder.
How many times in your life have you been frustrated with a gatekeeper over some process? Chances are, they embraced saying "no".
You can say "yes". That doesn't mean that you drop everything and do exactly what is asked, either. Try it sometime, it's a transformative thing. In big bureaucracies, saying "yes" is fun, because you get these bizarre reactions... people are trained to hear "no" and lobby for you to change your mind.
The same 'ignore everybody' approach works well for any activity, including not very creative kinds like bodybuilding, when you know what to do, and all you need is a lack of distraction.
This approach also has obvious problems: you can end up with a useless result because it falls out of context, or shadowed by a vastly better approach you chose to not pay attention to.
And, of course, you can be brilliantly creative with little or no lasting output, like someone showering others with mots and impromptus on a party. Researcher rarely interview such people, though.
I am noting that even the author of this article did not identify the anonymous hungarian professor.
If Barbara Walters was calling for a feature interview on prime time television, the answer might very well be "yes".
http://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Flow-Psychology-Discovery-I...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)
If you're a successful person, creative or not, you probably know how to manage your time well and don't allocate it towards random studies.
Additionally, the freer you are from routine obligation, the harder it is to politely say no. I've long said fill up your schedule or others will fill it for you.
Too often I am pulled away from my personal pursuits because someone wants something from me. Come drink with me, come have dinner with us, go on this trip with us this weekend. I'm never going to get anything done or 'get ahead' in this life without saying no every now and then.
Some people may be OK with living in this HO HUM world we live in; punching the clock and sitting in the cubicle or whatever their version of the cubicle is but point is they're trapped. Maybe they're happy though.
I look forward to my next 'no' - maybe then I can actually sit down and code to my heart's content and fulfill my dream of being my own boss, of creating something, and pulling myself out of the muck to reach true freedom.
A good perspective on this is that time is a scarce resource, and by choosing to allocate it to one thing you also choose not to allocate it to everything else.
That being said, I'd imagine if most people (myself included) chose to prioritize personal pursuits over everything else, they'd end up exactly as unhappy as otherwise.
If you want real freedom, then find a job that provides that. You probably won't make the money you want. Or live the lifestyle you think you need. In the end, however, you'll be much more free to pursue life the way you want.
For instance, my wife dedicated herself to a PhD. She makes FAR less as a professor than she otherwise would, but she takes her summers off and gets to spend time out in the world. It's not a life of glamour, but it's a life of freedom.
There are jobs that offer equal levels of freedom. You just have to often be willing to compromise some things to find them.
It certainly doesn't jive with my real world experience. I've always been absolutely floored at how far really well-known people will go to help me when I need it. Whether it be spending an hour over coffee or just exchanging a few emails, the really creative (and successful) people I've reached out to in my life have generally been willing to spend their time to help me out.
I should note that often these requests are completely blind. I don't have a business school background with lots of contacts (I went to a small state school in the south). I don't have lots of friends with friends to help me out.
I suppose my experience is about the same as the study in the article. 33% of folks fall over backwards to help me out, at no real benefit to themselves. Another 33% are kind of difficult to tie down. The rest say no. To draw a conclusion as definite as "creative people say no" is hard for me to accept.