|Rescooped by Sharrock from 21st Century skills of critical and creative thinking|
This is nice to use to support whatever style and habits you use to create. We all need our magic feathers to motivate and encourage us towards completing unstructured tasks. It strikes me though that the chart says nothing definite at all. Some of the creatives had "day jobs", some did not. Some were literary creatives while others were musical or were visual/2-D artists while others still are philosophers. Then there are the one or two scientists (depending on how you describe the method Freud uses compared to Darwin's method).
What is missing? How do we characterize "creative work"? Is this only the production part of the creativity or does it include the creative's research? For example, many writers research by reading the works of of others to explore how certain effects are achieved. Others research into how certain characters might have achieved the social/emotional/intellectual points they have achieved. Domain-specific creativity may have commonalities within the domains. We are not seeing what these are by ignoring the "work" or "study" of creativity. I will have to read the study cited here.
In other words, other than the suggestion that we should suspend our disbelief and critical thinking skills to accept that "Well, we first have to imagine these kinds of habits as causal–that is, the habits cause the creativity, rather than the reverse", there really doesn't appear to be any obvious takeaways that support the statement that you need rest, exercise, and creative activity. Mozart didn't need exercise apparently. Neither did Franklyn nor O'Connor nor Balzac (and there are others). I would consider Franklyn, O'Connor, and Mozart as the genius's geniuses. Although I have no idea who Corbusier is--I'll have to Google him/her--I can't see why we are being directed to this chart as though it is evidence supporting anything. The disclaimer basically says the same thing: "Disclaimer: The above info doesn’t characterize the entire life of each person but a specific period of time as recorded in diaries, letters and other documentation." If you are someone on the lookout for the narrative fallacy, this would set off flags.
But I know how it can happen that the summary of a document leaves out the important points and methodology, including a larger population size charted out possibly. It might indicate that the authors read the much larger document, and assumed that the summary was enough.
I will have to read the larger document. The summary was not enough.
I am interested in the topic though. I am on the lookout for studies that explore the influence of daily schedules and habits on creative productivity.