(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.