Creativity

The quest for personal freedom

Last month I read Sarah Bakewell’s biography of sixteenth-century philosopher Michel de Montaigne and got so much out of it. Montaigne’s book Essays has influenced some of the greatest thinkers: from Francis Bacon and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to Friedrich Nietzsche and Shakespeare. Influential as he was, he was also, another biographer Stefan Zweig wrote, “the sworn enemy of all responsibility.” 

Montaigne’s “irresponsibility” was “essential to his battle to preserve his particular self as is.” Personal freedom is the supreme aim, he said, “to free oneself from fear and hope, belief and superstition. To be free of convictions and parties.” He thought certainty was absurd: all knowledge exists in humans, and because humans are fallible, all knowledge is to be doubted. He loved following his thoughts where they led, and delighted in viewing things from all possible angles. He went with the flow. If a book bored him or caused him to strain, he’d stop reading it, saying, “there is nothing I would break my head against in the name of scholarship.” He played with his cat, and pondered and wrote about his cat’s perspective. And he never worked harder than necessary. “The least strained and most natural ways of the soul,” he said, “are the most beautiful; the best occupations are the least forced.”

This idea of not straining yourself reminds me of how Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize.

The Irresponsible Nobel Prize Winner

After spending 4 years working on the atomic bomb in Los Alamos, Richard Feynman accepted a position teaching physics at Cornell University. During this time, he was offered different positions at top universities with higher-paying salaries. Albert Einstein wrote him requesting he work at Princeton and the Institute for Advanced Study. Despite the wonderful offers, he couldn’t accept them—4 years of intense mathematical work in Los Alamos had left him drained. He was tired, uninterested in research, and couldn’t write more than 2 sentences on a scientific problem without becoming distracted. There was no way he could accept these offers, he reasoned, because they didn’t know he was burned out. “They expect me to accomplish something, and I can’t accomplish anything! I have no ideas…”

But then he had a thought. These offers, with their high expectations, were absurd. They would be impossible to live up to. And because they were impossible to live up to, he realized, he had no responsibility to live up to them. “It was a brilliant idea: You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be.” He realized he could apply this idea to his current work at Cornell.

Then he had another thought. Physics was becoming less interesting to him, but he used to enjoy it. And he used to enjoy it because he played with it—unconcerned with its scientific importance. From now on, he would work only on physics problems that entertained him. “Now that I am burned out,” he thought, “and I’ll never accomplish anything . . . I’m going to play with physics, whenever I want to, without worrying about any importance whatsoever.”

Within a week, he was working on a “fun” project, causing a colleague to question its importance. “‘Hah!’ I say. ‘There’s no importance whatsoever. I’m just doing it for the fun of it.’ His reaction didn’t discourage me; I had made up my mind that I was going to enjoy physics and do whatever I liked.” This project that he worked on for fun ultimately led him to win the Nobel Prize.

The Wise Make Time to Play

Just as Marcus Aurelius wrote about not being “all about business,” Seneca advised his friend Lucilius that the mind will fracture if given too much work and that “it will rise improved and sharper after a good break.” Montaigne wrote, “There is nothing more notable in Socrates than that he found time when he was an old man to learn music and dancing, and thought it time well spent.”

Perhaps it was playfulness that gave Montaigne some of his philosophical insights. Summarizing Montaigne’s thoughts on world conflict, Bakewell writes, “To believe that life could demand [homicide in the name of religion] is to forget what day-to-day existence actually is. It entails forgetting that, when you look at a . . . . cat in the mood for play, you are looking at a creature who looks back at you. No abstract principles are involved; there are only two individuals, face to face, hoping for the best from one another.”

Imitation and going deeper

My weekly newsletter is a mashup of a small number of other newsletters I read and enjoy. Billy Oppenheimer’s Six at Six showed me how to make each email thematic, and Ryan Holiday’s Daily Stoic emails (which I’ve read nearly every day since 2016) taught me how to connect Stoicism to different topics. Two other newsletters that have given me ideas are Tim Ferris’s 5-Bullet Friday (where I got the idea to include a quotes section), and Austin Kleon’s newsletter of 10 things worth sharing (where I got the idea for a monthly Top 10 list).

This week’s blog is about innovating by imitating and going deeper.

Extend the line

Bob Dylan is regarded as one of the greatest songwriters of all time. At 81 years old, with a career spanning more than 6 decades, he’s still writing, recording, and performing. He’s become an object of study: where does his creativity come from? 

“These songs don’t come out of thin air,” he said. They are the result of years spent listening to traditional music, and singing the same songs over and over. He elaborated:

“If you sang ‘John Henry’ as many times as me—‘John Henry was a steel-driving man / Died with a hammer in his hand / John Henry said a man ain’t nothin’ but a man / Before I let that steam drill drive me down / I’ll die with that hammer in my hand.’ If you had sung that song as many times as I did, you’d have written, ‘How many roads must a man walk down?’ too. All these songs are connected. I just opened up a different door in a different kind of way. . . . I thought I was just extending the line.”

(Similar to The Adjacent Possible)

Build on Top of Something

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how Hal Mumme revolutionized American football with his Air Raid offense. Of course, this offense was not conceived in a flash of inspiration: it was the product of more than a decade’s worth of imitating the best passing offenses in the country. Early in his career, instead of starting from scratch, he realized he could build on top of existing concepts. He mastered the formations and plays that other coaches used, making adjustments and experimenting as he went. He subtracted the extraneous, shrinking phonebook-sized playbooks down to just a few plays. He chose depth over variety. He meshed plays together. He added his own theories and ideas, extending the line to compose the Air Raid offense and change the way football is played. “If we’re free from the burden of trying to be completely original,” Austin Kleon said, “we can stop trying to make something out of nothing, and we can embrace influence instead of running away from it.”

Find Wisdom Everywhere

One of my favorite things about Stoicism is that it has no immutable laws. The Stoics encouraged new ideas to be built on top of existing ones. They gladly welcomed any worthy idea, regardless of the source. “I’ll never be ashamed,” Seneca said, “to quote a bad writer with a good saying.” In fact, Seneca used quotes from Epicurus, the founder of a rival school. Marcus Aurelius would quote various philosophers throughout Meditations, rephrasing and reworking lines to push the ideas deeper into his psyche.

Sing the best songs, practice the best plays, contemplate the best ideas. Over and over and over. Then make them your own.

Zero to one and the surprising advantage of generalized knowledge

In Zero to One, Peter Thiel says he asks each potential employee this question: “What important truth do very few people agree with you on?”

The question is deceptively simple. It’s quite hard to come up with a good answer.

‘Bad answers, he says, are common ones like these:

‘Our educational system is broken and urgently needs to be fixed.

America is exceptional.’

They’re bad because most people already agree with these.

A good response would look something like this: “Most people believe in x, but the truth is the opposite of x.”

Peter says future progress will take either a horizontal or a vertical form. Horizontal progress involves copying what’s been done before (“going from 1 to n”). Vertical progress involves creating something new (“going from 0 to 1”). “If you take one typewriter and build 100, you have made horizontal progress. If you have a typewriter and build a word processor, you have made vertical progress.”

Here is his answer to his own interview question: “Most people think the future of the world will be defined by globalization, but the truth is that technology matters more.”

His explanation helped me to better understand his Zero to One theory:

“Without technological change, if China doubles its energy production over the next two decades, it will also double its air pollution. If every one of India’s hundreds of millions of households were to live the way Americans already do—using only today’s tools—the result would be environmentally catastrophic. Spreading old ways to create wealth around the world will result in devastation, not riches. In a world of scarce resources, globalization without new technology is unsustainable.”

This reminded me of another problem-solving technique I recently read about:

The Outside Advantage

In his wonderful book, Range: Why Generalist Triumph in a Specialized World, David Epstein illustrates the surprising advantage of generalized thinking. “Almost twenty years after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, thirty-two thousand gallons of oil remained stubbornly stuck along Alaska’s coast.” When oil mixes with water, it creates a sticky, peanut butter-like substance. Scott Pegau, research program manager at the Alaska-based Oil Spill Recovery Institute, turned to InnoCentive and offered $20,000 to the person with the best solution for removing this goo from the recovery barges.

Davis, a chemist, read about and pondered the oil spill cleanup challenge. His first thought was to use a chemistry-based solution to address the problem—but thought better of it, deciding it would be unwise to add more chemicals to a chemical problem.

He then thought of a distant analogy—drinking a slushy. You have to move the straw around to get the slushy out.

This reminded him of a construction job he once worked pouring concrete down a chute. The slow process allowed huge portions of the concrete to bake in the sun and harden before he could pour it. He recalled how his friend solved the problem by using a concrete vibrator to shake loose the concrete and keep it from sticking together. This was his eureka moment. He drew a diagram of a concrete vibrator attached to a barge and showed how it could easily unstick the oil, just like it had done with the concrete.

Davis presented this solution, and won the money. 

“Sometimes you just slap your head and go, ‘Well why didn’t I think of that?’” says Pegau afterward. “If it was easily solved by people within the industry, it would have been solved by people within the industry. I think it happens more often than we’d love to admit, because we tend to view things with all the information we’ve gathered in our industry, and sometimes that puts us down a path that goes into a wall. It’s hard to back up and find another path.”

Scientist Alph Bingham created Innocentive as a way for specialists to post industry-specific problems and offer rewards for solutions. The company soon discovered that the likelihood of a problem being solved increased in proportion to the diversity of the people trying to solve it. “The more likely a challenge was to appeal not just to scientists but also attorneys and dentists and mechanics, the more likely it was to be solved.”

Slow productivity

“Don’t underestimate the amount of time professional idea-people spend thinking,” says Cal Newport. In So Good They Can’t Ignore You, he argues that we should use a craft-centric instead of a productivity-centric approach to our work. A productivity-centric approach is geared toward checking items off a to-do list; a craft-centric one involves deep thinking and deliberate practice. While the productivity-centric route is much more alluring (redesigning your website is less painful and ambiguous than, say, grappling with a new theory), it’s the craft-centric mindset where you will experience the most growth. And over time, the growth will be profound. “My working habits are simple,” Ernest Hemingway famously said, “long periods of thinking, short periods of writing.”

This craft-centric approach ties in perfectly with the emerging topic of slow productivity (prompted by recent books like How to Do Nothing and Four Thousand Weeks). In this YouTube video, Cal explains the 3 elements of slow-productivity (which I wrote on a notecard and taped to my computer):

1. Do fewer things

2. Work at a natural pace

3. Obsess over quality

“If you seek tranquility, do less,” said Marcus Aurelius. “Doing what’s essential brings a double satisfaction: to do less, better.”

Scroll to Top