Home Science Page Data Stream Momentum Directionals Root Beings The Experiment
Our first crude representation of the 2 hour creative process is a string of Ô0Õs followed by a string of 120 Ô1Õs followed by another string of Ô0Õs. This is shown below.
While a fairly boring and simplistic representation, it is how the non-creative view time. It is a fairly mechanistic representation of time. A five-minute interruption takes out five minutes of creative time, no more no less. Shown below.
It is easy to see that the 5 minutes of interrupted, non-creative time, could be moved anywhere throughout and dispersed individually or in groups but that the net effect on creative time is the same, which is a reduction of creative output by exactly five minutes. This interruption model certainly has nothing to do with that which we have experienced.
Further this model of the Creative Pulse does not grow nor does it die naturally. In short this representation falls short of describing the experience of creativity, although it is the model that most people believe in, as witnessed by the frequency with which creativity is interrupted with the phrase, ÔJust give me a minute of your time.Õ
The next model we looked at was based upon the Decaying Average, which has been explored extensively in its own Notebook. (For reasons that will be revealed later we chose a Decay Factor of 16. The Data Stream employed was 10 Ô0Õs followed by 120 Ô1Õs and then 10 more Ô0Õs, just as we did above in our exploration of the mechanistic view of time.)
The Decaying Average Model of the Creative burst is shown below.
While expanding gradually, it grows to a peak and then stays there. The Decaying Average only begins falling after the creative activity is discontinued, i.e. after 120 minutes. This model, while mimicking the growth of creativity, reveals nothing about the natural fall in the Creative Urge after it has been consumed. The Decaying Average Model does not reflect the Decaying of the Creative Urge.
Additionally when we introduce a five-minute interruption, it only consumes five minutes of the total creative energy, no more, no less. The area under the graph reflects the total creative energy. This model does not reflect the disproportionate influence of interruptions on the creative cycle. This condition is shown below.
Further the interruption has nothing to with the actual peak that is reached. With a slight delay, the Decaying Average begins its upward climb, reaching virtually the same peak as before, maybe a few thousandths less. This model certainly does not reflect the creative experience of anyone around here. Most of us find that interruptions cause far greater damage to our creative urge than its actual time in minutes.
The next model we looked into was the 1st Deviation - like the Standard Deviation but not based upon squares, just absolute differences. This has been dealt with in its own Notebook. Here is its picture.
A nice rise followed by a gradual fall. This fits our experience better than the first two models. But then when our activity stops after 120 ÔminutesÕ the Deviation rises sharply again, duplicating the rise when the activity began at 1. This certainly does not mimic experience. After finishing a 2-hour creative project, oneÕs creative momentum does not begin growing again after stopping. If anything our momentum goes negative.
Since we have mentioned the creative urge, we must mention the negative urge. While there is an urge Ôto doÕ something, there is also an urge Ônot to doÕ something. As opposed to this polarity of positive and negative desire, there is also a neutrality towards doing something.
ÒI donÕt want to - do homework - go to work - do chores - clean up my room.Ó ÒI want to go shopping - listen to music - play on the computer - write a story.Ó ÒI donÕt care if I must work or not - donÕt care where we go out to eat.Ó