[bbor]

A) love the overall thesis/focus. The key points seem solid.

B) I’m not sure how scientific this is. “We looked for instances of deliberate practice and found some” seems more like self-help advice than rigorous sociology? Or… anthropology? It certainly isn’t psychology, but funnily enough it doesn’t actually say what degree this was for.

C) The theory section needed a much more serious engagement with the philosophy discussed, rather than just taking 1-2 sources on each 800y period as gospel. Let’s just say that not all Ancients thought nature was the peak of creativity, and that the doctrine of the Catholic Church wasn’t the only thing going on 400-1600, even if we restrict the view to Europe. Also desperately needs more engagement with postmodern conceptions of creativity, given that they basically dominate many parts of the “fine art” world to this day!

[relaxing]

B- It was a Ph.D. in Advertising.

[bbor]

Thanks, was just coming back to edit that in! Should’ve known HN would get it faster.

That does explain my negative reaction to the method — if I had to pick a single archenemy among the modern academies, Advertising would likely win top billing! I mean, I just now learned that it exists at all, which doesn’t help. I guess PhD’s in Manipulation wouldn’t look nearly as good on the mantle…