Analysis I take to be a scientific procedure. What I do is creative. It doesn't spring from the same part of the mind.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I don't choose to analyze what I have done and I think that is the right choice, because then I won't be spending my time creating.
The speculative part of my work is that these particular cognitive tasks - ways of thinking analytically - are tied to nature's laws.
I don't analyze things all the time, I just do them.
I'm a very analytical person, a somewhat introspective person; that's the nature of the work I do.
Don't just analyze a problem - solve it.
I have expertise in five different fields which helps me to easily understand the analogy between my scientific problems and those occurring in nature.
The best way to investigate the elusive phenomenon called the creative process may well be to target all the misconceptions, to explain what the creative process is not.
A lot of my research time is spent daydreaming - telling an imaginary admiring audience of laymen how to understand some difficult scientific idea.
I don't view myself as a practitioner of a particular skill or method. I'm constantly looking at what's the most interesting problem that I could possibly work on. I really try to figure out what sort of scientist I need to be in order to solve the problem I'm interested in solving.
I am basically analytical, not creative; my writing is simply a creative way of handling analysis.