Ahh. Tonight is Broadway’s night-of-nights. It’s the Tony Awards. My favorite night of the year. And to prove it, this is the view from my chair at this very moment:

You may give less than a shit about theatre. That’s ok — I’m not offended. We all have our own hobbies and interests. And theatre certainly isn’t for everyone.

But if you give me the next five minutes of your time, I bet I can convince you to try out some form of artistic endeavor…

With science.

👉 Being a performing artist doesn’t necessarily make you better in business. But science says, it definitely doesn’t hurt.

And now — the story behind why this advice matters. 👇

Let’s shift our attention from the Tony Awards to a different kind of award — the MacArthur Fellowship.

In 1981, a lowly Princeton Ph.D. received the MacArthur “genius grant” for his work on the history of science. His name was Robert Root-Bernstein. And he was obsessed with the way scientists —primarily the ones who make world-changing breakthroughs— actually think.

Over the next few years, he immersed himself in the whacky world of the most revolutionary scientists, studying their personal notebooks, devouring their biographies, and mapping the histories of their discoveries.

Root-Bernstein wanted to understand their thinking process, and answer the question: “Why do some scientists produce unusually original ideas?”

This work culminated in his first book, Discovering: Inventing and Solving Problems at the Frontiers of Scientific Knowledge, in 1989.

It’s a beast.

In the book, Root-Bernstein argues that the most revolutionary scientists rely more on their imagination than their analytical skills. They see the world through images, metaphors, and aesthetics. They lean into their intuition. They play.

Kind of like… artists.

His work struck a chord, so he dove deeper. In 1999 he published another book, Sparks of Genius: The Thirteen Thinking Tools of the World’s Most Creative People.

This book certainly had broader commercial appeal, and more practical application, than his first one. It emphasized the connection between the arts and sciences, identified the most important creative tools that both disciplines need to be successful, and theorized that the greatest artists and scientists essentially play in the same proverbial sandbox.

And while there was certainly heaps of evidence to support Root-Bernstein's theory, it was still just that — a theory.

So in 2008, he decided to put his theory to the test…

How the hell do you test the theory that groundbreaking scientists share the same creative thought systems as groundbreaking artists? How did you quantify that shit?

Root-Bernstein devised a study to assess “meaningful engagement” in artistic activities among several distinguished scientific groups:

So what does “meaningful engagement” mean?

Root-Bernstein was looking specifically for what is called “avocations”, or serious artistic pursuits outside of the scientists’ primary profession of, ya know, being a scientist.

This study rounded up all the highest-achieving scientists, and counted how many of them actively participate in artistic endeavors. And boy, did the Nobel laureates stand out — dramatically.

Nobel Prize winners were three times more likely to meaningfully engage in artistic activities compared to the other three (less distinguished) groups of scientists.

But that’s not all—

Root-Bernstein also categorized those creative avocations, and found that Nobel Prize winners were an astonishing 22 times more likely than their scientific peers to participate in some form of performance art, like acting or singing.

In fact, performance art squashed all the other arts categories, such as writing, painting, and crafting (although all of those categories did show up substantially more frequently among Nobel laureates than in the other scientific peer groups).

So what can we take away from this?

The scientists who make the most groundbreaking, world-changing, history-making discoveries —with the impact of those discoveries being universally validated by a goddamn Nobel Prize— spend their free time on the stage.

Of course, any logical thinker will quickly point out that Root-Bernstein’s study may prove correlation, but not causation. 

In other words, he didn’t prove that these scientists won Nobel Prizes because they spend their weekends haunting the local open mic, or singing in the church choir. He only proved that scientists who won Nobel Prizes were more likely to actively participate in the arts than other scientists — a likelihood that markedly increases when it comes to the performing arts.

So the question now becomes: what is the nature of that correlation?

Are Nobel laureates simply born more curious humans, who get their kicks participating in a wide range of activities beyond their scientific profession?

Or does their participation in these activities seed the kind of creative thinking that is necessary to tackle the world’s biggest scientific problems?

That experiment is a little harder to devise.

So in the absence of a testable hypothesis — I’m going to say it’s a little of both.

I don’t think a scientist can become a Nobel laureate simply by participating in the arts if a fundamental interest and enthusiasm for the arts doesn’t already exist. You can’t force it.

But I also think that a scientist who does have an interest in the arts, yet doesn’t participate, is cutting off their damn arm.

And I would further this hypothesis by claiming the same principles apply to everyone — not just scientists.

Last week, seven members of my entrepreneurship mastermind group gathered to discuss a single question: “How do you stay curious?”

The conversation centered around things like going down rabbit holes on topics that have nothing to do with our job… filling our worlds with diverse people… traveling… and asking lots of questions.

On the topic of questions, one member chimed in that he recently took over his daughter’s piano lessons when she lost interest, and he asked the teacher “Why are the music notes different on the bass clef and treble clef?”.

First — great f*cking question. (He stumped the teacher.)

But more importantly — let’s take a moment to appreciate that a man in his 40s, who runs multiple businesses which have absolutely nothing to do with music, is taking piano lessons.

My heart absolutely sang when I heard that.

And when I looked around the room, I realized that every single person (including myself) actively participated in some kind of performing arts. Music, dance, theatre, comedy — they were all represented in this tiny group of seven successful business leaders.

And while it’s difficult to draw a direct line between this group’s artistic avocations and our successful business careers, I don’t think it’s a coincidence. And perhaps the more remarkable takeaway isn’t that we all shared interest in performing arts — it’s that we all made time in our impossibly busy lives to actually participate.

So on this very merry Tonys Day, let this issue of Drunk Business Advice serve as your reminder to start participating. If you have an artistic interest, whatever that interest might be, it’s time to make time for it.

Pick up an instrument, a paint brush, a pair of tap shoes, and just do the creative thing that tickles your whimsy. 

These activities aren’t dispensable, trivial hobbies. They’re vital for developing “transdisciplinary thinking tools”, according to Root-Bernstein. And for anyone whose job involves innovation or problem-solving, they can mean the difference between grinding away innocuously, and spearheading a breakthrough.

It’s science.

Cheers! 🍻

-Kristin :-)

P.S. — I don’t just write Drunk Business Advice — I bring it to life on stage (go figure). And I’d love to speak at your next event. Hit reply or click here to learn more.