It’s a nice summary of the traits of the creative person. I can identity with most of it…but do see also that “creativity” can become an idealized notion ascribed to an individual (making them “special”); creativity becomes a market commodity. Whereas what’s actually important to the creative person is the source phenomenon, or “thing itself,” that calls for a novel response.
The 1% of inspiration, corresponding to the 99% of perspiration that Edison noted, is just as often well more than 1% of desperation. We do what we must!
At the same time, I do believe that creativity as a personal trait (and more exciting to me, as a collective manifestation) can be cultivated—but this process is no different than that of “waking up,” “coming into being,” or being “reborn.” People who become creative in the sense that Mihaly Csikszentmihayli describes are highly motivated to manifest what’s within them, using the means available. (Or creating them first, if needed!)
A platform explicitly designed to support, catalyze, and amplify this process—insofar as we see creativity as a meta-good, which I believe it is (alongside other values or qualities such as compassion, truth, justice, etc.)—would be a great thing to create! (But you knew that already.)
I think there’s a lot we can learn from creativity theory, which can inform design choices, experiments, and social practices. It’s also worth noting some of the potential pitfalls that “creative types” often fall into (e.g., self-marginalization) and find ways to keep the juices flowing through the system.