This piece has potential to be interesting philosophy, but it is garbage science. Watts aren't a unit of energy, so most of his writing is fundamentally incorrect. This seems strange to me coming from what I gather is a science journalist who interviewed a physicist for the piece . This distinction matters; it isn't just semantics, nor is it trivial. Energy is power integrated over time. Saying we use higher wattage is only meaningful if we know the time spent using the power. Otherwise it is nonsense. It is a disgrace to not make this distinction in a piece about creativity. If you drive a truck that gets 15 mpg, and I drive a hybrid that gets 50 mpg, are you using more gas than me? Who knows? I may have a 40 mile drive to work, and you have a 1 mile drive. The same goes for energy an power. As a derived purely derived measurement, power cannot tell is much on its own. There is no such thing as 250 watts of energy. He may have something important or interesting to say, but its not clear from his writing. Is this average power? Peak power? What?

As an aside, the discussion sparked by this post was well more interesting and thoughtful that the piece itself.