Reclaiming Flow

The self-development world has turned one of humanistic psychology’s most beautiful findings into a productivity tool. Here’s what it cost us — and how to recover the older, larger meaning.

Dougal Waters | Getty

Somewhere in the last decade, flow got hijacked.

The state Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi spent thirty years studying — the absorbed, time-stretched, self-forgetting condition that shows up when a person is fully inside what they’re doing — became a productivity hack. Silicon Valley founders started microdosing into it. Wall Street traders started zapping their brains for it. Executive coaches started selling courses on how to “trigger” it on demand. The keyword that grew up around it was optimal performance.

It’s worth pausing on what got dropped in the renaming. Csikszentmihalyi’s foundational book is called Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Not optimal performance. Optimal experience. The word that named the phenomenon for the rest of psychology to study was the one the productivity world quietly removed.

I’m not introducing a new argument here. I’m recovering an older one.

What Maslow already knew

Before Csikszentmihalyi named flow, Abraham Maslow had already mapped the same territory under a different name. In a 1956 address to the American Psychological Association — a talk titled “Cognition of Being in the Peak Experiences”— Maslow described what he had been collecting from self-actualizing people for years: brief, transformative moments he called peak experiences, or, more philosophically, transient states of absolute Being (I love this phrase so much).

I wrote about this in Transcend in 2020. Maslow’s list of seventeen characteristics of the peak experience reads, today, like an almost line-for-line preview of what the field would later call flow:

• Complete absorption

• Richer perception

• Disorientation in physical time and space

• Intrinsic reward of the experience

• Ego transcendence

• Dichotomy transcendence

• Momentary loss of fears, anxieties, and inhibitions

• Heightened aestheticism, wonder, awe, and surrender

• Fusion of the person and the world

That last one is really the heart of it. The peak experience, for Maslow, was a moment of fusion — the person and the world briefly stop being two different things. Csikszentmihalyi later operationalized something very close to this when he defined flow as the state in which “action and awareness merge.” Different vocabulary; the same underlying experience.

There’s a lineage here that the productivity culture has forgotten. Flow is not a 1990s discovery in performance optimization. Flow is the empirical operationalization of a much older humanistic psychology tradition that named these moments not as hacks but as the farthest reaches of human nature— Maslow’s exact phrase — and the spine of his posthumous book collecting his late-career thinking on this territory. He wasn’t pitching a leadership seminar. He was naming what makes a life worth living.

What flow actually is

Here’s a clean working definition of flow, drawn from the original research: flow is the state of being so fully absorbed in an activity that you lose self-consciousness, time distorts, action and awareness merge, and the activity becomes its own reward. The structural conditions are well-described — a clear goal, immediate feedback, and a challenge that matches your current skill level so closely that it neither overwhelms you nor bores you. Fun fact: Csikszentmihalyi originally wanted to call his book “The Autotelic Personality”. The word autotelic refers to any activity, behavior, or personality trait that is done for its own inherent joy, not in order to achieve something external or for future benefit. As you might imagine, publishers weren’t so keen on calling the book “The Autotelic Personality”, but I give you this little bit of history so you get a sense of where Mihaly’s head was at when he wrote his first book on the topic.

Neurologically, something striking happens during flow: the prefrontal cortex quiets down. Charles Limb’s MRI work on improvising jazz musicians showed reduced activity in the brain region responsible for self-monitoring — the inner critic. Researchers call this transient hypofrontality. You can think of it as a temporary vacation from the part of your mind that’s keeping score.

This is where it gets interesting for the question I want to ask. The vacation from self-monitoring is precisely what makes flow feel so good as an experience. It’s also, separately, what makes flow useful as a performance state. The same neural condition is doing two different jobs at once — and the self-development world has been buying the second one without admitting it’s also paying for the first.

Who actually enters flow

Back in 2011, in an article for Psychology Today, I covered a study by Csikszentmihalyi and his colleagues in Sweden that asked who actually reports flow most often in their daily lives. The answer was people who score lower in neuroticism, higher in conscientiousness — and there was no relationship to IQ. In other words, flow proneness isn’t a function of how smart you are; it’s a function of how peacefully and single-mindedly you can attend to what’s right in front of you.

The researchers’ summary was telling: “Flow may thus be a state of subjectively effortless attention that occurs during skilled performance and has different underlying mechanisms from attention during mental effort.” Effortless attention. Not maximal cognitive output. The two states have different neural signatures and probably different developmental routes. The IQ test and the flow state are not the same animal.

That finding doesn’t disqualify flow as a performance enhancer. It does suggest, though, that what we’re enhancing when we enter flow may not be the thing the productivity culture is selling us. We’re not pushing harder. We’re attending more peacefully.

Where the optimization frame goes wrong

Steven Kotler and Jamie Wheal’s fascinating book Stealing Fire documents the lengths the high-performance world has gone to in order to manufacture flow on demand: military officers on month-long meditation retreats, traders with electrodes on their scalps, lawyers stacking off-prescription pharmaceuticals, engineers microdosing with psychedelics. The book describes this as the democratization of altered states. Another way to describe it is people working very hard to feel less effortful.

There’s an irony here that the field hasn’t fully sat with: Flow is the experience of not trying to optimize yourself. The conditions that produce it — absorption, self-forgetfulness, intrinsic enjoyment, attention without effort — are the structural opposites of the conditions that produce the chase for it. You don’t get to flow by squeezing. You get to flow by getting interested.

I said something to Cadillac Magazine in 2018 that I still believe more than ever: “Sometimes, for optimal productivity and creativity, you need all your wits about you as well. You can’t get yourself into a state that reduces your rational facilities and expect that to be a cure-all.” The reduced-self-monitoring state is wonderful for certain tasks and a liability for others. Your air traffic controller is not someone you want in transient hypofrontality. Neither is your surgeon mid-incision. Flow is a condition, not a moral category. Treating it as a universal performance solvent flattens it into something it isn’t.

Flow as a way of being in the world

Here is the part the optimization frame structurally cannot say.

When I’m listening to music with friends, or deep into writing something I care about, or watching a beautiful sunset, or genuinely lost in conversation with someone whose mind I find beautiful, the flow state is doing none of the things the performance literature talks about. It isn’t making me more productive. It isn’t optimizing my output. It is making my life feel like a life. It is the thing that, looking back, I will remember as having been worth it.

This is what Maslow was pointing at when he wrote about peak experiences. It is what humanistic psychology has been quietly maintaining for seventy years while the rest of the field was busy measuring things. In his 1956 APA address speech (which he never got to deliver in person due to health concerns), he wrote that peak experiences are the moments in which a person is at their “happiest and most thrilling,” and also at their “healthiest.” Not most productive. Healthiest.

The deepest moments of a human life are not always the most efficient ones. They are the most fully lived ones — the moments in which the person and the activity, the person and the world, briefly stop being two different things. Maslow called this fusion. Csikszentmihalyi called it flow. The self-development world has been selling it as output. Two of those framings are about the experience itself. One of them is about what you can extract from it.

You can enter flow while gardening. While dancing in your kitchen. While listening so closely to a piece of music that you forget you’re listening. While laughing with your family about something stupid that happened. None of these things will appear on a performance review. All of them will appear, if you’re lucky, in the highlight reel of your actual life.

A reframe, not a correction

I’m not arguing that flow’s performance benefits aren’t real. They are. The research is solid. Idea generation accelerates, motivation rises, creative integration improves. Use it for those things if you want. They’re a legitimate harvest.

What I’m arguing is that flow is the rare condition where the means and the ends collapse into each other. The performance is a side effect of the experience. The experience is the actual thing — and was the original thing, before the productivity industry got hold of it.

If you find yourself trying to bio-hack your way into flow so you can ship more code or close more deals, you’ve already missed it. The state you’re chasing is the state of not chasing. Try a slower entry: notice which activities, in your real life, make time disappear and leave you feeling more like yourself. Do more of those. Let the performance benefits arrive as a byproduct, the way they were always meant to.

Csikszentmihalyi titled his book Optimal Experience. He could have titled it Optimal Performance. He didn’t. The choice was deliberate, and it has aged better than most of what came after it. Maslow, before him, called these states the healthiest moments of a human life — and stationed them at the very top of his hierarchy of needs as the thing the whole climb was for.

We can use flow to get more done. We can also use flow to get more out of being alive.

The second one was the original promise. It is still the better one.