I think this analysis method is rather suspect. If you ask an average person with no great accomplishments about their hobbies they are inclined to downplay th

I think this analysis method is rather suspect. If you ask an average person with no great accomplishments about their hobbies they are inclined to downplay them into temporary activities. When you go to make a biography of someone after an accomplishment everything they did seems like it may be of significance. Hobbies that leave a lot of artifacts may have been a passing phase and not how the person would describe their hobbies 95% of the time when randomly polled. Taking Feynman as an example, if his drawing weren't his official hobby then his percussion playing would be. Both of these could have been rather sporadic and therefore wouldn't be his responses as an anonymous scientist most of the time. He may also have been more into percussion, but drawing was much more likely to leave artifacts in those times.