5 ms·

> I will admit to never having been able to read Cal Newport’s Deep Work all the way through — I got too irritated — but I would point to his dismissive naming

> I will admit to never having been able to read Cal Newport’s Deep Work all the way through — I got too irritated — but I would point to his dismissive naming of the idea of “shallow work”, which he defines as logistical and often repetitive tasks, such as writing short emails. Newport recommends entirely stopping or poorly performing that work; I read this as encouraging readers to commit EFT against others around them. It’s pretty weird to me that this is what the author took from Deep Work. Then again, they admitted that they didn’t read it fully. The message of the book is not to dump your shallow work onto other people. It is to eliminate the “shallow” work entirely when possible, and to be mindful of the pitfalls of context switching when such work can’t be avoided. Nor is the word “shallow” used to describe anything other than the difference between something that requires deep focus to accomplish vs. something that does not. It’s not used in a dismissive or demeaning way. The author is looking for things in that book that do not exist, and worse, using it as a reference to prove the point of the post. I agree that dark patterns exist, and the hellish process of dealing with insurance is evidence of that. But I think the post suffers from applying the “EFT” label a bit too broadly, and for circumstances that are far more nuanced than “theft”.

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
But getting rid of shallow work is the entire reason why people get executive assistants.
- xyzzy123 3y ago
  I don't either Cal or the author would have a problem with exec assistants - they're being paid for that. Where it can be a problem is when there are "attentive" people on a team and "inattentive" people who are ostensibly equals. Team members with higher conscientiousness tend to get lumped with an outsized share of undesirable, low impact busywork because others won't do it. This dynamic can cause problems in all sorts of groups and also at home.
  - stevezsa8 3y ago
    I can relate to this. I'm one of those people who usually had a little too much work to do, but still felt bad when no one else volunteers for a task. Often I'll offer to take it. I'd end up enjoying work less & less and got a bit disgruntled until I was back to my base-line of work. I definitely see it as a weakness in me, but also in my manager who let it happen. As I got older, I started to work at around 90% capacity and grab a tea or chat with a colleague or do some admin for the remainder. This enabled me to jump on to urgent requests and even make extra efforts like physically walking over to discuss the matter. This also enabled me to look out for junior colleagues who seemed a bit stressed.
  - jkhdigital 3y ago
    Exactly. Conscientiousness is a personality trait and those who are lucky enough (yes it is highly correlated with positive life outcomes) to have it in abundance would do well to calibrate their expectations of others accordingly.
    - adolph 3y ago
      Unless the attentiveness is driven by neuroticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
    - giantg2 3y ago
      Do you have some data on that? My experience is that conscientious people get rewarded with misery.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "Team members with higher conscientiousness tend to get lumped with an outsized share of undesirable, low impact busywork because others won't do it." I agree. I get shit on at work and at home.
- haswell 3y ago
  Maybe so, but unrelated to the book and its message. The author referencing the book in this context is in complete bad faith.
  - flir 3y ago
    I dunno, I can see it both ways. The front-loaded email style or eschewing social media certainly make life easier for others. But on the other hand, many of his examples of Monastic deep workers (Einstein, Darwin) absolutely relied on those around them to function. I think mentioning the book in this context is valid; the book has very little to say about the consequences of deep work behaviours on others, and that might be a failing.
    - haswell 3y ago
      > But on the other hand, many of his examples of Monastic deep workers (Einstein, Darwin) absolutely relied on those around them to function. Every one of us relies on those around us to function. Walking into a grocery store and buying food that’s ready to eat just scratches the surface of this reliance. Humans are fundamentally a cooperative species, which has enabled collective outcomes that would be impossible if we reduced our reliance on others. This becomes a problem when people are treated poorly in the process. Slavery is the obvious extreme, and various kinds of discrimination and power plays are some of the bad behaviors that emerge from this social reliance. But reliance is not in itself a problem. It’s at the core of being human. I would reiterate that the existence of bad behavior that enables focus for one person at the expense of others with no fair exchange of value is not an intrinsic consequence of the ideas in Deep Work.
    - sorry_i_lisp 3y ago
      Cal also writes about reverse office hours. The idea is that instead of holding a 1 hour meeting where every person only has a small contribution to make (in the realm of 5 minutes or less), they don't attend that meeting but rather the person with the objective that needs input from several different players is tasked with going to the different players when it's convenient to the ones you need the small contributions from. So I don't think Cal is only interested in optimizing his own life and dumping everything EFT style onto others. Undoubtedly it was easier for Darwin to work 4 deep work hours a day because he didn't have to handle the kids, prepare the food, clean the house and mow the lawn and work in the garden. Based on having read Cal a lot I haven't seen him advocate this selfishness in the modern world.
- Retric 3y ago
  That doesn’t actually eliminate the work. The books point isn’t about delegation it’s that nobody should be doing shallow tasks. Either avoid the need for them or automate them.
- indymike 3y ago
  Getting rid of shallow work is why people hire people.
raincole 3y ago
Dumping shallow work onto other people is not only legit but often necessary. It's just economics 101. Before computer was invented, "computers" were people who did the ultimate shallow work - computing - so the mathematicians could actually do math. Inventing shallow work, however, is the root of evil.
- haswell 3y ago
  I don’t necessarily disagree, but I do think there’s a case to be made that such dumping needs to happen more mindfully than it has in the past, and/or in some cases isn’t dumping at all, but just a division of roles/responsibilities (which I think is what you’re getting at). But in any case, this is not what the book is about.
escapedmoose 3y ago
I’ve never read the book. Can you briefly summarize how the author expects shallow tasks to be dealt with, if not offloaded to another person?
- haswell 3y ago
  In very brief summary: 1. A lot of shallow work doesn’t need to happen at all. It’s not about offloading it, it’s about stopping altogether, or automating it. 2. When this isn’t possible, structure your workday to preserve uninterrupted blocks of deep work. Do the shallow tasks mindfully in batches, instead of letting them constantly steal your attention throughout the day. 3. Use tools like your calendar to schedule shallow and deep periods of work. A big part of the book is focused on defining the problems that constant interruptions cause so as to deepen the motivation to actually institute habit changes. He was also ahead of the curve encouraging people to step away from social media in favor of local interactions. I personally read the book as a person who is probably the poster child for being a “victim” of “EFT”. I was in a role where my attention was constantly demanded/stolen, and I needed to find strategies to make the best of the situation. At no point was this exploration about offloading things to other people. It’s a good book, and I highly recommend that people read it. Now more than ever. It’s also worth noting that his next books were “Digital Minimalism” and “A world without email”. He focuses on the theme of technology and information overload. Issues that I think many people are starting to realize are a real problem in their lives.
- taneq 3y ago
  Haha, nice, a practical demonstration! ;)

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago

But getting rid of shallow work is the entire reason why people get executive assistants.

xyzzy123 3y ago
I don't either Cal or the author would have a problem with exec assistants - they're being paid for that. Where it can be a problem is when there are "attentive" people on a team and "inattentive" people who are ostensibly equals. Team members with higher conscientiousness tend to get lumped with an outsized share of undesirable, low impact busywork because others won't do it. This dynamic can cause problems in all sorts of groups and also at home.
- stevezsa8 3y ago
  I can relate to this. I'm one of those people who usually had a little too much work to do, but still felt bad when no one else volunteers for a task. Often I'll offer to take it. I'd end up enjoying work less & less and got a bit disgruntled until I was back to my base-line of work. I definitely see it as a weakness in me, but also in my manager who let it happen. As I got older, I started to work at around 90% capacity and grab a tea or chat with a colleague or do some admin for the remainder. This enabled me to jump on to urgent requests and even make extra efforts like physically walking over to discuss the matter. This also enabled me to look out for junior colleagues who seemed a bit stressed.
- jkhdigital 3y ago
  Exactly. Conscientiousness is a personality trait and those who are lucky enough (yes it is highly correlated with positive life outcomes) to have it in abundance would do well to calibrate their expectations of others accordingly.
  - adolph 3y ago
    Unless the attentiveness is driven by neuroticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Do you have some data on that? My experience is that conscientious people get rewarded with misery.
- giantg2 3y ago
  "Team members with higher conscientiousness tend to get lumped with an outsized share of undesirable, low impact busywork because others won't do it." I agree. I get shit on at work and at home.
haswell 3y ago
Maybe so, but unrelated to the book and its message. The author referencing the book in this context is in complete bad faith.
- flir 3y ago
  I dunno, I can see it both ways. The front-loaded email style or eschewing social media certainly make life easier for others. But on the other hand, many of his examples of Monastic deep workers (Einstein, Darwin) absolutely relied on those around them to function. I think mentioning the book in this context is valid; the book has very little to say about the consequences of deep work behaviours on others, and that might be a failing.
  - haswell 3y ago
    > But on the other hand, many of his examples of Monastic deep workers (Einstein, Darwin) absolutely relied on those around them to function. Every one of us relies on those around us to function. Walking into a grocery store and buying food that’s ready to eat just scratches the surface of this reliance. Humans are fundamentally a cooperative species, which has enabled collective outcomes that would be impossible if we reduced our reliance on others. This becomes a problem when people are treated poorly in the process. Slavery is the obvious extreme, and various kinds of discrimination and power plays are some of the bad behaviors that emerge from this social reliance. But reliance is not in itself a problem. It’s at the core of being human. I would reiterate that the existence of bad behavior that enables focus for one person at the expense of others with no fair exchange of value is not an intrinsic consequence of the ideas in Deep Work.
  - sorry_i_lisp 3y ago
    Cal also writes about reverse office hours. The idea is that instead of holding a 1 hour meeting where every person only has a small contribution to make (in the realm of 5 minutes or less), they don't attend that meeting but rather the person with the objective that needs input from several different players is tasked with going to the different players when it's convenient to the ones you need the small contributions from. So I don't think Cal is only interested in optimizing his own life and dumping everything EFT style onto others. Undoubtedly it was easier for Darwin to work 4 deep work hours a day because he didn't have to handle the kids, prepare the food, clean the house and mow the lawn and work in the garden. Based on having read Cal a lot I haven't seen him advocate this selfishness in the modern world.
Retric 3y ago
That doesn’t actually eliminate the work. The books point isn’t about delegation it’s that nobody should be doing shallow tasks. Either avoid the need for them or automate them.
indymike 3y ago
Getting rid of shallow work is why people hire people.

raincole 3y ago

Dumping shallow work onto other people is not only legit but often necessary. It's just economics 101. Before computer was invented, "computers" were people who did the ultimate shallow work - computing - so the mathematicians could actually do math. Inventing shallow work, however, is the root of evil.

haswell 3y ago
I don’t necessarily disagree, but I do think there’s a case to be made that such dumping needs to happen more mindfully than it has in the past, and/or in some cases isn’t dumping at all, but just a division of roles/responsibilities (which I think is what you’re getting at). But in any case, this is not what the book is about.

escapedmoose 3y ago

I’ve never read the book. Can you briefly summarize how the author expects shallow tasks to be dealt with, if not offloaded to another person?

haswell 3y ago
In very brief summary: 1. A lot of shallow work doesn’t need to happen at all. It’s not about offloading it, it’s about stopping altogether, or automating it. 2. When this isn’t possible, structure your workday to preserve uninterrupted blocks of deep work. Do the shallow tasks mindfully in batches, instead of letting them constantly steal your attention throughout the day. 3. Use tools like your calendar to schedule shallow and deep periods of work. A big part of the book is focused on defining the problems that constant interruptions cause so as to deepen the motivation to actually institute habit changes. He was also ahead of the curve encouraging people to step away from social media in favor of local interactions. I personally read the book as a person who is probably the poster child for being a “victim” of “EFT”. I was in a role where my attention was constantly demanded/stolen, and I needed to find strategies to make the best of the situation. At no point was this exploration about offloading things to other people. It’s a good book, and I highly recommend that people read it. Now more than ever. It’s also worth noting that his next books were “Digital Minimalism” and “A world without email”. He focuses on the theme of technology and information overload. Issues that I think many people are starting to realize are a real problem in their lives.
taneq 3y ago
Haha, nice, a practical demonstration! ;)