5 ms·

> "the never-ending 80% phase of a big development effort." currently suffering through this. I have spent 8 months, on and off, trying to solve a particular p

> "the never-ending 80% phase of a big development effort." currently suffering through this. I have spent 8 months, on and off, trying to solve a particular problem; this includes implementing 3 or 4 different methods, none of which have worked so far (I am currently tweaking method number 2.) I have been a few days away from something that might work since about January now, and the anticipation/tension/wanting the damn thing to just work is starting to get to me... The big picture - that if this code works it will allow me to generate a thesis-worth of conclusions in a few months - is all that keeps me sane! :) However, at this stage productivity comes in fits and starts - I sometimes need 2-3 days just doing something else before I can bear to look at the code again (being a grad student, I don't really have what you'd call weekends.) See my top-level post about rescue time for what I'm doing about this.

javajosh 14y ago
Original research is a little different than ordinary productivity. The OP's article is fantastic, but when it comes to original research, although everything he talks about is essential (having specific goals; staying absolutely focused during work-periods), there is the problem of solving problems that haven't been solved before. Such problems require inspiration. Inspiration, by definition, comes from nowhere. Although, if we're being honest, the research process is really just the process of transforming a big, vague, great idea into a very specific, actionable, pretty good idea. This is, of course, the hard part. It's hard for a few reasons: first, it's always more personally satisfying to hand-wave and get emotional agreement than to motivate calculations and get analytical agreement. But professional satisfaction (cash flow) requires you to attain the later (in our field, this is, essentially, the working code requirement). So you've got to make a choice to prove your idea. Second, demonstrating that an idea is good has an element of risk: the idea may turn out to be bad. You need to be open to this possibility, and take the attitude of the explorer rather than the proud parent. This is probably why researchers start off with an advisor, and even later submit their work to peer review: a third party who is not so attached to your idea can be an invaluable aid in navigating that difficult path between inspiration and demonstration. (And it so happens that this path often leads to learning new things, which is probably why original research is so intertwined with learning and teaching.)
- army 14y ago
  I agree. I think the original article is mostly right and very insightful. But what I've discovered over the last few years is that sometimes maximising productivity requires knowing when to take a break from the problem. A lot of time I'll spend an hour trying to work on something, hit an obstacle, try to push on it a bit, realise that it's hard, then just take a break from it until I have better inspiration on how to deal with it. Then a week or month later, once the idea for a solution has crystalised, then I can do a big push and get it done. Also, just walking around thinking is the most productive time of my day.
  - tehwalrus 14y ago
    I agree with both parent comments. The reason walking around is a good source of ideas is basically mindfulness/Zen/whatever you want to call it - put your brain in a bath of non-problem stimuli and stop verbalising your thoughts, and you can actually hear your brain generating new ideas. Of course it doesn't mean you'll get something useful straight away, or even in an hour, but you'll get new spontaneous thoughts and that's a good start. This is why, when you do take a break, it is essential not to occupy your "doing" mind - by reading HN/twitter or playing Skyrim, my weaknesses - and just relax.

javajosh 14y ago

Original research is a little different than ordinary productivity. The OP's article is fantastic, but when it comes to original research, although everything he talks about is essential (having specific goals; staying absolutely focused during work-periods), there is the problem of solving problems that haven't been solved before. Such problems require inspiration. Inspiration, by definition, comes from nowhere. Although, if we're being honest, the research process is really just the process of transforming a big, vague, great idea into a very specific, actionable, pretty good idea. This is, of course, the hard part. It's hard for a few reasons: first, it's always more personally satisfying to hand-wave and get emotional agreement than to motivate calculations and get analytical agreement. But professional satisfaction (cash flow) requires you to attain the later (in our field, this is, essentially, the working code requirement). So you've got to make a choice to prove your idea. Second, demonstrating that an idea is good has an element of risk: the idea may turn out to be bad. You need to be open to this possibility, and take the attitude of the explorer rather than the proud parent. This is probably why researchers start off with an advisor, and even later submit their work to peer review: a third party who is not so attached to your idea can be an invaluable aid in navigating that difficult path between inspiration and demonstration. (And it so happens that this path often leads to learning new things, which is probably why original research is so intertwined with learning and teaching.)

army 14y ago
I agree. I think the original article is mostly right and very insightful. But what I've discovered over the last few years is that sometimes maximising productivity requires knowing when to take a break from the problem. A lot of time I'll spend an hour trying to work on something, hit an obstacle, try to push on it a bit, realise that it's hard, then just take a break from it until I have better inspiration on how to deal with it. Then a week or month later, once the idea for a solution has crystalised, then I can do a big push and get it done. Also, just walking around thinking is the most productive time of my day.
- tehwalrus 14y ago
  I agree with both parent comments. The reason walking around is a good source of ideas is basically mindfulness/Zen/whatever you want to call it - put your brain in a bath of non-problem stimuli and stop verbalising your thoughts, and you can actually hear your brain generating new ideas. Of course it doesn't mean you'll get something useful straight away, or even in an hour, but you'll get new spontaneous thoughts and that's a good start. This is why, when you do take a break, it is essential not to occupy your "doing" mind - by reading HN/twitter or playing Skyrim, my weaknesses - and just relax.