5 ms·

I feel like the inability to focus for long periods of time is holding back progress in many areas. If we can't even stay away from email for a few days, how ca

by paul 13y ago

I feel like the inability to focus for long periods of time is holding back progress in many areas. If we can't even stay away from email for a few days, how can we clear our minds of conventional thinking?

kulkarnic 13y ago
A few days? People get upset if you haven't replied in an hour. Seriously though, long periods of solitude is not what we need. I'd not be productive if I became a hermit, but I'd be a lot more productive if I had periods of quiet time, punctuated by moments of discussion. This is how thinkers and artists (and hackers) worked for a long time, before we wrongly convinced ourselves that being interruptible improves productivity.
- paul 13y ago
  It's not about solitude so much as the ability to control the contents and direction of our thoughts. Being responsive on email often requires giving up that control, fragmenting our attention and preventing the formation of larger thoughts. It provides short term gains, but we don't see what we're losing.
  - lifeisstillgood 13y ago
    perfectly put
- wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
  I don't think it's about "quiet" - if you meant it literally - the right kind of distraction can be a sort of mental noise cancellation mechanism. Though this tends to work better in solitude, for obvious control reasons.
- rtpg 13y ago
  >A few days? People get upset if you haven't replied in an hour. I've solved this problem by always taking forever to answer e-mails. If it's important, people just call me. Whether this is good or not is questionable, however.
  - naiyt 13y ago
    My problem is then I'll get too many phone calls. And for me, a phone call is more disruptive to my workflow then an email. Then again, that's probably just because I dislike talking on the phone in general.
    - laichzeit0 13y ago
      I solved this problem too. People know that I hardly ever answer my phone either, unless you arranged to call me. If it's important, leave a voicemail with a reason why you called not just some "call me back" contextless shit. By "arranged to call me" I mean sending me an email and asking if you can call and at what time. I check mail about 3 times a day. We really new to get over this instant communication fad. It's counterproductive.
      - rtpg 13y ago
        Talking to people is "instant communication" and we've been doing that for a while. There are things that can get resolved literally 100 times faster by talking than by e-mail or text or whatever. Not everything requires that urgency, but back-and-forth in e-mail can end up being a huge time sink for both parties.
- Someone 13y ago
  Knuth agrees with that. That's why he doesn't guarantee rapid replies to almost anything (http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html) And, relevant to the topic: he is quite productive, but I don't think he would make it in academia at his current output rate. It does help that he splits his work into separate papers, though, and that he publishes 'dull' papers about his tooling, too (IIRC, the original plan was to have two volumes of TAOCP. Now, we have 4 plus fascicles plus some books about the software he wrote to lay out his books and create the fonts therein)
TrainedMonkey 13y ago
Brain is remarkably adaptable. I would not go as far as labeling new type of academia as deficient. Sure it is different, does it make it better or worse? Toss a coin. Somewhat related story: I work with someone who recently got a PHD. That person can concentrate and work on a hard problem even when there is conversation going on. Only when name of the person is called do they interrupt their work and start paying attention.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Brain is remarkably adaptable. So, waterboarding is consistent with an environment conducive to academic research?
  - na85 13y ago
    Oh good, are we using hyperbole now?
    - 001sky 13y ago
      Hmm...does that ryhme with 'absurdity'?
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    I'm trying to figure out where your non sequitur came from. The brain being adaptable does not mean its ability to adapt is infinite and no one, but you, suggested that. Did they waterboard you in your academic program? Is that supposed to be an analogy to some other behavior? I can't even conceive of what they might do that would be close to that hard on a person's mind.
    - andrewflnr 13y ago
      It's a crude, sarcastic form of reductio ad absurdum. TrainedMonkey said, in effect, "making it difficult to focus is fine because the brain is adaptable". 001sky showed that "the brain is adaptable" is not a strong argument. This is true precisely because the brain's ability to adapt is not infinite. Energy you spend adapting to something is energy you're not using to do directly useful things, and that energy has to be justified with more than a statement of "well, you can do it and there might be some benefits" (which is almost exactly what TrainedMonkey said, just phrased less flatteringly).
chubot 13y ago
It's a problem, but I think if you really value time, you can make it. I've found that the best way to spend less time on e-mail is to send it very infrequently. I used to send tons of e-mail at work, and that was valuable to me at the time. Now I choose very carefully what to reply to, because every message I send means I will get something in return. It's pretty astoundingly effective. Another strategy is to keep an odd schedule. I generally get to my desk around 2pm, so I'm sufficiently out of sync with people who get to their desk at 9 or 10am. It's also good because there so little (bike) traffic that I can space out and think on the commute.
- eitally 13y ago
  Ability to be successful while functioning like this is wholly dependent on your role and the culture of the company you're working for or leading.
  - chubot 13y ago
    Sure, but don't you have control over your role? Maybe not in the short term, but in the long term you can take steps to move into a role or job where you have bigger free blocks of time. You just have to decide if that's what you value over, say, money, prestige, etc. Paul Graham wrote a nice essay where he mentioned that "prestige" is basically a way to get people to do shitty work. What I'm saying doesn't really work for managers or leaders, because your job boils down to talking to people, and e-mail is a big part of that. But it works really well for programmers.
    - eitally 13y ago
      Yes, generally speaking ... but I'm in management and was speaking from that perspective. My apologies for being unclear.

by paul 13y ago

kulkarnic 13y ago

A few days? People get upset if you haven't replied in an hour. Seriously though, long periods of solitude is not what we need. I'd not be productive if I became a hermit, but I'd be a lot more productive if I had periods of quiet time, punctuated by moments of discussion. This is how thinkers and artists (and hackers) worked for a long time, before we wrongly convinced ourselves that being interruptible improves productivity.

paul 13y ago
It's not about solitude so much as the ability to control the contents and direction of our thoughts. Being responsive on email often requires giving up that control, fragmenting our attention and preventing the formation of larger thoughts. It provides short term gains, but we don't see what we're losing.
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  perfectly put
wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
I don't think it's about "quiet" - if you meant it literally - the right kind of distraction can be a sort of mental noise cancellation mechanism. Though this tends to work better in solitude, for obvious control reasons.
rtpg 13y ago
>A few days? People get upset if you haven't replied in an hour. I've solved this problem by always taking forever to answer e-mails. If it's important, people just call me. Whether this is good or not is questionable, however.
- naiyt 13y ago
  My problem is then I'll get too many phone calls. And for me, a phone call is more disruptive to my workflow then an email. Then again, that's probably just because I dislike talking on the phone in general.
  - laichzeit0 13y ago
    I solved this problem too. People know that I hardly ever answer my phone either, unless you arranged to call me. If it's important, leave a voicemail with a reason why you called not just some "call me back" contextless shit. By "arranged to call me" I mean sending me an email and asking if you can call and at what time. I check mail about 3 times a day. We really new to get over this instant communication fad. It's counterproductive.
    - rtpg 13y ago
      Talking to people is "instant communication" and we've been doing that for a while. There are things that can get resolved literally 100 times faster by talking than by e-mail or text or whatever. Not everything requires that urgency, but back-and-forth in e-mail can end up being a huge time sink for both parties.
Someone 13y ago
Knuth agrees with that. That's why he doesn't guarantee rapid replies to almost anything (http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html) And, relevant to the topic: he is quite productive, but I don't think he would make it in academia at his current output rate. It does help that he splits his work into separate papers, though, and that he publishes 'dull' papers about his tooling, too (IIRC, the original plan was to have two volumes of TAOCP. Now, we have 4 plus fascicles plus some books about the software he wrote to lay out his books and create the fonts therein)

TrainedMonkey 13y ago

Brain is remarkably adaptable. I would not go as far as labeling new type of academia as deficient. Sure it is different, does it make it better or worse? Toss a coin. Somewhat related story: I work with someone who recently got a PHD. That person can concentrate and work on a hard problem even when there is conversation going on. Only when name of the person is called do they interrupt their work and start paying attention.

001sky 13y ago
Brain is remarkably adaptable. So, waterboarding is consistent with an environment conducive to academic research?
- na85 13y ago
  Oh good, are we using hyperbole now?
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Hmm...does that ryhme with 'absurdity'?
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  I'm trying to figure out where your non sequitur came from. The brain being adaptable does not mean its ability to adapt is infinite and no one, but you, suggested that. Did they waterboard you in your academic program? Is that supposed to be an analogy to some other behavior? I can't even conceive of what they might do that would be close to that hard on a person's mind.
  - andrewflnr 13y ago
    It's a crude, sarcastic form of reductio ad absurdum. TrainedMonkey said, in effect, "making it difficult to focus is fine because the brain is adaptable". 001sky showed that "the brain is adaptable" is not a strong argument. This is true precisely because the brain's ability to adapt is not infinite. Energy you spend adapting to something is energy you're not using to do directly useful things, and that energy has to be justified with more than a statement of "well, you can do it and there might be some benefits" (which is almost exactly what TrainedMonkey said, just phrased less flatteringly).

chubot 13y ago

It's a problem, but I think if you really value time, you can make it. I've found that the best way to spend less time on e-mail is to send it very infrequently. I used to send tons of e-mail at work, and that was valuable to me at the time. Now I choose very carefully what to reply to, because every message I send means I will get something in return. It's pretty astoundingly effective. Another strategy is to keep an odd schedule. I generally get to my desk around 2pm, so I'm sufficiently out of sync with people who get to their desk at 9 or 10am. It's also good because there so little (bike) traffic that I can space out and think on the commute.

eitally 13y ago
Ability to be successful while functioning like this is wholly dependent on your role and the culture of the company you're working for or leading.
- chubot 13y ago
  Sure, but don't you have control over your role? Maybe not in the short term, but in the long term you can take steps to move into a role or job where you have bigger free blocks of time. You just have to decide if that's what you value over, say, money, prestige, etc. Paul Graham wrote a nice essay where he mentioned that "prestige" is basically a way to get people to do shitty work. What I'm saying doesn't really work for managers or leaders, because your job boils down to talking to people, and e-mail is a big part of that. But it works really well for programmers.
  - eitally 13y ago
    Yes, generally speaking ... but I'm in management and was speaking from that perspective. My apologies for being unclear.