6 ms·

Having known people exactly like this, I'm going to guess that Troy is blind to the people he affects around him while he is working so "hard" and jumping aroun

Having known people exactly like this, I'm going to guess that Troy is blind to the people he affects around him while he is working so "hard" and jumping around so much. Unless he has some super-human abilities, doing things like stopping to "churn out a para or two" is NOT helping his productivity. I'd guess he's succeeding despite of that workflow (many hours spent) instead of because of it. > "That might mean being on a conference call and also responding to emails (I’m happy listening and writing at the same time)". The people who I know did this missed very important details of meetings, and even has to be clued in that someone was speaking to them. They constantly relied on others around them to pay attention to the important details of any meeting. Definitely led to confusion and issues (and blaming). I stopped reading after the first section because all of this brought back memories (and a really strong negative reaction) of such crazy ridiculous ego's I've worked with in the passed. I won't believe Troy is doing life better than us. He's working (very hard!) and will be successful, but at the cost of others around him and ultimately to the detriment of his quality of life.

fweespeech 11y ago
To be fair, I've known a handful of people who can do that effectively without getting lost. However, I'd say they are the minority and its really a "luck of genetics" thing rather than a learned skill. No one I've met who claims it was a skilled they learned actually can do it. I'm willing to believe people exist who do, but I suspect they fall under the "luck of genetics" category and just convinced themselves they learned it. Or it could be a mix of both. However, 90% of people I've met that do it do meet the OP's "blindspot" criteria.
- fideloper 11y ago
  Genetics would def. be part of it, I think that's fair. One person I'm thinking of in particular is VERY intelligent, which (unfortunately for those around them) helps them cope with (get away with) this behavior.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
halviti 11y ago
It looks like Troy works from home, so he's got an advantage there. Really the majority of the article is about time management, and he does make some good points, not that I agree with all of them. For me, I had never heard about RescueTime before, so I think overall my life has been improved by checking this out.
- justwannasing 11y ago
  Having worked from home for 11 years, it's no advantage. As much as possible, I try to divide the time between home office and somewhere else quiet cause, eventually, something needs to be done at home and ruins the rest of the day. The dog, the wife, the leaky faucet. It's something every day.
Kiro 11y ago
You're just speculating. None of this needs to be true in Troy's case.
- fideloper 11y ago
  Correct. It's based on personal experience. It just strongly resonated with me. You're free to believe he's different from 99% of us in terms of ability to multi-task and work 16 hour days.
vtlynch 11y ago
>> "That might mean being on a conference call and also >>responding to emails (I’m happy listening and writing >>at the same time)". >The people who I know did this missed very important >details of meetings, and even has to be clued in that >someone was speaking to them. They constantly relied on >others around them to pay attention to the important >details of any meeting. Definitely led to confusion and >issues (and blaming). I have to agree. Certainly there are geniuses and other people out there who have "super-human abilities", but thats a very few people. Troy could very well be one of them. But suggesting that this is "multi-tasking" is hiding the truth for the majority of people. As you said, Ive known people who do this. They simply ignore one task while doing the other. It seems a bit naive of Troy to suggest this as a valid strategy.
- fao_ 11y ago
  But suggesting that this is "multi-tasking" is hiding the truth for the majority of people. As you said, Ive known people who do this. They simply ignore one task while doing the other. But that's all computers do. So using a definition of 'multi-tasking' that excludes that, you could say there is no thing as 'multi-tasking', unless you are able to juggle several tasks at once. Which brings up a (few) problem(s) with that definition of 'multi-tasking'. Does that defintion define 'multi-tasking' as 'Doing two things at the same time', or 'Paying attention and doing two things at the same time'? If you use the former, then everyone everywhere multitasks when they decide to eat and walk, think about something and walk, etc. If you decide to use the latter, then how do you define 'attention'? Is someone thinking about what to cook tonight while walking down the street really paying attention to where they're going? The dissonance over meanings can easily be stemmed if you consider the second definition of the word 'multi-tasking'. 2. The engaging in more than one activity at the same time or serially, switching one's attention back and forth from one activity to another. Which means that 'ignoring one task while doing the other' is a perfectly valid form of multi-tasking.
  - vtlynch 11y ago
    I am not quite as interested in semantic accuracy as I am interested in the meaning of the advice itself. Accepting your definition of multi-tasking, I simply will reword my objection: Dont suggest mutli-tasking is some virtuous and amazing quality.
ohitsdom 11y ago
Agreed. If you're responding to emails during a meeting, you are either missing important information from the meeting, writing bad email, or you don't need to be in the meeting in the first place.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kyllo 11y ago
  Realistically the latter is extremely common in business settings. A small percentage of business meetings even need to happen, much less need the presence of all attendees.
  - megaman22 11y ago
    This. 95% of meetings could be replaced by sending a couple of emails, or just paying attention to the bug tracker/version control system.
    - Ma8ee 11y ago
      Or just paying attention and being focused in the first meeting.
      - megaman22 11y ago
        Meetings are generally run by people that like to hear themselves talk. Those of us that have to get shit done don't get a lot of benefit from hearing people bikeshed and ramble for forty-five minutes or an hour, when you could write up the ideas discussed in a more concrete form in five minutes and email it around. Text is a whole lot more efficient than talk. People actually have to present ideas in a coherent way when they are written down, since it's actually in a persistent form and doesn't admit the same hand-waviness and slop that speech does.
        Ma8ee 11y ago
mromanuk 11y ago
he multitasks all day, from 6am to 1am. Not a really great way of life.
- ch4s3 11y ago
  he's really context switching constantly.
  - briandear 11y ago
    Which is actually far less efficient.
matwood 11y ago
> The people who I know did this missed very important details of meetings, and even has to be clued in that someone was speaking to them. I agree. Few things annoy me more than having a meeting to discuss an issue. A big discussion occurs while a 1-N people are on their computers claiming the meeting is a waste of time so they need to be working instead. A decision is made and everyone leaves. Later, when the decision is about to be implemented/executed, people who said the meeting was a waste of time now make me re-hash the entire meeting because they disagree with the solution. I've actually just started responding to these people that they should have paid attention at the time, because I have work to do.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  Are not the meetings properly documented and the actions minuted?
  - matwood 11y ago
    Mostly, but the same people who don't pay attention are the same people who don't go and read minutes. Basically their time is more valuable than anyone else.
    - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
      So have the Chair call them out on it - Gently at first if that doesn't work raised formally at their 121
- Macsenour 11y ago
  I'm a Scrum Master who took over for a SM who was fired. The first thing I did was ban computers from the planning meetings.
  - cblock811 11y ago
    Tangent, but several friends said I should look into being a Scrum Master. Any advice on where to start? I'm going to a meetup on it Tuesday.
ci5er 11y ago
Everyone says that they can multi-task (maybe not everyone, but a lot), and in my long long old life, I've only met one person who could talk to me on the phone about weird music at the same time she was actively editing something that was going to go to trial the next day. And be fully active in both parts of this. It was freaky. I don't believe that most people can multi-task. I believe that one person can multi-task (that I have met), that some people can switch very quickly, and that the rest are delusional. For myself, I can process vast amounts of information, and I can context switch, maybe slowly -- but I can't multi-task. After 40 years in the field - I'm not sure that many claimants can. CMV: It's just a way for douches to say that they aren't paying attention.

fweespeech 11y ago

To be fair, I've known a handful of people who can do that effectively without getting lost. However, I'd say they are the minority and its really a "luck of genetics" thing rather than a learned skill. No one I've met who claims it was a skilled they learned actually can do it. I'm willing to believe people exist who do, but I suspect they fall under the "luck of genetics" category and just convinced themselves they learned it. Or it could be a mix of both. However, 90% of people I've met that do it do meet the OP's "blindspot" criteria.

fideloper 11y ago
Genetics would def. be part of it, I think that's fair. One person I'm thinking of in particular is VERY intelligent, which (unfortunately for those around them) helps them cope with (get away with) this behavior.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

halviti 11y ago

It looks like Troy works from home, so he's got an advantage there. Really the majority of the article is about time management, and he does make some good points, not that I agree with all of them. For me, I had never heard about RescueTime before, so I think overall my life has been improved by checking this out.

justwannasing 11y ago
Having worked from home for 11 years, it's no advantage. As much as possible, I try to divide the time between home office and somewhere else quiet cause, eventually, something needs to be done at home and ruins the rest of the day. The dog, the wife, the leaky faucet. It's something every day.

Kiro 11y ago

You're just speculating. None of this needs to be true in Troy's case.

fideloper 11y ago
Correct. It's based on personal experience. It just strongly resonated with me. You're free to believe he's different from 99% of us in terms of ability to multi-task and work 16 hour days.

vtlynch 11y ago

>> "That might mean being on a conference call and also >>responding to emails (I’m happy listening and writing >>at the same time)". >The people who I know did this missed very important >details of meetings, and even has to be clued in that >someone was speaking to them. They constantly relied on >others around them to pay attention to the important >details of any meeting. Definitely led to confusion and >issues (and blaming). I have to agree. Certainly there are geniuses and other people out there who have "super-human abilities", but thats a very few people. Troy could very well be one of them. But suggesting that this is "multi-tasking" is hiding the truth for the majority of people. As you said, Ive known people who do this. They simply ignore one task while doing the other. It seems a bit naive of Troy to suggest this as a valid strategy.

fao_ 11y ago
But suggesting that this is "multi-tasking" is hiding the truth for the majority of people. As you said, Ive known people who do this. They simply ignore one task while doing the other. But that's all computers do. So using a definition of 'multi-tasking' that excludes that, you could say there is no thing as 'multi-tasking', unless you are able to juggle several tasks at once. Which brings up a (few) problem(s) with that definition of 'multi-tasking'. Does that defintion define 'multi-tasking' as 'Doing two things at the same time', or 'Paying attention and doing two things at the same time'? If you use the former, then everyone everywhere multitasks when they decide to eat and walk, think about something and walk, etc. If you decide to use the latter, then how do you define 'attention'? Is someone thinking about what to cook tonight while walking down the street really paying attention to where they're going? The dissonance over meanings can easily be stemmed if you consider the second definition of the word 'multi-tasking'. 2. The engaging in more than one activity at the same time or serially, switching one's attention back and forth from one activity to another. Which means that 'ignoring one task while doing the other' is a perfectly valid form of multi-tasking.
- vtlynch 11y ago
  I am not quite as interested in semantic accuracy as I am interested in the meaning of the advice itself. Accepting your definition of multi-tasking, I simply will reword my objection: Dont suggest mutli-tasking is some virtuous and amazing quality.

ohitsdom 11y ago

Agreed. If you're responding to emails during a meeting, you are either missing important information from the meeting, writing bad email, or you don't need to be in the meeting in the first place.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kyllo 11y ago
Realistically the latter is extremely common in business settings. A small percentage of business meetings even need to happen, much less need the presence of all attendees.
- megaman22 11y ago
  This. 95% of meetings could be replaced by sending a couple of emails, or just paying attention to the bug tracker/version control system.
  - Ma8ee 11y ago
    Or just paying attention and being focused in the first meeting.
    - megaman22 11y ago
      Meetings are generally run by people that like to hear themselves talk. Those of us that have to get shit done don't get a lot of benefit from hearing people bikeshed and ramble for forty-five minutes or an hour, when you could write up the ideas discussed in a more concrete form in five minutes and email it around. Text is a whole lot more efficient than talk. People actually have to present ideas in a coherent way when they are written down, since it's actually in a persistent form and doesn't admit the same hand-waviness and slop that speech does.
      - Ma8ee 11y ago

mromanuk 11y ago

he multitasks all day, from 6am to 1am. Not a really great way of life.

ch4s3 11y ago
he's really context switching constantly.
- briandear 11y ago
  Which is actually far less efficient.

matwood 11y ago

> The people who I know did this missed very important details of meetings, and even has to be clued in that someone was speaking to them. I agree. Few things annoy me more than having a meeting to discuss an issue. A big discussion occurs while a 1-N people are on their computers claiming the meeting is a waste of time so they need to be working instead. A decision is made and everyone leaves. Later, when the decision is about to be implemented/executed, people who said the meeting was a waste of time now make me re-hash the entire meeting because they disagree with the solution. I've actually just started responding to these people that they should have paid attention at the time, because I have work to do.

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
Are not the meetings properly documented and the actions minuted?
- matwood 11y ago
  Mostly, but the same people who don't pay attention are the same people who don't go and read minutes. Basically their time is more valuable than anyone else.
  - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
    So have the Chair call them out on it - Gently at first if that doesn't work raised formally at their 121
Macsenour 11y ago
I'm a Scrum Master who took over for a SM who was fired. The first thing I did was ban computers from the planning meetings.
- cblock811 11y ago
  Tangent, but several friends said I should look into being a Scrum Master. Any advice on where to start? I'm going to a meetup on it Tuesday.

ci5er 11y ago

Everyone says that they can multi-task (maybe not everyone, but a lot), and in my long long old life, I've only met one person who could talk to me on the phone about weird music at the same time she was actively editing something that was going to go to trial the next day. And be fully active in both parts of this. It was freaky. I don't believe that most people can multi-task. I believe that one person can multi-task (that I have met), that some people can switch very quickly, and that the rest are delusional. For myself, I can process vast amounts of information, and I can context switch, maybe slowly -- but I can't multi-task. After 40 years in the field - I'm not sure that many claimants can. CMV: It's just a way for douches to say that they aren't paying attention.