Thoughts on 'Thinking tasks'

Good results depend on many variables. One of them is the intensity level of distractions. Another one is the duration of time without distractions. The probability of good results is inversely proportional to the intensity of distractions and directly proportional to the duration of time without distractions. Cal Newport suggests that by blocking time for deep work we extend the available time without any distractions. It seems to be more distraction prooof than "writing regularly in the morning" and hoping that nobody will knock on the door.
I'm using academic writing projects here as a proxy for what Newport calls "deep work" and relying primarily on the work of Robert Boice, but also on studies of non-academic writing, as well as the experiences of successful writers such as Stephen King.

There are many examples of successful writers who wrote under terrible conditions, in bits of time snatched from other responsibilities. It also appears to be true that time spent writing is not so important. What appears to matter most is the commitment to write regularly.

There is also good evidence that dedicating large blocks of time to writing is not particularly helpful. Binge writing plans, where large blocks of time are allocated over a relatively short period, is no better than no plan at all. There is also very good evidence that many would-be writers use lack of large blocks of time and environmental distractions as excuses for procrastination.

I have seen many students suffer from the "I need to be at my favorite coffee shop table with my favorite headphones on" syndrome as a form of procrastination. I also think that scheduling big blocks of time for "deep work" is a bit like starting a meeting off with "Who's got a really good idea?" I think it is fine to schedule time for important work if i know what I am going to do. If I don't know, I'm probably better off taking a walk. But YMMV.
 
Good results depend on many variables. One of them is the intensity level of distractions. Another one is the duration of time without distractions. The probability of good results is inversely proportional to the intensity of distractions and directly proportional to the duration of time without distractions. Cal Newport suggests that by blocking time for deep work we extend the available time without any distractions. It seems to be more distraction prooof than "writing regularly in the morning" and hoping that nobody will knock on the door.
Yes, my point exactly. Every person is different, but many of us find that blocking deep work time, getting out of our offices, and turning off email, texts, etc. allows us to focus intently on a problem....or writing a manuscript....or writing an NIH grant. All of this is within a good GTD system approach.
 
I knew that you were a biologist (as is my wife), but thought the bit of an in-joke might amuse you. I'm glad if time blocking helps you. I've had some success with writing regularly in the morning as part of a project, but every attempt I have ever made at scheduling "deep thinking" might as well have been spent reading comic books; maybe it's me.
My dear colleague....I did find it amusing! We are all different, but I am puzzled why blocking time does not work for you. Maybe it is the location where you are tying to do this. Try a coffe shop, or when the weather is nice, go to a park in a quiet area with park benches. Perhaps that will allow you the freedom to focus.
 
I'm using academic writing projects here as a proxy for what Newport calls "deep work" and relying primarily on the work of Robert Boice, but also on studies of non-academic writing, as well as the experiences of successful writers such as Stephen King.

There are many examples of successful writers who wrote under terrible conditions, in bits of time snatched from other responsibilities. It also appears to be true that time spent writing is not so important. What appears to matter most is the commitment to write regularly.

There is also good evidence that dedicating large blocks of time to writing is not particularly helpful. Binge writing plans, where large blocks of time are allocated over a relatively short period, is no better than no plan at all. There is also very good evidence that many would-be writers use lack of large blocks of time and environmental distractions as excuses for procrastination.

I have seen many students suffer from the "I need to be at my favorite coffee shop table with my favorite headphones on" syndrome as a form of procrastination. I also think that scheduling big blocks of time for "deep work" is a bit like starting a meeting off with "Who's got a really good idea?" I think it is fine to schedule time for important work if i know what I am going to do. If I don't know, I'm probably better off taking a walk. But YMMV.
All good points. One thing I wanted to make clear....outside of my scheduled blocks of time for deep work, I avidly follow David Allen's models for deciding what to do in the moment. I would not have survived in my academic life without GTD! Cheers!
 
There are many examples of successful writers who wrote under terrible conditions, in bits of time snatched from other responsibilities.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that that situation is better.

Shifting general--I'm not saying that you're saying the following: When the topic of achieving undistracted time is raised, I very often see someone responding as if that idea is wrong, almost morally wrong. As if the idea that a person might do better work while undistracted makes that person a sort of prima donna, and if that person requires even a temporary lack of distraction to do their work, well...the discussion tends to pause there, but the implication seems to be that reducing distraction is simply, utterly, impossible, and that we really shouldn't even consider it or consider the possible contributions of people who need it.
 
Yes, but that doesn't mean that that situation is better.

Shifting general--I'm not saying that you're saying the following: When the topic of achieving undistracted time is raised, I very often see someone responding as if that idea is wrong, almost morally wrong. As if the idea that a person might do better work while undistracted makes that person a sort of prima donna, and if that person requires even a temporary lack of distraction to do their work, well...the discussion tends to pause there, but the implication seems to be that reducing distraction is simply, utterly, impossible, and that we really shouldn't even consider it or consider the possible contributions of people who need it.

I'm a university professor, and I have seen learning disabilities and accommodations for them that most people have never seen. The problem of providing a good learning environment for all students is a real one. That said, the ability to focus and re-focus quickly, is very valuable, and a skill that most people can develop to some degree or another. Of course, there are also workplaces where workers are treated very badly.
 
I'm a university professor, and I have seen learning disabilities and accommodations for them that most people have never seen. The problem of providing a good learning environment for all students is a real one. That said, the ability to focus and re-focus quickly, is very valuable, and a skill that most people can develop to some degree or another. Of course, there are also workplaces where workers are treated very badly.

Sure, it's a nice skill to have. That doesn't mean that there's anything at all wrong with creating plenty of undistracted work time. And the desire for reduced distraction does not reflect a learning disability--plenty of studies seem to make it clear that distractions harm performance for most people.
 
Sure, it's a nice skill to have. That doesn't mean that there's anything at all wrong with creating plenty of undistracted work time. And the desire for reduced distraction does not reflect a learning disability--plenty of studies seem to make it clear that distractions harm performance for most people.

To take this discussion out of the abstract, what do you consider a distraction? Are there different kinds?
 
To take this discussion out of the abstract, what do you consider a distraction? Are there different kinds?

I'd say that there are categories, yes:

- Environmental distractions--other people's conversations, speakerphone calls from other people's cubes, that TV that they used to have with TV news on it at my office, the visual distraction that comes when people don't even have full-height cube walls, etc.

- Impromptu demand distractions--phone calls, drop-ins, IMs, emails,

- "Hostage" distractions--the knowledge that even if there aren't any impromptu demand distractions right this minute, if any come along you will be required to accept them, and that therefore any deep-focus work is all but guaranteed to be interrupted.

- Scheduled demand distractions--scheduled meetings, scheduled tasks.

- Reporting distractions--you can't actually do the work until you report on the status of the work.

- Multi-project distractions--too many projects that you're supposed to be working on. This also increases the number of impromptu, hostage, scheduled, and reporting distractions.

I'm sure I'm forgetting others.

This is not to say that some of these items don't have value. But "have value" doesn't mean that they can or should all be done simultaneously. At a restaurant, the cooking is important, and the table service is important. But beyond the smallest counter-cafe, it's rare that the same person is required to do both simultaneously. And a cook that argues that cooking will be less efficient and more error-prone if he's also required to run out to refill water glasses and type in checks is not likely to be called a prima donna who just needs to learn to deal with multitasking.

Re the idea that, eh, people should just be able to re-establish focus without any cost, I offer a cartoon, "This is why you shouldn't interrupt a programmer"

http://heeris.id.au/2013/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-interrupt-a-programmer/
 
I'd say that there are categories, yes:

- Environmental distractions--other people's conversations, speakerphone calls from other people's cubes, that TV that they used to have with TV news on it at my office, the visual distraction that comes when people don't even have full-height cube walls, etc.

- Impromptu demand distractions--phone calls, drop-ins, IMs, emails,

- "Hostage" distractions--the knowledge that even if there aren't any impromptu demand distractions right this minute, if any come along you will be required to accept them, and that therefore any deep-focus work is all but guaranteed to be interrupted.

- Scheduled demand distractions--scheduled meetings, scheduled tasks.

- Reporting distractions--you can't actually do the work until you report on the status of the work.

- Multi-project distractions--too many projects that you're supposed to be working on. This also increases the number of impromptu, hostage, scheduled, and reporting distractions.

I'm sure I'm forgetting others.

This is not to say that some of these items don't have value. But "have value" doesn't mean that they can or should all be done simultaneously. At a restaurant, the cooking is important, and the table service is important. But beyond the smallest counter-cafe, it's rare that the same person is required to do both simultaneously. And a cook that argues that cooking will be less efficient and more error-prone if he's also required to run out to refill water glasses and type in checks is not likely to be called a prima donna who just needs to learn to deal with multitasking.

Sounds like you've been burned along the way. You know, everybody has distractions and everybody has interruptions. When the President gets interrupted, it's usually important or urgent or both. It's the job. When a receptionist answers the phone, it may or not be important or urgent, but it's part of the job. Anyone who succeeds in food service has to be good in an interruption-driven environment. I believe that the only thing we truly have control over is our reaction to distraction and interruption.
 
Sounds like you've been burned along the way. You know, everybody has distractions and everybody has interruptions. When the President gets interrupted, it's usually important or urgent or both.

Why wait for it to be important or urgent? If distraction-free work is irrelevant, why don't we have the President take the coffee orders?

Because distraction-free work ISN'T irrelevant. We have someone else take the coffee orders. As far as I know, the President has a large staff of people whose job is, in part, to narrow the distractions to the President as much as possible.

It's the job. When a receptionist answers the phone, it may or not be important or urgent, but it's part of the job.

Of course it's part of the receptionist's job. That's why there IS a receptionist. His or her job is to funnel interruptions down to a single point, so that those interruptions don't interrupt other people. A receptionist is a role that reduces interruptions and distractions. A receptionist represents the fact that we CAN control distraction and interruption.

I think that it was Tom DeMarco that told a story about an office where the programmers were scolded for not immediately picking up their phones, because if they didn't pick them up they'd roll through to the receptionist, and the receptionist had work to do and was too busy to pick up the phones.

Edited to add: Here it is--a quote from a memo quoted in DeMarco's PeopleWare:

"It has come to my attention that many of you, when you are busy, are letting your phones ring for three rings and thus get switched over to one of the secretaries. With all these interruptions, the secretaries can never get any productive work done. The official policy here is that when you’re at your desk you will answer your phone before the third ring..."

Of course, nowadays the calls would go to voicemail, but there are still offices where it's not OK to let your voicemail sit longer than it takes for you to get off the previous call.

Anyone who succeeds in food service has to be good in an interruption-driven environment.

The cooks in food service, as far as I know, usually cook. They generally don't also wait tables, answer the phone, hand out advertising flyers, and do valet parking. They focus. Similarly, the valet parkers don't butter the bread for the grilled cheese sandwiches.

I believe that the only thing we truly have control over is our reaction to distraction and interruption.

We have plenty of control, if we choose to take it--where "we" refers to the company, if not every individual in the company.

We can hire receptionists. We can organize programming teams so that one member is the sacrificial member for any given day, dealing with all of the calls and interruptions while the other programmers focus on programming. (And not just programmers--those secretaries in the DeMarco example could also benefit from this scheme, as could a wide variety of jobs that include both impromptu interruptions and productive work.) We can replace IMs and phone calls with emails. We can minimize meetings and corral them to specific days and times. We can return to offices with doors that close. When there are four projects to get done in a year, we can do them by doing one project for three months at a time, instead of four projects in tandem for twelve months--and we may well be rewarded by finding that they get done in eight months instead of a year.

There are countless things that we can do, if we stop pretending that there's nothing that we can do.
 
Last edited:
I'm a university professor, and I have seen learning disabilities and accommodations for them that most people have never seen. The problem of providing a good learning environment for all students is a real one. That said, the ability to focus and re-focus quickly, is very valuable, and a skill that most people can develop to some degree or another. Of course, there are also workplaces where workers are treated very badly.

Returning to respond to this one.

- Do you have a place to work that allows you to close a door, or do all of the professors work in a bullpen where they can all see and hear what the others are doing?
- Is there any time during the work week (that is, between 8am-7pm, Monday to Friday) when you are not required to accept any and all interruptions from students, colleagues, and superiors, both in person and by phone?
- How often do you get more than fifteen minutes of work time uninterrupted? Is there any time during the work week that you can enforce a fifteen minute period of uninterrupted work time, or are all times subject to interruptions?

Do you believe that it would ever be necessary for anyone to need as much as a 15-minute un-interrupted period in which to work?

(I should note that 15 minutes is generous. A UC Irvine study concluded that people average a little under 13 minutes before being interrupted.)
 
I'm a university professor, and I have seen learning disabilities and accommodations for them that most people have never seen. The problem of providing a good learning environment for all students is a real one. That said, the ability to focus and re-focus quickly, is very valuable, and a skill that most people can develop to some degree or another. Of course, there are also workplaces where workers are treated very badly.
Let me to get it right. Does it mean that you consider the inability to write a masterpiece in a crowded, noisy room to be some kind of a slight learning disability?
 
When the President gets interrupted, it's usually important or urgent or both.
Thank you! The Oval Office is a perfect example of the Cal Newport's deep work environment. There are only "important or urgent or both" distractions allowed there. So the President can brainstorm his executive orders.
 
Thank you! The Oval Office is a perfect example of the Cal Newport's deep work environment. There are only "important or urgent or both" distractions allowed there. So the President can brainstorm his executive orders.

No, I think you've missed the point completely. The job of President is a busy one, filled with solemn duties, silly activities like pardoning the Thanksgiving turkey, important interruptions and difficult decisions. The "deep work" as I think Newport means it, is done by very smart people in cramped, crappy conditions in the White House basement or in the building next to it. They work long and hard to provide the background that informs the President's decisions. Or at least they did until recently. It is a pressure cooker environment that burns out people. It's about as far from a university professor spending uninterrupted hours on research as I can imagine.
 
No, I think you've missed the point completely. The job of President is a busy one, filled with solemn duties, silly activities like pardoning the Thanksgiving turkey, important interruptions and difficult decisions. The "deep work" as I think Newport means it, is done by very smart people in cramped, crappy conditions in the White House basement or in the building next to it. They work long and hard to provide the background that informs the President's decisions. Or at least they did until recently. It is a pressure cooker environment that burns out people. It's about as far from a university professor spending uninterrupted hours on research as I can imagine.

And...I'm not clear on what your point is. At all.

It appears that your argument is that reducing distractions has no value, that we should not make any attempt to do so, and that it would, in some way, actually be wrong to attempt to do so. Is that what you're saying?

If not, can you clarify what you're saying?
 
Returning to respond to this one.

- Do you have a place to work that allows you to close a door, or do all of the professors work in a bullpen where they can all see and hear what the others are doing?
- Is there any time during the work week (that is, between 8am-7pm, Monday to Friday) when you are not required to accept any and all interruptions from students, colleagues, and superiors, both in person and by phone?
- How often do you get more than fifteen minutes of work time uninterrupted? Is there any time during the work week that you can enforce a fifteen minute period of uninterrupted work time, or are all times subject to interruptions?

Do you believe that it would ever be necessary for anyone to need as much as a 15-minute un-interrupted period in which to work?

(I should note that 15 minutes is generous. A UC Irvine study concluded that people average a little under 13 minutes before being interrupted.)

Let me summarize your statements as I understand them, and you can tell me if you agree with me. Plenty of people are unhappy with the their work environments. You're almost certainly one of them. Management may not value their employees. They may have unreasonable expectations, provide inadequate resources, have counterproductive policies and foster a culture inimical to productivity. I understand that, and I understand how discouraging that can be. I also understand that individuals may have limited choices and alternatives. Plenty of people leave bad jobs, and sometimes there are bad consequences associated with such a decision.

There are also good places to work, and I think I work at one of them. I still have interruptions and distractions. Everyone does. Sometimes I have someone at my door every five minutes and sometimes I have a couple of hours of quiet. How I handle the interruptions is up to me. GTD has been very helpful to me in handling them gracefully. My claim is simply that I agree with David Allen that the ability to focus and re-focus rapidly is a valuable skill, and one that can be cultivated.
 
Let me to get it right. Does it mean that you consider the inability to write a masterpiece in a crowded, noisy room to be some kind of a slight learning disability?

No. I have evidence that geniuses have produced masterpieces under very bad conditions though. Dickens and Defoe, for example.
 
I still have interruptions and distractions. Everyone does.

But you seem to actively reject and oppose any discussion of reducing interruptions and distractions. That's what I don't understand. We're here discussing work style and work organization. What's wrong with discussing that aspect of work?

Or is it just the word "deep" that you object to, and not the concept that some work benefits from uninterrupted focus?
 
No. I have evidence that geniuses have produced masterpieces under very bad conditions though. Dickens and Defoe, for example.

I suspect that geniuses have produced masterpieces in very dim lighting, and in freezing cold. But modern workplaces still have lights and heat.
 
Top