Thoughts on 'Thinking tasks'

[Gardener]

I know that for me that is false. I often get my best ideas on database design or solutions to sticky programming problems while filling sheep water tanks, or spinning wool while watching a simple mindless TV shows. And I don't consider the work of mucking a barn or digging a ditch to be lesser than the work of programming or research

I don't know for sure what Cal Newport is talking about, but what you're saying doesn't seem to be contradicting my thinking. What you describe above is a situation where you choose your tasks and you choose when to interrupt one task for another. And at times when your mind doesn't need to be highly engaged with the current task, it is engaged with other tasks.

When you actually sit down to implement the solution to a sticky programming problem, wouldn't it hurt at least a little if you were interrupted at least every thirteen minutes, and you were absolutely required to address the interruption for a few minutes, engaging your mind fully with the interruption, before you could return to the programming? I don't remember, offhand, how you felt about the "change tasks every seven minutes" suggestion, which I see as closely related.

A scenario:

9:48: You sit down to make changes to a database.
9:57: "I need you to stop what you're doing now and calculate how much feed we'll need for the next ninety days."
10:08: You're back at the database.
10:19: "I need you to stop whatever you're doing now and write two paragraphs describing the historical influences behind your latest weaving project."
10:27: You're back at the database.
10:38: "Sorry, I got the assignment wrong. I need you to discuss the weaving from an art history point of view, and also discuss what materials were used to make the dyes. But still only two paragraphs."

And so on, and so on. My suggestion is that those interruptions are likely to make the programming less effective, and that figuring out how to move them, so that you can have a block of programming and a block of knocking off small tasks, would be more efficient and effective. Sure, there's still the chance of, "Emergency! A fence is down and sheep are flooding into the road!" But that sort of emergency wouldn't happen every few minutes every day.

Re the deep work, I'm not seeing that as more important; I'm seeing it as not unimportant, and as work that requires undistracted focus. So my definition is circular--work that requires undistracted focus, requires undistracted focus. And some such work does exist, and some such work has value.

 

[Gardener]

And I am sorry....there is a multitude of crap admin work that is necessary and I have to do it. But is IS shallow work using Cal's terminology. It has no lasting value and does nothing to help me in my science and making an impact on our world. GTD helps me manage both deep work and shallow work.

Well, and GTD allows for priorities, and for what truly forwards your goals and what doesn't. Normally, the idea that people have priorities, more important work and less important work, isn't a controversial idea.

But when people say that some work is (1) high priority AND (2) requires uninterrupted focus, it's abruptly controversial. It really does appear that the idea of uninterrupted focus is the trigger. And, why? Is it the fact that society has delightedly embraced multitasking and now there's huge resistance to the idea that maybe multitasking wasn't such a good plan? Is it the fact that interruptions tend to involve people, and American society, at least, values interaction over almost anything? (I point to Cain's Quiet, on that topic.)

In fact, one of the areas where we do reject interruptions is scheduled interactions. If you're forty minutes into solving a programming problem, with variables and data structures dancing in your head, you're supposed to accept a drop-in to your office, and just accept the fact that you'll need forty minutes again to get there. But if you're in a meeting or a class, interruptions short of "the building's on fire!" are largely unacceptable. A two-person meeting to discuss the lunch order for the next all-hands is likely to get far more "don't interrupt" respect than any individual's work, even though an interruption to the small meeting will likely cost less. (Although, really, only blatant interruptions of meetings are unacceptable; most of the people in meetings, most of the time, are focusing on their computers, phones, or other things unrelated to the meeting.)

In fact, meetings get so much respect that one of the pieces of advice that I've read for getting uninterrupted work done is to choose one or several like-minded colleagues, schedule a meeting in a closed-door meeting room, and spend the day around the conference table in individual silent work.

Edited to add:

Now, for my job, uninterrupted-focus work, and interruptions, don't necessarily sort out to High Value and Low Value.

Diving into a maze of hundreds of interlocking and sometimes internally contradictory bureaucratic requirements and figuring out how to comply with the whole package doesn't feel the least bit valuable to me, but it absolutely requires uninterrupted focus.

Accepting intermittent communications from a programmer that I'm training, so that he can struggle with a problem for a while and then get help when he hits a wall, is all about interruptions, but if I've licensed him to do it that means that I have decided that his learning is more important than whatever I'm trying to get done today.

But soon I may really need to get all that bureaucracy done, so I may ask another programmer in the team if they have a day coming up soon when they can be his helper. Or I may give the trainee a task that's well within his current abilities, so that I can focus.

And that's the sort of strategy that I'm talking about, for achieving uninterrupted focus. And, again, I don't understand why that very idea tends to trigger such strongly disapproving reactions. (Edited to add: Not, I realize, from you.)

 

[mcogilvie]

Well, and GTD allows for priorities, and for what truly forwards your goals and what doesn't. Normally, the idea that people have priorities, more important work and less important work, isn't a controversial idea.

But when people say that some work is (1) high priority AND (2) requires uninterrupted focus, it's abruptly controversial. It really does appear that the idea of uninterrupted focus is the trigger. And, why? Is it the fact that society has delightedly embraced multitasking and now there's huge resistance to the idea that maybe multitasking wasn't such a good plan? Is it the fact that interruptions tend to involve people, and American society, at least, values interaction over almost anything? (I point to Cain's Quiet, on that topic.)

In fact, one of the areas where we do reject interruptions is scheduled interactions. If you're forty minutes into solving a programming problem, with variables and data structures dancing in your head, you're supposed to accept a drop-in to your office, and just accept the fact that you'll need forty minutes again to get there. But if you're in a meeting or a class, interruptions short of "the building's on fire!" are largely unacceptable. A two-person meeting to discuss the lunch order for the next all-hands is likely to get far more "don't interrupt" respect than any individual's work, even though an interruption will likely cost less. (Although, really, only blatant interruptions of meetings are unacceptable; most of the people in meetings, most of the time, are focusing on their computers, phones, or other things unrelated to the meeting.)

In fact, meetings get so much respect that one of the pieces of advice that I've read for getting uninterrupted work done is to choose one or several like-minded colleagues, schedule a meeting in a closed-door meeting room, and spend the day around the conference table in individual silent work.

I like that solution to the problem! The only problem for me is that we don't have enough conference rooms- they're booked up all the time. Fortunately, I am not afflicted with either poor managers or a culture of interruption, so I'm ok. I think the discussion, which has been fervent, has tended to conflate the poor manager/interruption culture issue with the question of the value of quiet, uninterrupted time for those of us who are fortunate enough to work in good conditions. If you feel you can't say "I'm in the middle of hunting down a nasty bug. Can I talk to you later this afternoon?" and get a positive response then there is an instituional problem beyond the scope of GTD, and I'm sorry for you. I know I am very fortunate: I have control of my time. However, when I am in my office, people knock at my door and I am able to treat them courteously even if I am not able to help them immediately, and GTD helps with that.

 

[Gardener]

If you feel you can't say "I'm in the middle of hunting down a nasty bug. Can I talk to you later this afternoon?" and get a positive response then there is an instituional problem beyond the scope of GTD, and I'm sorry for you. I know I am very fortunate: I have control of my time.

There's an institutional problem, and I'm talking about ways to solve or deal with that institutional problem. It's great that you don't have that problem, but can you see that it's problematic that you're dismissive of the very idea that anyone would need to work to solve the problem?

Analogies:

"We're trying to solve the issue of food deserts, the situation where people living in the inner city can't reach stores that sell fresh food."
"Well, why don't they just move? There are plenty of neighborhoods with better groceries."

"We're trying to improve the nutritional content of school lunches."
"Well, why don't the kids just go to private schools, where the food is better?"

Is it inherently WRONG to try to solve a problem in place, rather than walk away to a place that doesn't have that problem?

 

[mcogilvie]

There's an institutional problem, and I'm talking about ways to solve or deal with that institutional problem. It's great that you don't have that problem, but can you see that it's problematic that you're dismissive of the very idea that anyone would need to work to solve the problem?

Analogies:

"We're trying to solve the issue of food deserts, the situation where people living in the inner city can't reach stores that sell fresh food."
"Well, why don't they just move? There are plenty of neighborhoods with better groceries."

"We're trying to improve the nutritional content of school lunches."
"Well, why don't the kids just go to private schools, where the food is better?"

Is it inherently WRONG to try to solve a problem in place, rather than walk away to a place that doesn't have that problem?

The advice to find another job is the best I can offer under these circumstances. It is certainly consistent with the other examples you give, from a certain political point of view I do not share. My claim is that under what I understand are better circumstances, interruptions can be handled elegantly based on GTD. If you say to your boss "I need uninterrupted time alone, free of distractions to solve this problem" and your boss says "You don't get that," I think the problem is outside of the scope of GTD. I understand that there are jobs where that happens, and I'm sorry. If you had been sexually harassed, then I would know what to do. I've been trained on that one: document what happened and report it to the Title IX coordinator and/or HR. This does not guarantee anyone will like the outcome, but there's a procedure. I don't suppose you work for Uber? (reference to current news)

 

[Gardener]

The advice to find another job is the best I can offer under these circumstances. It is certainly consistent with the other examples you give, from a certain political point of view I do not share. My claim is that under what I understand are better circumstances, interruptions can be handled elegantly based on GTD. If you say to your boss "I need uninterrupted time alone, free of distractions to solve this problem" and your boss says "You don't get that," I think the problem is outside of the scope of GTD. I understand that there are jobs where that happens, and I'm sorry. If you had been sexually harassed, then I would know what to do. I've been trained on that one: document what happened and report it to the Title IX coordinator and/or HR. This does not guarantee anyone will like the outcome, but there's a procedure. I don't suppose you work for Uber? (reference to current news)

You're painting this as an all or nothing situation. You seem to be saying that the fact that there is a problem is evidence that the problem cannot possibly be solved and that therefore there's no point in even discussing trying to solve the problem. But...that makes no sense to me. That viewpoint would ensure that no problem would ever be solved.

Why is it outside the scope of GTD? Is renegotiating commitments outside the scope of GTD? Is managing interactions with coworkers outside the scope of GTD? Is setting priorities outside the scope of GTD? Is planning project schedules outside the scope of GTD? All of those things would be involved in solving the problem of uninterrupted focus time. Why are those things OK in dealing with other issues, but not OK in dealing with the problem of uninterrupted focus time?

It appears that for you, uninterrupted focus time is a topic that is so very distasteful that it simply shouldn't be discussed--MORE distasteful, apparently, than sexual harassment. I'm starting to feel that for you, it calls for a trigger warning.

I just don't get it.

 

[TesTeq]

Well, folks....we are all different. I have found that deep work blocks are pivotal for me to achieve the type of results I want and are expected of me. If deep work blocks don't work for you - fine. If you feel that one should always be open to distractions - fine. But again -- we are all different. I just become very irritated when someone actually tells me that I am not really doing GTD by scheduling deep work blocks. It has not happened in this discussion, but it has happened.

Yes, we are different but the difference is not in the area of our opinions about "deep work". The main problem is that some of us have read Cal Newport's book and found some interesting concepts to apply and some of us decided to shoot the messenger without listening to the message.
This discussion is very similar to the discussions with the GTD critics who haven't read the GTD book. They've read some blog posts (even David Allen's essays), they've listened to some podcasts and start to criticize David Allen's approach.
I have no proof that "deep work" works for everybody but I don't think it deserves such critique and remarks about learning disabilities.

 

[TesTeq]

Am I making fun of the concept of "deep work?" Yeah, I am a little. I'm just a poor schmo trying to get his work done. If "deep work" appeals, go for it.

No, absolutly not. It's just a proof that you've not read the "Deep Work" book. And it's great that a successful professor can achieve great results without "deep work". But I think it's not fair to dismiss the concept without reading the source literature.

 

[TesTeq]

I know that for me that is false. I often get my best ideas on database design or solutions to sticky programming problems while filling sheep water tanks, or spinning wool while watching a simple mindless TV shows. And I don't consider the work of mucking a barn or digging a ditch to be lesser than the work of programming or research.

Unfortunately in my world these best ideas require IMPLEMENTATION. And coding the idea often requires hour or two of REALLY UNINTERRUPTED work. And that's "deep work". Not catching briliant ideas but implementing them without forgetting about any nasty details.

 

[Longstreet]

Yes, we are different but the difference is not in the area of our opinions about "deep work". Tha main problem is that some of us have read Cal Newport's book and found some interesting concepts to apply and some of us decided to shoot the messenger without listening to the message.
This discussion is very similar to the discussions with the GTD critics who haven't read the GTD book. They've read some blog posts (even David Allen's essays), they've listened to some podcasts and start to criticize David Allen's approach.
I have no proof that "deep work" works for everybody but I don't think it deserves such critique and remarks about learning disabilities.

@TesTeq : Thank you....I really appreciate your comments.

 

[Longstreet]

Unfortunately in my world these best ideas require IMPLEMENTATION. And coding the idea often requires hour or two of REALLY UNINTERRUPTED work. And that's "deep work". Not catching briliant ideas but implementing them without forgetting about any nasty details.

Agreed! Mine too!

 

[TesTeq]

The advice to find another job is the best I can offer under these circumstances. It is certainly consistent with the other examples you give, from a certain political point of view I do not share. My claim is that under what I understand are better circumstances, interruptions can be handled elegantly based on GTD. If you say to your boss "I need uninterrupted time alone, free of distractions to solve this problem" and your boss says "You don't get that," I think the problem is outside of the scope of GTD. I understand that there are jobs where that happens, and I'm sorry. If you had been sexually harassed, then I would know what to do. I've been trained on that one: document what happened and report it to the Title IX coordinator and/or HR. This does not guarantee anyone will like the outcome, but there's a procedure. I don't suppose you work for Uber? (reference to current news)

And then everybody has found a better job and a better boss and they all lived happily ever after... ;-)

 

[Longstreet]

You're painting this as an all or nothing situation. You seem to be saying that the fact that there is a problem is evidence that the problem cannot possibly be solved and that therefore there's no point in even discussing trying to solve the problem. But...that makes no sense to me. That viewpoint would ensure that no problem would ever be solved.

Why is it outside the scope of GTD? Is renegotiating commitments outside the scope of GTD? Is managing interactions with coworkers outside the scope of GTD? Is setting priorities outside the scope of GTD? Is planning project schedules outside the scope of GTD? All of those things would be involved in solving the problem of uninterrupted focus time. Why are those things OK in dealing with other issues, but not OK in dealing with the problem of uninterrupted focus time?

It appears that for you, uninterrupted focus time is a topic that is so very distasteful that it simply shouldn't be discussed--MORE distasteful, apparently, than sexual harassment. I'm starting to feel that for you, it calls for a trigger warning.

I just don't get it.

Agreed....I am just baffled why Focus time is a bad thing....just bewildered.

 

[Gardener]

OK, so I'll leave off the trigger warning, but below are assorted thoughts about how to achieve uninterrupted time:

- Preemptive communication, even if there's nothing to communicate ("project start is still pending funding approval"), can reduce interruptions. If Joe hasn't heard from me about his project for three weeks, then when he emails to ask what's up, he's likely doing so because he's suddenly become anxious about the project. That anxiety may mean that he wants an answer Right Now.

If I add an element of predictability and control for Joe, he's less likely to ask questions that he wants answered in a hurry. A regular status report, a specific status update as we get close to a predicted milestone date, access to the backlog list so that he can look at progress himself--anything that allows Joe to feel informed and in control without demanding that I interrupt myself, reduces the chance that I'll have to interrupt myself.

- Batching interruptions 1: Once all the Joes are willing to wait a bit for their answers, you can batch all those reports and updates together, rather than interrupting yourself for Joe's panic this morning, and the boss's panic about Joe's panic later this morning, and Jane's panic this afternoon, and so on.

- Batching interruptions 2: If you're part of a team that all work on both focused work and interrupt-driven work, you can choose a sacrificial team member each day, and let him deal with those interruptions while everyone else can focus. This is likely to require some organization, like a Help email address and training customers to use that address instead of interrupting specific people.

- Batching interruptions 2.5: This is also an argument for not running too lean on receptionist/secretarial/other support staff--which is, of course, something usually not controlled by the people being interrupted. The VPs tend to have plenty of staff.

Yes, it's tempting to cut support staff to the bone, but if the end result is that lots of calls that could have been handled by a $15/hour intern end up being handled by a $60/hour programmer, you've achieved a false savings. (If that programmer is billed out at $150/hour and you can't bill the time spent on the calls, you've lost even more.) Sure, you can require the programmer to work for eighty hours a week, theoretically reducing his hourly rate, but then you run into the fact that knowledge workers' productivity starts to slump at thirty to forty hours per week. He's getting LESS done in an eighty-hour week than he would have gotten done in a thirty-hour week.

- Batching interruptions 3: There are some meetings that you have no schedule control over, and some that you do. If you coordinate with a number of your colleagues, you can increase the number of your meetings that you control.

So if there's an interdepartmental meeting smack in the middle of every Wednesday, it may be worthwhile to form a treaty with those colleagues that whenever humanly possible, you'll schedule the meetings that you control on Wednesdays as well. Thus Wednesday is lost for focused work, but other parts of the week may be freed up. If days-of-the-week don't work, you could similarly form a treaty that, for example, no meeting happens after 2pm, so that you can usually count on the late afternoon for a few hours of focused time.

- Batching interruptions 4: And do you need a meeting anyway? Every time you convert a scheduled group activity to an unscheduled individual activity, you give every person involved the opportunity to batch their tasks and reduce interruptions. As a very straightforward example that is pretty much standard practice, think of a document being routed for comment, rather than a workgroup meeting to edit the document. I think that there are a lot of other meeting types that could be transformed into non-meetings.

If the result of the meeting reduction is that people start to disconnect due to a lack of "live" contact, then the solution might be to organize the occasional meeting specifically for the purpose of reconnecting. (Because in meetings that don't actually require whole-group discussion, most of the group is usually mentally absent anyway.)

 

[mcogilvie]

I have no proof that "deep work" works for everybody but I don't think it deserves such critique and remarks about learning disabilities.

I think it's hardly a scathing critique. I have said that I have read Cal Newport's blog for a long time, tried his ideas, and found that they don't work for me. GTD does work pretty well for me. I have also said that distinguishing between "deep" and "shallow" work is problematic for me, and explained why.

As for my remarks about learning disabilities, I said "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." Perhaps you are unaware of US law in this regard, but students with certified learning disabilities are entitled to appropriate accomodations. Very often such accommodations include extra time on exams and an isolated, distraction-free environment. I have seen some very bright students with learning disabilities who benefit from such accommodations, and I object strongly to any attempts to stigmatize those with such diagnosed conditions. I stand by my claim, which David Allen has also made, that the ability to focus and re-focus rapidly is valuable for most people, and can be developed.

 

[Gardener]

I stand by my claim, which David Allen has also made, that the ability to focus and re-focus rapidly is valuable for most people, and can be developed.

Do you have any studies to back up that claim, and to oppose the studies that provide strong evidence that distractions are harmful?

 

[mcogilvie]

Do you have any studies to back up that claim, and to oppose the studies that provide strong evidence that distractions are harmful?

To back up the claim that the ability to refocus rapidly is useful? Aside from David Allen saying so and my own personal experience? No. It is not clear to me who would do such a study or what would be measured. I accept that a high level of distractions and interruptions diminish productivity. There are studies that show small amounts of random stimuli can promote learning. There is also the popularity of programs that simulate the sound of coffee shops, and we know that sensory deprivation can be deleterious. My wife is a neurobiologist, and I have some idea of how little we know as well as the dangers of putting too much faith in academic studies in making personal choices.

 

[Gardener]

To back up the claim that the ability to refocus rapidly is useful?

No, to back up the claim that it's a skill that can be acquired. And to analyze the value of interrupted-refocus versus maintaining focus in the first place.

It is not clear to me who would do such a study or what would be measured.

There are plenty of studies about the cost of distractions and interruptions. Have you read any of them? If a study confirmed that distractions and interruptions were cost-free, I'm guessing that we would have heard about it.

In fact, I remember reading that it was assumed that people who reported that they multitask a lot would turn out to be better at it in the studies. Turns out that they were worse at it than people who reported that they didn't multitask a lot.

I accept that a high level of distractions and interruptions diminish productivity.

OK, that's a very new statement from you.

There are studies that show small amounts of random stimuli can promote learning.

Yeah, sure. I have trouble accomplishing anything in complete silence. But we're not talking about random stimuli here.

There is also the popularity of programs that simulate the sound of coffee shops, and we know that sensory deprivation can be deleterious.

Who has advocated sensory deprivation?

My wife is a neurobiologist, and I have some idea of how little we know as well as the dangers of putting too much faith in academic studies in making personal choices.

Like the personal choice to try to reduce interruptions and distractions? You seem fairly strongly opposed to anyone making that personal choice.

 

[TesTeq]

I think it's hardly a scathing critique. I have said that I have read Cal Newport's blog for a long time, tried his ideas, and found that they don't work for me. GTD does work pretty well for me. I have also said that distinguishing between "deep" and "shallow" work is problematic for me, and explained why.

OK. Nomenclature can be disputable but it is useful to distinguish the mental effort required for an hour of tough programming and an hour of attending an obligatory meeting where the only thing that counts is attendance.

As for my remarks about learning disabilities, I said "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." Perhaps you are unaware of US law in this regard, but students with certified learning disabilities are entitled to appropriate accomodations. Very often such accommodations include extra time on exams and an isolated, distraction-free environment. I have seen some very bright students with learning disabilities who benefit from such accommodations, and I object strongly to any attempts to stigmatize those with such diagnosed conditions.

OK, I understand.

I stand by my claim, which David Allen has also made, that the ability to focus and re-focus rapidly is valuable for most people, and can be developed.

Yes.
1. The ability to focus and re-focus rapidly gives great results.
2. A distraction-free environment improves results.
So:
If you can focus and re-focus rapidly a distraction-free environment can improve your great results even more. Perhaps they will be HUGE. ;-)

 

[TesTeq]

I accept that a high level of distractions and interruptions diminish productivity.

Thank you. And I accept that it is possible to achieve great results in less than optimal environment using GTD.