Why downvote this? This is just the sort of thing that works for me! Change the environment. What you can't hear can't interrupt you.
I agree. It was quick, harmless, and relevant.
I have to say that I was recommended those ones as being the best. They are indeed the sexiest earplugs ever. Stylish.
Unfortunately, at least for me, they were inferior in blocking noise compared to the cheap ones in orange foam. Silicone still wins.
I like this post a lot.
Nitpicks unrelated to the content:
You attack a problem of any complexity—anything you need to get done—, and your mind [...]
The second em dash shouldn't have a comma after it.
You login. [...] You logout without sending the email
"Login" and "logout" are nouns. The verbs are written spaced: "log in" and "log out". (To see this for yourself, try an inflected form: "I logged in", not *"I loginned".)
You are right, thank you. Corrected.
Eluding Attention Hijacks
Do my taxes? Oh, no! It’s not going to be that easy. It’s going to be different this year, I’m sure. I saw the forms—they look different. There are probably new rules I’m going to have to figure out. I might need to read all that damn material. Long form, short form, medium form? File together, file separate? We’ll probably want to claim deductions, but if we do we’ll have to back them up, and that means we’ll need all the receipts. Oh, my God—I don’t know if we really have all the receipts we’d need, and what if we didn’t have all the receipts and claimed the deductions anyway and got audited? Audited? Oh, no—the IRS—JAIL!!
And so a lot of people put themselves in jail, just glancing at their 1040 tax forms. Because they are so smart, sensitive, and creative.
—David Allen, Getting Things Done
Intro
Very recently, Roko wrote about ugh fields, “an unconscious flinch we have from even thinking about a serious personal problem. The ugh field forms a self-shadowing blind spot covering an area desperately in need of optimization, imposing huge costs.” Suggested antidotes included PJ Eby’s technique to engage with the ugh field, locate its center, and access information—thereupon dissolving the negative emotions.
I want to explore here something else that prevents us from doing what we want. Consider these situations:
Situation 1
You attack a problem that is at least slightly complex (distasteful or not), but are unable to systematically tackle it step by step because your mind keeps diverging wildly within the problem. Your brain starts running simulations and gets stuck. To make things worse, you are biased towards thinking of the worst possible scenarios. Having visualized 30 steps ahead, you panic and do nothing. David Allen's quote in the introduction of this post illustrates that.
Situation 2
You attack a problem of any complexity—anything you need to get done—and your mind keeps diverging to different directions outside the problem. Examples:
a. You decide you need to quickly send an important email before an appointment. You log in. Thirty minutes later, you find yourself watching some motivational Powerpoint presentation your uncle sent you. You stare at the inbox and can't remember what you were doing there in the first place. You log out without sending the email, and leave late to your appointment.*
b. You're working on your computer and some kid playing outside the window brings you vague memories of your childhood, vacations, your father teaching you how to fish, tilapias, earthworms, digging the earth, dirty hands, antibacterial soaps, swine flu, airport announcements, seatbelts, sexual fantasies with that redheaded flight attendant from that flight to Barcelona, and ... "wait, wait, wait! I am losing focus, I need to get this done." Ten minutes had passed (or was it more?).
Repeat this phenomenon many times a day and you won't have gone too far.
What happened?
While I am aware that situations 1 and 2 are a bit different in nature (anxiety because of “seeing too much into the problem” vs. distraction to other problems), it seems to me that both bear something very fundamental in common. In all those situations, you became less efficient to get things done because your sensitivity permitted your attention to be deviated to easily. You suffered what I shall call an attention hijack.
I like your meta-analysis on to which kinds of tasks coffee works better.
I add something on the how much. Frequent small doses gives you better results than few large doses.
Actually, whenever in the absence of further specific evidences, I have found that small-doses-many-times is a good rule of thumb for a vast array of substances (eg: food in general, sugar) if the goal is to maintain a stable, productive mental state.
Curiously, this is pretty much what I normally do when learning new procedures, but being aware of those S.D.I. steps in a more explicit manner seems to be useful in terms of having a less hesitant, "what the heck should I do next?" attitude when about to do something.
I liked it. Very good procedure to learn new procedures.
What Alicorn said. "Evitare" is Latin for "to avoid"; if "X-are" is a Latin verb meaning "to Y", then an "X-andum" is a "thing to be Y-ed".
"Avoidum" (pl. "avoida") could be an alternative — but "evitandum", having more syllables, does sound better.
Then vitamins are not evil, as the paper claims.
Roughly speaking, can we assume that the right thing they should have written as a conclusion in the paper would have been the weaker claim:
"Vitamins X and Y are evil under these daily doses; further studies are needed to confirm if they are beneficial in some other dosage, and if so, which is the optimal one."
?
I should try and stay neutral in this, but what the hell :-)
I have to say I think this is a very weak point, Eleizer, and the examples reflect this. Sure, fetishising neutrality is a bad thing, and a bias - but as biases go, it doesn't make the top ten, or even the top hundred, and is closely related to a very sensible idea (see next paragraph). Others have pointed out how the headmaster/great powers are probably making the right decision in the examples you mention, and how they often don't stay neutral in many similar situations.
And though there's no good reason to never pick sides, there are many good reasons to not proclaim yourself as taking a Side(TM); "I am a libertarian" closes off conversation (and is often intended to do so), but saying "there are good arguments on both sides; however, I feel we should at least consider individual autonomy issues" opens up conversation. Proclaiming "I am neutral" at the very start, and then building gradually towards your position, is often the best way to go (would you start conversations with religious inclined AI-interested people with "God doesn't exist; get over it; now, let's talk?") In my experience, conversations that start with "you're both equally to blame!" generally end up with one side being assigned more blame than the other.
Seems like two separate issues: one thing is what you essentially think about the matter under discussion (whether if you make it explicit to the others or not); how you approach influencing the other side is something else.
Paolo Freire said, "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
Consequences-wise, yes. But many people may not realize this fact, not realize its importance, or actually be working on something more important; and while pointing this out to them is good, doing so less than extremely carefully, I think, comes off as "you're with us or you're against us", and is alienating. (Especially if they think they do have something more important.)
There is a very similar quote from Ayn Rand as well:
It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?
Your point is good. Sometimes it's just a matter of allocation of resources -- and yes, may sound like "you're with us or you're against us" depending on the tone.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
One specific kind of distraction I found interesting is the 'valuable distraction', where you get an interesting idea that is unrelated to your current task and which you in fact do not want to elude. My solution for preventing the new idea from getting me off-track is to use a low-bandwidth channel to communicate with my future self, which is a long way of saying sending myself a one-line email just supple enough to restore the memory context.
...which is pretty much equivalent to the writing down tip that I wrote -- only that maybe for you emails are units easier to process.
Problem is that it takes some time to send an email. Really. I mean, not if you have three-four ideas a day, but if you have (like me) some dozens, the extra seconds of writing an email, multiplied by many emails, might become a barrier. So I prefer text files, and then I process them later.