I have a pet theory than the reason people procrastinate, is because they don't concretely identify their future selves, as being the "same person" as their present self. Rather, they view their future self as an abstract person, more akin to a friend, than self. This level of relatedness varies with time as well. People identify very strongly with their future self from tomorrow, perhaps akin to their best friend. But they identify their future self from years/decades later, more akin to a distant cousin.
From this perspective, procrastination becomes analogous to selfishness. A very "altruistic" person would prioritize their future self to the same extent that they would prioritize their present desires. Perhaps even more so. Whereas a more "self centered" person sees their future self as a stranger whose desires are inconsequential to their present selves.
What would be really interesting to consider, is the correlation between "future altruism" and traditional altruism. One can imagine these two being completely uncorrelated, the same way a racist person can be completely uncaring towards other races whilst still being altruistic within their own race. But if there is indeed a stronger correlation, that would be a very interesting finding.
This makes me think somewhat of my current reading... The Ethics of Ambiguity, by Simone de Beauvoir. Although she's talking about our relationships with other people and the world, rather than our relationship with our future selves, there is significant overlap.
She talks about freedom in an existentialist sense. As her partner Sartre noted, we are all free, but freedom is terrifying, so we do all sorts of things to retreat or hide from it. She follows through on the implications of that freedom. One common interpretation of existentialist freedom is that we need only care about ourselves, not others (Nietzsche was a major proponent of this). She points out that this interpretation of freedom can lead to authoritarian, oppressive rule (she was writing in the immediate wake of WWII). So she argues that in order to exercise our freedom, we must use it to defend and exercise the freedom of others as well. To stand by when others are oppressed and lose their freedom (whether from external or internal cause) diminishes our own freedom, and puts our freedom at real risk. Our internal carelessness about the freedom of others leads directly to external risk to our own freedom.
It's a fascinating book. Extremely dense, but beautifully written and motivating. I find myself reading sentences again out loud, just to enjoy them.
I can see her argument easily extended to our relationship with our future selves - decisions we make with our freedom now can have negative impact on our future freedom. ie eat that cake now, still be fat tomorrow.
I doubt it's that complex. Occam's razor suggests a simpler explanation: there is discomfort in starting a task, therefore people delay starting that task. It's a pain avoidance strategy, which sounds much more likely than some self-referential, future-self theory.
I've heard of one technique to fight akrasia which relies on your theory.
It's an exercise where you contemplate you future self as a friend, whose is immediately benefits from your actions. So if you're trying to not eat an extra serving of cake you imagine your future self as a friend who gets fat when you eat that extra serving.
There is an episode of Roderick on the Line where John Roderick goes on at length describing his relationship with past-John and future-John, and all the woes that past-John has visited upon him, and all the reasons he can't be bothered about future-John's wellbeing.
Massive offtop, sorry about it. I've been noticing this a lot lately.
I have a pet theory than the reason people procrastinate, is because they don't concretely identify their future selves, as being the "same person" as their present self.
What is the purpose of the two commas in this sentence?
IMO, you are suggesting way more thought than is actually going on in most cases. I think you are right about not identifying with future selves being part of the issue, but I think it is usually just memory, at least when talking about following through with a plan decided previously with significant deliberation. When considering plans in depth we do think about the future and what would be better, but in the moment of making decisions we are usualy involved in something else. I also don't think the article is right that it is usually preferring immediate gratification over long term benefits, but just that doing something towards the previous plan is an intrusion into whatever else we happen to be doing at the time and an interruption of focus or more immediate plans. We then only consider the previous plan superficially and are quick to accept some potential workaround to needing to work on it now (that is, it isn't that we are discounting our future but just not really considering it at all). I've found it helpful to try to notice if something is a potentially significant change to a previous plan and get out of the flow of whatever I am doing and consider it in more depth before actually making a change. Just getting out of the flow briefly when making the decision is enough to actually consider the future and make a good decision about following the previous plan or changing it.
I have a pet theory that procrastination is mostly caused by fear of failure and having two sets of valuations. One overt, reasonable that makes us create plans and one internal, emotional, that makes us not following them because the thing we won't to achieve is worth barely anything in that system.
What helped me get down to deep work was doing away with the nonessentials, i.e. a lot of physical material things, all forms of entertainment, the internet especially, inner clutter like comparing myself to others, etc. Seneca once noted in his Moral letters to Lucilius, “Until we have begun to go without them, we fail to realize how unnecessary many things are. We’ve been using them not because we needed them but because we had them.” I found this was applicable to nearly everything: my digital life (think Cal Newport's Digital Minimalism), my physical life (think Henry David Thoreau's Walden), my inner life (think Rainer Maria Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet), etc. In short: Getting down to my bare self, helped me get down to deep work.
Unfortunately doesn't work for me, as I can't unplug one of my main sources of entertainment: my brain. HN and such can be occasionally distracting, but if I'm truly procrastinating, even four blank walls will do, as I'll just space out.
I think the design your future actions is a big part of this.
I've had some success with framing two modes, Architect Mode and Implementation Mode.
Architect Mode is when you sit down and make a plan to achieve a long term challenging goal (losing a lot of weight, getting in shape, learning something new, etc.). It's where you set up a routine and plan for what you're specifically going to do each day in order to do this. Being able to separate this plan from when you're actually enacting it is important because it removes the choice and doesn't allow comparisons of an immediate reward with an abstract distant reward.
Implementation Mode has to follow what was set up by the architect and is not allowed to make decisions - this is because you're compromised and unreliable when comparing an immediate reward (do I eat that slice of cheesecake?) to a long term abstract reward and it's very easy to rationalize why what you want to do is actually okay (it's only an extra 400 calories anyway - today can be a cheat day etc.).
A big part of succeeding with implementation is stacking success (doing the thing every day without missing any day) and picking a small enough starting point. Another is not putting yourself in positions where you're easily tempted to fail (don't buy oreos and have them in the house). Once you get more in the rhythm of things you are safer in more difficult environments.
When Implementation mode fails it means the architect needs to reevaluate why and make changes - it doesn't help to ruminate or beat yourself up about the failure.
Even with this mindset things are difficult, but I've found it to be the most successful for long term goals when they're clearly defined - most of it is getting the psychology right - then the behavior can follow.
When Implementation mode fails it means the architect needs to reevaluate why and make changes
Every plan I've ever put together to improve myself or my life has failed on initial implementation. It wasn't until I expected the first iteration of the plan to fail that I learned how to succeed.
Plan. Fail. Tweak. Retry. The goal usually doesn't need to change, but the plan often does.
"Reduce friction to start" is a huge one for me. Especially if "starting" is a bunch of busywork like writing a Dockerfile, initializing a git repo, creating package metadata files, etc. I've found it helpful to just dive in and start writing the "fun" part first and turn it into a "real" project later. Usually after an hour of coding or less I feel I've created something of value that I want to save and reuse so there's no motivational problem.
Yes, and the essay missed a related point that I've found to be really valuable: reducing the scope of the project is a great way to reduce the starting friction.
So, if I need to build a new application or work on a home improvement project, and I plan in advance the entire scope of the project, all the way out to the end some number of weeks or months from now, starting it requires more commitment and becomes more daunting.
But if instead I chunk it down into smaller, self-contained tasks, those tasks are maybe a day's worth of work individually and not so bad. I can start one in the morning and feel better about the state of things by the afternoon.
yes, I can relate to this 100%. That's why I have become a huge fan of using Vagrant in (my) tutorials. Just clone and type "vagrant up" and everything is installed and ready to jump right into coding. I love coding, I almost loathe config and admin stuff (especially if installing doesn't work arrr)
Deep Work, by Cal Newport. An excellent book on how to work on really big ideas/projects effectively, without losing your humanity in the process. This is a must-read for anyone serious about work.
Pomodoro Technique. This is well-documented with lots of apps and tools online, but it's pretty simple. Set a 25 minute timer. Work, without interruption, for 25 minutes. When the timer goes off, do not-work for 5 minutes - exercise, web surf, whatever. When that timer goes off, set another 25. It's nice because it does the boundary stuff this article talks about in a manageable way. It's not "I'm going to work hard all week", but rather "I'm going to work hard for 25 minutes".
Deep Work is maybe the first book I wanted to through out of the window in a long time. The complete book can be resumed in a sentence: "Secure big chunks of time to reach and be in the flow state".
But of course you cannot write a full book out of one sentence, so it repeats itself until it achieves to contradict itself by telling you that if you are a writer/journalist you can achieve the state of flow in chunks of 10 minutes spread over the day and happily switch tasks.
Any programmers here use pomodoro? I expect 25 minute interruptions would do more harm than good for my focus when writing code, especially the continuous expectation that I will be interrupted. I don’t have a pressing interest in finding productivity tips, just curious to hear about programmers who have tried this technique
My biggest problem I have with deep work is not that it makes undoubtedly sense and leads to interesting results but to find what to work on. I can't find my deep work. Finding a niche and sticking to it is much harder than performing deep work.
Akrasia and Enkrateia remind me of the dual nature of humans that St. Paul describes in Romans:
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. Romans 7:14-25
Paul is writing here about the battle between a person's moral ideals and how their desires conflict and often overrun those ideals, admitting that even he is a hypocrite who does things he otherwise condemns.
I like how procrastination is discussed in forums like HN. We can recognize it as something keeping us from our goals, but can also empathize with each other in failing to master it. This is how I see the early church's approach to sin in St. Paul's era, or at least that was the point he was making in Romans.
In the same way, we can combat procrastination as a community by sharing our stories and providing the insight to overcome it. This is my favorite part of community, be it in church or on HN or elsewhere.
The only problem is that I am procrastinating by being on HN, and if I read about combating procrastination here then I can even fool myself into thinking I'm doing something useful.
Douglas Andams had huge prolems with the same issue. He was once locked in a hotel suite a for two weeks by his publisher Sonny Mehta. 'It was simple. I sat at the desk and typed and Sonny sat in an armchair and glowered.'
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by"
– Douglas Adams
We procrastinate because most of the jobs we do are completely mindless, repetitive and boring, and we have to spend so much time doing them. Good luck finding a method to fight that... Unless you're rich and the owner of your own time, in this case you don't need any "motivational" tool.
Edit: lobotomy is another solution of course, using pills or any kind of drugs that massively reduce the amount of neurons in the brain.
And meaningless. Who cares about a stupid UI that 3 users are going to ever see and will be deleted at the next rewrite? To be productive, work has to be rewarding and for it to be rewarding, it has to have meaning.
>Time inconsistency refers to the tendency of the human brain to value immediate rewards more highly than future rewards.
To me it seems this sort of reasoning suffers from the homuncular fallacy. Who is placing value on the rewards: are some rewards 'rewarded' more highly than others? What about those rewards, etc.
>When you make plans for yourself — like setting a goal to lose weight or write a book or learn a language — you are actually making plans for your future self.
Yes, you're making a prediction on the basis of imperfect self-knowledge. And that's before even considering creativity, which by definition is unpredictable. So for example booking a plane flight is one thing and writing a novel is another. It isn't merely a matter of blinkered self-control: one has to be distractable to go in new directions.
> Who is placing value on the rewards: are some rewards 'rewarded' more highly than others?
I guess your own brain by means of producing dopamine?
And to the second question, obviously would depend on the amount of dopamine that gets generated (if that's at all how the rewarding effect of that substance works on the brain)
"All procrastination is delay, but not all delay is procrastination"
Solving the Procrastination Puzzle, was an amazing audio book, where the author mentions that it's short so the audiobook itself does not become a tool of procrastination for the listener. :)
"Just Get Started" (step 1) is something I still tell myself.
Why do we set out to do something? In many cases it's because we've been told achievement is important since a very young age. But since all accomplishments will presumably be lost at the time of the heat death of the Universe, maybe it's more important to focus only on tasks if your inner voice requires such dedication for your own happiness/sanity.
If you never get to enjoy life because you're constantly working at achieving what is required mostly by external influences, you may be wasting your existence.
I like that Victor Hugo's 19th century version of "deleting apps from your phone" is "deleting your clothes".
I have found that an easy, milder nudge, for either computer or mobile device, is to remain logged off of things by default and explicitly log out whenever you're done.
This is how i kicked facebook out of my life 3 years ago.
I made it a habit to only log in to facebook in incognito mode, i would have to log back in every time i close the session, and that was enough to remove it completely from my life.
Through years of reading articles about performance and productivity, I had kind of extracted those same conclusions and over time have given those recommendations to people around me with procrastination issues.
However, I had never read a short article that summarized the ideas in such a concise and well written form, very informative but at the same time very easy to read. So a big thank you to the author for this piece. I'll be linking it to several people.
I think that one of the things that causes "starting friction" for me is the fear of getting distracted/interrupted after I start a task. To get myself to start that kind of task, it seems to be useful to hole myself up somewhere that people can't find me and turn off slack. Then starting the task becomes easy.
On the other hand, personal projects seem easy to start but hard to finish. After working on something for a few weeks it ends up on the back-burner, often never to see the light of day again. I wonder if an effect similar to Akrasia is at play, or if that is due to something different.
It's related, I think. You're working on something that will take a while, and even though you're doing the work, it's still delayed gratification. Worse, it's often the schlep, as pg puts it - that unenjoyable middle ground of work work work with no tangible reward. But the new thing... it's shiny. It's immediately gratifying to say "I'm going to start on this new thing that won't suck like the old thing sucks."
The existence of akrasia is one of those things that many people accept as reasonable, but if truly adopted as an axiom and reasoned from in a consistent manner, would lead to far different conclusions than we've adopted as a society.
[+] [-] whack|7 years ago|reply
From this perspective, procrastination becomes analogous to selfishness. A very "altruistic" person would prioritize their future self to the same extent that they would prioritize their present desires. Perhaps even more so. Whereas a more "self centered" person sees their future self as a stranger whose desires are inconsequential to their present selves.
What would be really interesting to consider, is the correlation between "future altruism" and traditional altruism. One can imagine these two being completely uncorrelated, the same way a racist person can be completely uncaring towards other races whilst still being altruistic within their own race. But if there is indeed a stronger correlation, that would be a very interesting finding.
[+] [-] beat|7 years ago|reply
She talks about freedom in an existentialist sense. As her partner Sartre noted, we are all free, but freedom is terrifying, so we do all sorts of things to retreat or hide from it. She follows through on the implications of that freedom. One common interpretation of existentialist freedom is that we need only care about ourselves, not others (Nietzsche was a major proponent of this). She points out that this interpretation of freedom can lead to authoritarian, oppressive rule (she was writing in the immediate wake of WWII). So she argues that in order to exercise our freedom, we must use it to defend and exercise the freedom of others as well. To stand by when others are oppressed and lose their freedom (whether from external or internal cause) diminishes our own freedom, and puts our freedom at real risk. Our internal carelessness about the freedom of others leads directly to external risk to our own freedom.
It's a fascinating book. Extremely dense, but beautifully written and motivating. I find myself reading sentences again out loud, just to enjoy them.
I can see her argument easily extended to our relationship with our future selves - decisions we make with our freedom now can have negative impact on our future freedom. ie eat that cake now, still be fat tomorrow.
[+] [-] WhompingWindows|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JamesBarney|7 years ago|reply
It's an exercise where you contemplate you future self as a friend, whose is immediately benefits from your actions. So if you're trying to not eat an extra serving of cake you imagine your future self as a friend who gets fat when you eat that extra serving.
[+] [-] dasil003|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheSpiceIsLife|7 years ago|reply
I have a pet theory than the reason people procrastinate, is because they don't concretely identify their future selves, as being the "same person" as their present self.
What is the purpose of the two commas in this sentence?
[+] [-] joveian|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ErikAugust|7 years ago|reply
Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] scotty79|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bernardino|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ckosidows|7 years ago|reply
Your comment seems to indicate you manage your vices similarly. Do you also recede back into them or has this not been a problem for you?
[+] [-] cbau|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gonehome|7 years ago|reply
I've had some success with framing two modes, Architect Mode and Implementation Mode.
Architect Mode is when you sit down and make a plan to achieve a long term challenging goal (losing a lot of weight, getting in shape, learning something new, etc.). It's where you set up a routine and plan for what you're specifically going to do each day in order to do this. Being able to separate this plan from when you're actually enacting it is important because it removes the choice and doesn't allow comparisons of an immediate reward with an abstract distant reward.
Implementation Mode has to follow what was set up by the architect and is not allowed to make decisions - this is because you're compromised and unreliable when comparing an immediate reward (do I eat that slice of cheesecake?) to a long term abstract reward and it's very easy to rationalize why what you want to do is actually okay (it's only an extra 400 calories anyway - today can be a cheat day etc.).
A big part of succeeding with implementation is stacking success (doing the thing every day without missing any day) and picking a small enough starting point. Another is not putting yourself in positions where you're easily tempted to fail (don't buy oreos and have them in the house). Once you get more in the rhythm of things you are safer in more difficult environments.
When Implementation mode fails it means the architect needs to reevaluate why and make changes - it doesn't help to ruminate or beat yourself up about the failure.
Even with this mindset things are difficult, but I've found it to be the most successful for long term goals when they're clearly defined - most of it is getting the psychology right - then the behavior can follow.
[+] [-] padobson|7 years ago|reply
When Implementation mode fails it means the architect needs to reevaluate why and make changes
Every plan I've ever put together to improve myself or my life has failed on initial implementation. It wasn't until I expected the first iteration of the plan to fail that I learned how to succeed.
Plan. Fail. Tweak. Retry. The goal usually doesn't need to change, but the plan often does.
[+] [-] olooney|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thaumaturgy|7 years ago|reply
So, if I need to build a new application or work on a home improvement project, and I plan in advance the entire scope of the project, all the way out to the end some number of weeks or months from now, starting it requires more commitment and becomes more daunting.
But if instead I chunk it down into smaller, self-contained tasks, those tasks are maybe a day's worth of work individually and not so bad. I can start one in the morning and feel better about the state of things by the afternoon.
[+] [-] bernhardwenzel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swaggyBoatswain|7 years ago|reply
My gym is right behind my desk, I have 0 excuses to workout almost everyday
[+] [-] beat|7 years ago|reply
Deep Work, by Cal Newport. An excellent book on how to work on really big ideas/projects effectively, without losing your humanity in the process. This is a must-read for anyone serious about work.
Pomodoro Technique. This is well-documented with lots of apps and tools online, but it's pretty simple. Set a 25 minute timer. Work, without interruption, for 25 minutes. When the timer goes off, do not-work for 5 minutes - exercise, web surf, whatever. When that timer goes off, set another 25. It's nice because it does the boundary stuff this article talks about in a manageable way. It's not "I'm going to work hard all week", but rather "I'm going to work hard for 25 minutes".
[+] [-] Loic|7 years ago|reply
But of course you cannot write a full book out of one sentence, so it repeats itself until it achieves to contradict itself by telling you that if you are a writer/journalist you can achieve the state of flow in chunks of 10 minutes spread over the day and happily switch tasks.
So, no, really, you can save yourself this book.
[+] [-] mroll|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amorphous|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] padobson|7 years ago|reply
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. Romans 7:14-25
Paul is writing here about the battle between a person's moral ideals and how their desires conflict and often overrun those ideals, admitting that even he is a hypocrite who does things he otherwise condemns.
I like how procrastination is discussed in forums like HN. We can recognize it as something keeping us from our goals, but can also empathize with each other in failing to master it. This is how I see the early church's approach to sin in St. Paul's era, or at least that was the point he was making in Romans.
In the same way, we can combat procrastination as a community by sharing our stories and providing the insight to overcome it. This is my favorite part of community, be it in church or on HN or elsewhere.
[+] [-] Scarblac|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danieljohnson|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solipsism|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nabla9|7 years ago|reply
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by" – Douglas Adams
[+] [-] m3mpp|7 years ago|reply
Edit: lobotomy is another solution of course, using pills or any kind of drugs that massively reduce the amount of neurons in the brain.
[+] [-] AWildC182|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whamlastxmas|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trukterious|7 years ago|reply
To me it seems this sort of reasoning suffers from the homuncular fallacy. Who is placing value on the rewards: are some rewards 'rewarded' more highly than others? What about those rewards, etc.
>When you make plans for yourself — like setting a goal to lose weight or write a book or learn a language — you are actually making plans for your future self.
Yes, you're making a prediction on the basis of imperfect self-knowledge. And that's before even considering creativity, which by definition is unpredictable. So for example booking a plane flight is one thing and writing a novel is another. It isn't merely a matter of blinkered self-control: one has to be distractable to go in new directions.
[+] [-] j1elo|7 years ago|reply
I guess your own brain by means of producing dopamine?
And to the second question, obviously would depend on the amount of dopamine that gets generated (if that's at all how the rewarding effect of that substance works on the brain)
[+] [-] torstenvl|7 years ago|reply
Oh, wait...
[+] [-] RobertRoberts|7 years ago|reply
Solving the Procrastination Puzzle, was an amazing audio book, where the author mentions that it's short so the audiobook itself does not become a tool of procrastination for the listener. :)
"Just Get Started" (step 1) is something I still tell myself.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18079767-solving-the-pro...
The audiobook is on youtube (not sure if a legal copy), this link skips the 17 min intro. (link in the comments)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I6nGw2GeU0&t=1030s
[+] [-] nine_k|7 years ago|reply
(The above is the first in a series of 3 posts, IIRC, including a post on effective beating of procrastination.)
[+] [-] gloriousduke|7 years ago|reply
If you never get to enjoy life because you're constantly working at achieving what is required mostly by external influences, you may be wasting your existence.
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
[+] [-] andy_wrote|7 years ago|reply
I have found that an easy, milder nudge, for either computer or mobile device, is to remain logged off of things by default and explicitly log out whenever you're done.
[+] [-] jibreel|7 years ago|reply
I made it a habit to only log in to facebook in incognito mode, i would have to log back in every time i close the session, and that was enough to remove it completely from my life.
[+] [-] j1elo|7 years ago|reply
However, I had never read a short article that summarized the ideas in such a concise and well written form, very informative but at the same time very easy to read. So a big thank you to the author for this piece. I'll be linking it to several people.
[+] [-] codeafin|7 years ago|reply
A short, fun read that names the effect "Resistance".
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] piinbinary|7 years ago|reply
On the other hand, personal projects seem easy to start but hard to finish. After working on something for a few weeks it ends up on the back-burner, often never to see the light of day again. I wonder if an effect similar to Akrasia is at play, or if that is due to something different.
[+] [-] beat|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tunesmith|7 years ago|reply
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/3/5/17080470/addiction...
[+] [-] mschuller|7 years ago|reply