It's easy to dismiss "Deep Work" articles for their use of buzzwords and pop-psychology, but this sort of structured language really does help drive the point home for some people.
The core concept of Deep Work isn't really controversial. Everyone knows that hard problems require focus, but that doesn't seem to stop people from surrounding themselves with notifications and distractions. It also doesn't stop many companies from burying their employees under a deluge of Slack notifications and must-respond-immediately e-mail expectations.
Once you start putting a name on it (It's not focus, it's "Deep Work (TM)"!) it becomes an easier sell to many (though not all) of the people who need to hear it. Attaching an explanation, a methodology, or a movement to something really does seem to amplify the importance.
It's the same effect that makes "Dopamine fasting" more poignant than suggesting that people take a day off of watching TV, checking their phones every 10 minutes, and browsing time-waster websites all throughout the day. They're the same thing in concept, but once you attach a catchy name and/or a semi-scientific explanation to something, many people start taking it more seriously.
In my time mentoring junior devs, one of the biggest predictors of future success was a person's ability to sit down, focus, and get work done. Many college grads are coming from an environment where their classes are neatly divided into 1-hour classes spread throughout the day. They're pulled in many directions by their phones, social engagements, activities, homework, and classes. They get in the habit of only focusing for 1-2 hours at most before going on to the next thing. Once they graduate and have to sit in one place and work on one thing for 8 hours a day, many of them struggle. If I try to lecture them on the importance of sustained focus and minimizing distractions, I sound like an out of touch old guy. If I instead say "Hey, we practice Deep Work here. Let me get you a copy of a Deep Work book so you can join us" then they're on board.
So you may not like the branding. You may not like seeing the same topic rehashed over and over again. But practically speaking, I don't care how it's accomplished. As long as it gets more people to take sustained focus seriously (both employees and managers alike) then I'm all for it.
I'm grad age (22), but I dropped out of uni. I don't understand how people get anything done if they only spend 1-2hrs on it. It takes me that long to get into a flow state and become productive, then ideally I would spend at least 3-4 more hours working productively. Based on the article, I definitely fall into the Monastic category.
> Once they graduate and have to sit in one place and work on one thing for 8 hours a day, many of them struggle.
Funnily enough, I'm finding that a work environment isn't actually very conducive with doing work. I spend most of my day being distracted with very little opportunity to focus on something.
> If I try to lecture them on the importance of sustained focus and minimizing distractions, I sound like an out of touch old guy. If I instead say "Hey, we practice Deep Work here. Let me get you a copy of a Deep Work book so you can join us" then they're on board
I would have the opposite reaction. "Deep Work" is cringy, but if you said "we value sustained focus and minimizing distractions" I would be very interested.
In my experience nobody sits in one place and works on one thing for 8 hours a day. I am tempted to say that it's not only rare but it's undesirable.
I can work for approximately 5 hours straight without needing any sort of break; but part of becoming a more senior developer was to realize that this is actually a really bad thing for me. The “sweet spot” for me appears to be either 1.5 or 2 hours long. If I have some urgency I will literally shut down my laptop and move to a coffee shop or some other physical context and spend at least 15 minutes taking in the new ambiance before opening up the laptop and resuming a separate 2-hour burst of focused work.
The reason is basically that the flow state is good for one very important parameter that we might call ‘grit,’ the actual overcoming of pain and moving a project to completion... but it fails of course at a whole range of metacognitive processes which I might imperfectly class along at least three separate axes as... well, the words are not great but ‘creativity’ and ‘organization’ and ’empathy’ work. Flow states are really good for when you know what needs to be done and how to do it because your project is well-organized. They can be poor for stepping back and thinking “is this really the best way to satisfy that person’s needs?” and for stepping back and thinking “is there some more powerful idea I could leverage here which would make all of these sorts of problems just go away, even if it is a little strange given how the system exists right now?” and for simply asking “how can I clean things up now to make my life easier in the future?”. Even if you have individuals who by their personalities simply exude grit and radiate it for everyone else, which is an absolute treasure to have, you may want to balance them out with people who have a sort of moralistic imperative of “this is how a system like this should be built.” I don’t want to work with just hackers—but with hackers, engineers, dreamers, and evangelists—on my dev team. Either as separate people or as separate hats which people take on over the course of the day.
I greatly appreciate this, as someone who has had a very difficult time avoiding distractions (slack, email, meetings, etc) and tries to convey that I need time to not context switch constantly. I know I'm not the only one because other developers I work with have the same complaints but we keep winding up in environments where it's just kosher and "its how we do things" with regard to meetings and interruptions.
Do you tell managers this as well? That the developers need deep focus time? I've been fighting for this my entire career, it's nearly always our managers not shielding us from interruptions that have been my problem.
I'm not sure if the distractions you're referring to are people just scrolling through twitter all day and not working or actual work distractions.
Gotta say, to me it has exactly the opposite effect. I immediately dislike approaches based on buzzwords like this, as my bullshit alert instinctively goes off.
I'm in complete agreement here. One of my personal gripes has been the branding of climate issues as 'Climate change'. In my opinion this should really be 'Climate stability'. It's easier to create an environmental standard and build infrastructure and behaviours that support it.
I read this article years ago and have logged about 1,800 hours using this system.
Like many, when it comes to personal projects, I want to accomplish something and enjoy myself. The problem is that those are often at odds with each other: accomplishing something worthwhile requires hard work that isn't always enjoyable.
I've modified the system slightly to a "20-Hour Method" but the idea is the same.
I decide on something I would like to learn or work on and focus on it for 20 hours. Remarkably, I felt the weight of this decision for the first time, I knew my decision would direct a significant amount of time and effort. I never felt this before, because I knew my decisions would only last until the first small obstacle.
This system is how I balance the trade-off between doing what I enjoy and pushing through the hard times. It's not a motivational trick to me. It is the objective way I have decided to balance the trade-off between hard work and constant enjoyment. With few exceptions, I know that the only way out is through, so I do the hard work, and when 20-Hours rolls around, I often find I do want to continue, even though I hated some parts along the way.
I find this to be true. It's not that I can't enjoy extremely productive work, but that's only possible when my interest directly line up with the skillset I need, which is very, very rare.
The sad thing is that the way the software industry is structured, it creates environments where juniors are doing the deep work and people with more experience are doing shallow logistical work.
Upper management should also be doing deep work. Middle management should be doing the logistics of translating the results of upper management's deep work into something that guides their team's deep work.
Thank you, I hadn't arrived at that insight until you articulated it.
This is probably the main reason why I burned out last year (1 year before COVID-19). I started programming when I was 12, but after 30 years of acquiring knowledge and experience, I'd find myself getting blank stares at meetings when I explained the crux of a problem and how to go about solving it. The team just perceived me as slow and out of touch, without realizing that I had just short-circuited everything they were discussing. They'd arrive at the same conclusion I did in a few weeks, but by then we'd be on to the next challenge. Rinse, repeat.
So instead of getting into the zone on hard problems, I found myself going through the motions to satisfy productivity metrics slapping duct tape over junior-level spaghetti code. It was unfathomable to them that their technique was at fault because they were so deep in what they were working on that they couldn't see the forest for the trees.
I've decided to take a break for a year or two and am currently doing handyman work for a good friend to make rent. I'm healthier and happier than I have been in many years. So for anyone reading this who feels any unease about where the tech industry is heading, I just want to reassure you that you can try new things and the world won't come to an end. You're capable and have resilience that maybe you haven't had to tap into for a while. Maybe we're just coming up against walls that we can't easily climb ourselves, and we just need to wait for the industry to catch up to what we already know.
TL;DR: my life is basically the cliche ending of Office Space right now, but that happens periodically and that's ok.
Every industry has this where the juniors are doing the deep grunt work that required focus and hours of manual work, while the seniors manage the overall strategy, deal with business relationships, and oversee/mentor the juniors.
this seems a bit like a false dichotomy - I don't think that's how the software industry is structured. Maybe it's how companies with dev teams in _certain_ industries are structured. I've even had managers in the past who did deep work in addition to doing some of the more logistical work of project planning / story breakdown and it's almost a basic expectation that a senior engineer be hands on with the most complex, business-critical systems
I agree if companies don't have non-management tracks for experienced engineers. That does result in the environment you're talking about in about the worst way where your most experienced eng's are unhappy / hate managing and inexperienced eng's are stuck with bad managers
Positive comments that don't "add any value" are heavily discouraged on HN. Unless you have some deep expertise or experience that you can use to expand on the article, it's usually best to not comment.
Negative comments that don't add value are not viewed the same way for some reason.
I haven’t read the article yet, so I will not comment on it directly. I was recently very demotivated in my work and started reading the book “Deep Work” and the concept really helped me get back on track. I think the concept of deep work is not only very beneficial for knowledge workers, but also essential to our long term well being. Because of the book, I was able to make changes in my work, life and personal priorities and I’m far, far happier and less stressed. Ignoring the importance of deep work (to use the articles title), is a recipe for burnout and disatisfaction. If I had been dismissive and passed the book over, when it was recommended to me, I’d still be stuck in a rut, on the brink of burnout and likely heading towards depression.
That's often the case with HN posts. I think people find an article valuable they simply upvote, but if people don't find an article valuable they leave a comment explaining why.
"I agree" adds little to the conversation. "I disagree and here's why" adds more, and is more emotionally satisfying to write.
Though it's not uncommon to see posts of the "I agree, and here's an anecdote as to why" variety getting heavily upvoted, but those are harder to write, and so less frequent.
Mine[0] wasn't "dismissive or derogatory." In fact, I clearly complimented the author.
I just mentioned that I have a personal aspect (not actually an advantage, at times), that sort of gives me the same thing.
I realize that people that are heavily invested in orthodoxies can sometimes consider all "non-positive" feedback to be "derogatory," but that's on them.
There's a lot of really good, decent, intelligent, skilled people in this world, and the vast majority of them manage to be that way without any mentoring from me. I applaud and support them; but I also won't insist that they meet my personal bars, and will push back, if they insist that I meet theirs (not all the time -sometimes, they have every right to expect me to meet their bar. This is not one of those times).
"The importance of deep work" seems so fundamental that you'd think everybody would be aware of it by now - yet open offices are nearly universal (or at least were before this corona virus panic started). Is it that the people making the decisions genuinely don't understand "deep work", or that they think everybody can do their "deep work" for four years in college and be done with deep work for the rest of their lives?
Open office plans were a reaction to teams that didn't communicate effectively (or at all). The idea was that putting everyone in the same area encouraged communication and cohesion. It also allowed for spaces that were chic and 'creative', because somehow creativity is impossible in offices that have the aesthetic appeal of a solitary confinement cell.
Honestly, I believe most of the value derived from open office plans is that it is harder to fake work and fake productivity. Now, everything that people were doing is out in the open and provides some measure of accountability. Maybe I'm being a bit too cynical, but I think that's a big contributor as to why open office environments are common.
And partially yes, it's because some people making the decisions don't understand the value of 'deep work' and the environments that encourage it.
In my experience, the people making those decisions are aware of the benefits of deep work. But optimizing for it has commonly been a lower priority than other things like the ability to drop in and interrupt developers since that directly benefits them immediately.
Ah, I thought we were just about due for a revisit on the importance of Deep Work. I'll take this an an opportunity to paste one of the highlights from the book I found to be interesting:
"As the journalist Daniel Coyle surveys in his 2009 book, The Talent Code , these scientists increasingly believe the answer includes myelin—a layer of fatty tissue that grows around neurons, acting like an insulator that allows the cells to fire faster and cleaner. To understand the role of myelin in improvement, keep in mind that skills, be they intellectual or physical, eventually reduce down to brain circuits. This new science of performance argues that you get better at a skill as you develop more myelin around the relevant neurons, allowing the corresponding circuit to fire more effortlessly and effectively. To be great at something is to be well myelinated. This understanding is important because it provides a neurological foundation for why deliberate practice works. By focusing intensely on a specific skill, you’re forcing the specific relevant circuit to fire, again and again, in isolation. This repetitive use of a specific circuit triggers cells called oligodendrocytes to begin wrapping layers of myelin around the neurons in the circuits—effectively..."
This seems to be supportive to the argument for deep work. Happy myelination, everyone.
Science-y explanations like this, especially anything involving brain structure or imaging, totally put me off. Almost always they're simply plucked from the research by someone who has no deep knowledge of the subject in order to provide an argument from authority.
It's a nice site, and she does seem to be quite qualified. I applaud her drive to "give back."
That said, I have found that I don't really need this, myself. That's mostly because I'm a bit "on the spectrum," and tend to drop into what I call my "fugue state." When I am in this state, I can churn out a vast amount of really good code, with almost no working documentation, as I can keep a fairly complex system in my head, applying adjustments as I meet friction. In fact, the most common reaction I get from people is "You didn't write that!". It's very draining. I usually come out of the state feeling exhausted and, sometimes, sick (I once puked my guts out, after spending about 10 hours, working on a painting). I used to have an employee that was a lot more "spectrumish" than I am, and he easily knocked my best efforts into a cocked hat. His work was stunning. I suspect that it still is.
But that kind of thing is very individual, and can't be taught. I have written a great deal about my personal process, but I feel it is more expository, as opposed to educational (https://medium.com/chrismarshallny). I am quite aware that I am nowhere near the "top of the heap," and that there are prodigies out there that, on a bad day, can blow away my best.
Sounds very similar to Hyperfocus[1] from the AD(H)D world which is something I became very interested in for a while. There are certain subjects that can sustain a state of hyperfocus for me and certain subjects that make me question if I'd had enough sleep. On the surface this sounds a bit psuedo-sciency as if asked anyone would say "yeah I also have things that interest me or don't..." but there's certainly something extra going on when you experience it first hand.
I'm tired of those self improvement hack 2 cents worth. Do what you love people, just focus on life and don't use all the time process. Process is made for stupid repetitive task, not learning.
This society is so individualist, that we talk only about the self.
Maybe that was possible 50-100 years ago when you were not living in a global village where everyone around the world can come and knock on your door and demand your attention. Nowadays we need to constantly remind ourselves that we need to find time for uninterrupted focus. And these articles about deep work are just that for me, reminders.
Would it be optimal for my self-development to take a job I can perform entirely with shallow work if I only have 4 hours of deep work available per day and no responsibilities outside of my job? Assume I spend my time after my job is finished to develop myself. It may be selfishly optimal to choose the least challenging jobs.
I'm so tired of these articles that rehash the same idea over and over. Feel like life is too short to setup some complicated discipline system to force yourself to chug something down that you hate.
You either enjoy doing it or you don't. Focus on deriving joy out of the process and not the end result.
I've found the Clockwise chrome extension to be useful in achieving the bimodal method mentioned here - without something automatically blocking time on my calendar to reserve it for Deep Work, my teammates may book over that time in my calendar.
Doing deep work in early mornings should fix your problem. Usually the fires start after the managers/boss/teammates arrive in the office. In the morning you just can ignore everything because no one is expecting you to be available.
"Compound growth" is one of the main reasons many of us have settled around the "start working full time early in the 2nd quarter of your life" approach.
Sometimes I wish HN would have an almanac of topic themes that keep coming up. Flow/Deep Work seem to be a constantly recurrent theme, as is “imposter syndrome” and other pseudoscientific garbage that people discuss with high authority, quoting this and that author.
For the next poster that wants to toss their hat into the ring, please do a piece on the Quiet Eye. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
So why do you think these subjects keep popping up on HN? Maybe because there is a unsatisfied need and these articles are addressing the demand. I'm sincerely curious, because I actually like to read these kinds of articles that you are dismissing as pseudo-scientific garbage.
PragmaticPulp|5 years ago
The core concept of Deep Work isn't really controversial. Everyone knows that hard problems require focus, but that doesn't seem to stop people from surrounding themselves with notifications and distractions. It also doesn't stop many companies from burying their employees under a deluge of Slack notifications and must-respond-immediately e-mail expectations.
Once you start putting a name on it (It's not focus, it's "Deep Work (TM)"!) it becomes an easier sell to many (though not all) of the people who need to hear it. Attaching an explanation, a methodology, or a movement to something really does seem to amplify the importance.
It's the same effect that makes "Dopamine fasting" more poignant than suggesting that people take a day off of watching TV, checking their phones every 10 minutes, and browsing time-waster websites all throughout the day. They're the same thing in concept, but once you attach a catchy name and/or a semi-scientific explanation to something, many people start taking it more seriously.
In my time mentoring junior devs, one of the biggest predictors of future success was a person's ability to sit down, focus, and get work done. Many college grads are coming from an environment where their classes are neatly divided into 1-hour classes spread throughout the day. They're pulled in many directions by their phones, social engagements, activities, homework, and classes. They get in the habit of only focusing for 1-2 hours at most before going on to the next thing. Once they graduate and have to sit in one place and work on one thing for 8 hours a day, many of them struggle. If I try to lecture them on the importance of sustained focus and minimizing distractions, I sound like an out of touch old guy. If I instead say "Hey, we practice Deep Work here. Let me get you a copy of a Deep Work book so you can join us" then they're on board.
So you may not like the branding. You may not like seeing the same topic rehashed over and over again. But practically speaking, I don't care how it's accomplished. As long as it gets more people to take sustained focus seriously (both employees and managers alike) then I'm all for it.
ZephyrBlu|5 years ago
> Once they graduate and have to sit in one place and work on one thing for 8 hours a day, many of them struggle.
Funnily enough, I'm finding that a work environment isn't actually very conducive with doing work. I spend most of my day being distracted with very little opportunity to focus on something.
> If I try to lecture them on the importance of sustained focus and minimizing distractions, I sound like an out of touch old guy. If I instead say "Hey, we practice Deep Work here. Let me get you a copy of a Deep Work book so you can join us" then they're on board
I would have the opposite reaction. "Deep Work" is cringy, but if you said "we value sustained focus and minimizing distractions" I would be very interested.
crdrost|5 years ago
In my experience nobody sits in one place and works on one thing for 8 hours a day. I am tempted to say that it's not only rare but it's undesirable.
I can work for approximately 5 hours straight without needing any sort of break; but part of becoming a more senior developer was to realize that this is actually a really bad thing for me. The “sweet spot” for me appears to be either 1.5 or 2 hours long. If I have some urgency I will literally shut down my laptop and move to a coffee shop or some other physical context and spend at least 15 minutes taking in the new ambiance before opening up the laptop and resuming a separate 2-hour burst of focused work.
The reason is basically that the flow state is good for one very important parameter that we might call ‘grit,’ the actual overcoming of pain and moving a project to completion... but it fails of course at a whole range of metacognitive processes which I might imperfectly class along at least three separate axes as... well, the words are not great but ‘creativity’ and ‘organization’ and ’empathy’ work. Flow states are really good for when you know what needs to be done and how to do it because your project is well-organized. They can be poor for stepping back and thinking “is this really the best way to satisfy that person’s needs?” and for stepping back and thinking “is there some more powerful idea I could leverage here which would make all of these sorts of problems just go away, even if it is a little strange given how the system exists right now?” and for simply asking “how can I clean things up now to make my life easier in the future?”. Even if you have individuals who by their personalities simply exude grit and radiate it for everyone else, which is an absolute treasure to have, you may want to balance them out with people who have a sort of moralistic imperative of “this is how a system like this should be built.” I don’t want to work with just hackers—but with hackers, engineers, dreamers, and evangelists—on my dev team. Either as separate people or as separate hats which people take on over the course of the day.
mjayhn|5 years ago
Do you tell managers this as well? That the developers need deep focus time? I've been fighting for this my entire career, it's nearly always our managers not shielding us from interruptions that have been my problem.
I'm not sure if the distractions you're referring to are people just scrolling through twitter all day and not working or actual work distractions.
andrepd|5 years ago
nswest23|5 years ago
TheMightyLlama|5 years ago
curious_fella1|5 years ago
Buttons840|5 years ago
Like many, when it comes to personal projects, I want to accomplish something and enjoy myself. The problem is that those are often at odds with each other: accomplishing something worthwhile requires hard work that isn't always enjoyable.
I've modified the system slightly to a "20-Hour Method" but the idea is the same.
I decide on something I would like to learn or work on and focus on it for 20 hours. Remarkably, I felt the weight of this decision for the first time, I knew my decision would direct a significant amount of time and effort. I never felt this before, because I knew my decisions would only last until the first small obstacle.
This system is how I balance the trade-off between doing what I enjoy and pushing through the hard times. It's not a motivational trick to me. It is the objective way I have decided to balance the trade-off between hard work and constant enjoyment. With few exceptions, I know that the only way out is through, so I do the hard work, and when 20-Hours rolls around, I often find I do want to continue, even though I hated some parts along the way.
bigwavedave|5 years ago
link: https://youtu.be/5MgBikgcWnY
throw1234651234|5 years ago
Otherwise it's a difficult, tedious grind.
baxtr|5 years ago
trenchgun|5 years ago
After readin this I am going to try it out.
vp8989|5 years ago
We have it totally backwards.
dtauzell|5 years ago
Maybe pairing would help here as a way to get more of this knowledge transferred more quickly so the shallow work can be spread out?
panzagl|5 years ago
zackmorris|5 years ago
This is probably the main reason why I burned out last year (1 year before COVID-19). I started programming when I was 12, but after 30 years of acquiring knowledge and experience, I'd find myself getting blank stares at meetings when I explained the crux of a problem and how to go about solving it. The team just perceived me as slow and out of touch, without realizing that I had just short-circuited everything they were discussing. They'd arrive at the same conclusion I did in a few weeks, but by then we'd be on to the next challenge. Rinse, repeat.
So instead of getting into the zone on hard problems, I found myself going through the motions to satisfy productivity metrics slapping duct tape over junior-level spaghetti code. It was unfathomable to them that their technique was at fault because they were so deep in what they were working on that they couldn't see the forest for the trees.
I've decided to take a break for a year or two and am currently doing handyman work for a good friend to make rent. I'm healthier and happier than I have been in many years. So for anyone reading this who feels any unease about where the tech industry is heading, I just want to reassure you that you can try new things and the world won't come to an end. You're capable and have resilience that maybe you haven't had to tap into for a while. Maybe we're just coming up against walls that we can't easily climb ourselves, and we just need to wait for the industry to catch up to what we already know.
TL;DR: my life is basically the cliche ending of Office Space right now, but that happens periodically and that's ok.
ativzzz|5 years ago
wittyreference|5 years ago
Someone's gonna get the less experienced junior somewhere.
catwind7|5 years ago
I agree if companies don't have non-management tracks for experienced engineers. That does result in the environment you're talking about in about the worst way where your most experienced eng's are unhappy / hate managing and inexperienced eng's are stuck with bad managers
stopratelimit|5 years ago
[deleted]
magneticnorth|5 years ago
How does this happen? Is it just easier to leave a negative comment than to say something meaningful if you enjoyed the article?
burkaman|5 years ago
Negative comments that don't add value are not viewed the same way for some reason.
dkersten|5 years ago
ericsoderstrom|5 years ago
wittyreference|5 years ago
Though it's not uncommon to see posts of the "I agree, and here's an anecdote as to why" variety getting heavily upvoted, but those are harder to write, and so less frequent.
bryanlarsen|5 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224
ChrisMarshallNY|5 years ago
I just mentioned that I have a personal aspect (not actually an advantage, at times), that sort of gives me the same thing.
I realize that people that are heavily invested in orthodoxies can sometimes consider all "non-positive" feedback to be "derogatory," but that's on them.
There's a lot of really good, decent, intelligent, skilled people in this world, and the vast majority of them manage to be that way without any mentoring from me. I applaud and support them; but I also won't insist that they meet my personal bars, and will push back, if they insist that I meet theirs (not all the time -sometimes, they have every right to expect me to meet their bar. This is not one of those times).
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23846545
unethical_ban|5 years ago
People who care enough to comment on the title (ha) or add comments are an overlapping group.
coldtea|5 years ago
For one, posts are often upvoted based on their title/subject, and only afterwards are read and evaluated for their content.
101404|5 years ago
naveen99|5 years ago
commandlinefan|5 years ago
trentnix|5 years ago
Honestly, I believe most of the value derived from open office plans is that it is harder to fake work and fake productivity. Now, everything that people were doing is out in the open and provides some measure of accountability. Maybe I'm being a bit too cynical, but I think that's a big contributor as to why open office environments are common.
And partially yes, it's because some people making the decisions don't understand the value of 'deep work' and the environments that encourage it.
jonpurdy|5 years ago
futureproofd|5 years ago
"As the journalist Daniel Coyle surveys in his 2009 book, The Talent Code , these scientists increasingly believe the answer includes myelin—a layer of fatty tissue that grows around neurons, acting like an insulator that allows the cells to fire faster and cleaner. To understand the role of myelin in improvement, keep in mind that skills, be they intellectual or physical, eventually reduce down to brain circuits. This new science of performance argues that you get better at a skill as you develop more myelin around the relevant neurons, allowing the corresponding circuit to fire more effortlessly and effectively. To be great at something is to be well myelinated. This understanding is important because it provides a neurological foundation for why deliberate practice works. By focusing intensely on a specific skill, you’re forcing the specific relevant circuit to fire, again and again, in isolation. This repetitive use of a specific circuit triggers cells called oligodendrocytes to begin wrapping layers of myelin around the neurons in the circuits—effectively..."
This seems to be supportive to the argument for deep work. Happy myelination, everyone.
circlefavshape|5 years ago
reese_john|5 years ago
dkersten|5 years ago
compumike|5 years ago
Has anyone made their workplace compatible with deep work?
* by which I mean notifications, Slack, Zoom, email, meetings, open offices, sprints, etc.
ChrisMarshallNY|5 years ago
That said, I have found that I don't really need this, myself. That's mostly because I'm a bit "on the spectrum," and tend to drop into what I call my "fugue state." When I am in this state, I can churn out a vast amount of really good code, with almost no working documentation, as I can keep a fairly complex system in my head, applying adjustments as I meet friction. In fact, the most common reaction I get from people is "You didn't write that!". It's very draining. I usually come out of the state feeling exhausted and, sometimes, sick (I once puked my guts out, after spending about 10 hours, working on a painting). I used to have an employee that was a lot more "spectrumish" than I am, and he easily knocked my best efforts into a cocked hat. His work was stunning. I suspect that it still is.
But that kind of thing is very individual, and can't be taught. I have written a great deal about my personal process, but I feel it is more expository, as opposed to educational (https://medium.com/chrismarshallny). I am quite aware that I am nowhere near the "top of the heap," and that there are prodigies out there that, on a bad day, can blow away my best.
have_faith|5 years ago
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocus
vladletter|5 years ago
This society is so individualist, that we talk only about the self.
jyriand|5 years ago
balfirevic|5 years ago
Sounds like you've found a self improvement hack.
Buttons840|5 years ago
audiometry|5 years ago
cellularmitosis|5 years ago
ofou|5 years ago
0. Exercise (+5min HIIT)
1. Turn-off distractors (ex. notifications, dumbphone, etc.)
2. Breathe & drink a glass of water
3. Put a timer with your effort (Forget pomodoro!)
4. Put the tab your working on
5. Press F11
6. Start working
7. GOTO step 2. IF sleepy or tired add step 0.
ipnon|5 years ago
llaolleh|5 years ago
You either enjoy doing it or you don't. Focus on deriving joy out of the process and not the end result.
Buttons840|5 years ago
amoser84|5 years ago
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
aaisola|5 years ago
jyriand|5 years ago
sghiassy|5 years ago
daffy|5 years ago
29athrowaway|5 years ago
m1cl|5 years ago
[deleted]
known|5 years ago
sokoloff|5 years ago
jb775|5 years ago
josefrichter|5 years ago
[deleted]
troughway|5 years ago
For the next poster that wants to toss their hat into the ring, please do a piece on the Quiet Eye. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
andreilys|5 years ago
jyriand|5 years ago
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]