There’s an idea I’ve been kicking around lately, which is being into things.
Over the past couple of weeks I’ve been putting together a bug-out bag. This essentially involves the over-engineering of a general solution to an ambiguous set of problems that are unlikely to occur. On a strictly pragmatic basis, it is not worth as much of my time as I am spending to do this, but it is so much fun.
I’m deriving an extraordinary amount of recreational pleasure from doing more work than is necessary on this project, and that’s fine. I acknowledge that up to a point I’m doing something useful and productive, and past that point I’m basically having fun.
I’ve noticed a failure mode in other similarly motivated projects and activities to not acknowledge this. I first noticed the parallel when thinking about Quantified Self, and how people who are into QS underestimate the obstacles and personal costs surrounding what they’re doing because they gain a recreational surplus from doing it.
I suspect, especially among productivity-minded people, there’s a desire to ringfence the amount of effort one wants to expend on a project, and justify all that effort as being absolutely necessary and virtuous and pragmatic. While I certainly don’t think there’s anything wrong with putting a bit of extra effort into a project because you enjoy it, awareness of one’s motivations is certainly something we want to have here.
I am not sure, but I think it may depend somewhat on the project type. There are certain projects where it seems like focusing on being aware of what you are doing makes it harder to do then just focusing on doing it. For instance, during this post, I periodically noticed myself concentrating on typing, and it seemed like it was making it harder to type than when I am just typing.
So it may be that what they are doing when setting that up is to be in a more flow minded mood when it comes to Quantified Self, and since flow is an enjoyable state, usually it ends up working out well.
But I suppose it is also possible to be in a flow minded mood about something for longer necessary, which you would think would be called overflow, and which would seem to link with what you are mentioning, but that doesn’t actually seem to be the name of that failure mode.
I don’t associate this with flow at all. I’m certainly not in a flow-state when gleefully considering evacuation plans. I’m just enjoying nerding out about it.
Hmm. If I’m calling it the wrong thing, then, maybe I should give an example of me enjoying nerding out to see what I should be calling it.
If I were to step back and think “It doesn’t actually matter what the specific stats are for human versions of My Little Pony Characters in a D&D 3.5 setting, no one is going to be judging this for accuracy.” then I’m not actually having fun while making their character sheets, and I wouldn’t have bothered.
But If I’m just making the character sheets, then it is fun, and I’m just enjoying on nerding out on something incredibly esoteric. And then, my wife joined in while I was attempting to consider Applejack’s bonus feats, and she wanted to make a 7th character so she could participate, so we looked up the name of that one human friend that hung out with the my little pony characters in an earlier show. (Megan) and then we pulled out more D&D books and she came up with neat campaign ideas.
And then I realized we had spent hours together working on this idea and the time just zipped by because we were intently focused on enjoying a nerdy activity together.
It seems like a flow state to me, but I would not be surprised if I should either call it something else or if your experience with evacuation plans just felt entirely different.
This doesn’t tally with my understanding of “flow”, but I may very well have some funny ideas about it myself. I’d simply term that becoming engrossed in what I’m doing.
This is sort of besides the point. I don’t think anything remotely resembling a flow-state is necessary for what I’m talking about. The term “being into things” was meant to refer to general interest in the subject, rather than any kind of mental state.
There’s an idea I’ve been kicking around lately, which is being into things.
Over the past couple of weeks I’ve been putting together a bug-out bag. This essentially involves the over-engineering of a general solution to an ambiguous set of problems that are unlikely to occur. On a strictly pragmatic basis, it is not worth as much of my time as I am spending to do this, but it is so much fun.
I’m deriving an extraordinary amount of recreational pleasure from doing more work than is necessary on this project, and that’s fine. I acknowledge that up to a point I’m doing something useful and productive, and past that point I’m basically having fun.
I’ve noticed a failure mode in other similarly motivated projects and activities to not acknowledge this. I first noticed the parallel when thinking about Quantified Self, and how people who are into QS underestimate the obstacles and personal costs surrounding what they’re doing because they gain a recreational surplus from doing it.
I suspect, especially among productivity-minded people, there’s a desire to ringfence the amount of effort one wants to expend on a project, and justify all that effort as being absolutely necessary and virtuous and pragmatic. While I certainly don’t think there’s anything wrong with putting a bit of extra effort into a project because you enjoy it, awareness of one’s motivations is certainly something we want to have here.
Does any of this ring true for anyone else?
I am not sure, but I think it may depend somewhat on the project type. There are certain projects where it seems like focusing on being aware of what you are doing makes it harder to do then just focusing on doing it. For instance, during this post, I periodically noticed myself concentrating on typing, and it seemed like it was making it harder to type than when I am just typing.
I believe this is called flow (if not, it seems similar) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29
So it may be that what they are doing when setting that up is to be in a more flow minded mood when it comes to Quantified Self, and since flow is an enjoyable state, usually it ends up working out well.
But I suppose it is also possible to be in a flow minded mood about something for longer necessary, which you would think would be called overflow, and which would seem to link with what you are mentioning, but that doesn’t actually seem to be the name of that failure mode.
I don’t associate this with flow at all. I’m certainly not in a flow-state when gleefully considering evacuation plans. I’m just enjoying nerding out about it.
Hmm. If I’m calling it the wrong thing, then, maybe I should give an example of me enjoying nerding out to see what I should be calling it.
If I were to step back and think “It doesn’t actually matter what the specific stats are for human versions of My Little Pony Characters in a D&D 3.5 setting, no one is going to be judging this for accuracy.” then I’m not actually having fun while making their character sheets, and I wouldn’t have bothered.
But If I’m just making the character sheets, then it is fun, and I’m just enjoying on nerding out on something incredibly esoteric. And then, my wife joined in while I was attempting to consider Applejack’s bonus feats, and she wanted to make a 7th character so she could participate, so we looked up the name of that one human friend that hung out with the my little pony characters in an earlier show. (Megan) and then we pulled out more D&D books and she came up with neat campaign ideas.
And then I realized we had spent hours together working on this idea and the time just zipped by because we were intently focused on enjoying a nerdy activity together.
It seems like a flow state to me, but I would not be surprised if I should either call it something else or if your experience with evacuation plans just felt entirely different.
This doesn’t tally with my understanding of “flow”, but I may very well have some funny ideas about it myself. I’d simply term that becoming engrossed in what I’m doing.
This is sort of besides the point. I don’t think anything remotely resembling a flow-state is necessary for what I’m talking about. The term “being into things” was meant to refer to general interest in the subject, rather than any kind of mental state.