I believe that consistently running down the stack after you got distracted makes you less distractible going forwards, because there’s less payoff to doing so.
I’m actually not sure what you mean by “running down the stack.” Do you mean “when I get distracted I mentally review my whole stack, from most recent item added to most ancient item”? Or do you mean “when I get distracted, I ‘pop’ the next item/intention in the stack (the one that was added most recently), and execute that one next (as opposed to some random one).
I originally read you as saying the second thing, which seems like it would entail running one’s life as a series of nested open loops (sort of like lisp).
In any case, I immediately implemented the second thing, on a trial basis. I’ll see how it goes.
I believe that consistently running down the stack after you got distracted makes you less distractible going forwards, because there’s less payoff to doing so.
Less payoff to getting distracted? To being distractible?
Why is that? Because if you get distracted you have to complete the distraction?
I’m actually not sure what you mean by “running down the stack.” Do you mean “when I get distracted I mentally review my whole stack, from most recent item added to most ancient item”?
Well, of course, it’s whatever works for you.
For a simple example, let’s say I’m (1) putting new sheets on my bed, and then (2) I get an incoming phone call, which results in me simultaneously needing to (3 and 4) send a calendar invite and email while still on the phone.
I’ll pick which of the cal invite or email I’m doing first. Let’s say I decide I’m sending the cal invite first.
I’ll then,
(4) Send cal invite—done—off stack.
(3) Send email—done—off stack.
(2) Check whether anything else needs to be done before ending call, confirming, etc. If need to do another activity → add it to stack as new (3). If not, end call.
And here’s where the magic happens. I then,
(1) Go finish making the bed.
I’m not fanatic about it, but I won’t get a snack first or anything significant until that done.
Or do you mean “when I get distracted, I ‘pop’ the next item/intention in the stack (the one that was added most recently), and execute that one next (as opposed to some random one).
This, yes. Emphasis added.
Less payoff to getting distracted? To being distractible?
Why is that? Because if you get distracted you have to complete the distraction?
Well, I can speculate on theory but I’ll just say empirically — it works for me.
But let’s speculate with an example.
You’re midway through cleaning your kitchen and you remember you needed to send some email.
If you don’t really wanna clean your kitchen deep down, you’re likely to wind up on email or Twitter or LessWrong instead.
Now that’s fine, if I see a second email I want to reply to, I’ll snipe that.
But at the end, I have to go finish the kitchen unless things have materially changed.
Knowing there’s no payoff in “escaping” is probably part of it. It probably shapes real-time cost/benefit tradeoffs somewhat. It means less cognitive processing time needed to pick next task. It makes one pick tasks slightly more carefully knowing you’ll finish them. It leads to single-tasking and focus.
Umm, probably a lot more. I’m not fanatic about it, I’ll shift gears if it’s relevant but I don’t like to do so.
Thanks for writing this.
I’m actually not sure what you mean by “running down the stack.” Do you mean “when I get distracted I mentally review my whole stack, from most recent item added to most ancient item”? Or do you mean “when I get distracted, I ‘pop’ the next item/intention in the stack (the one that was added most recently), and execute that one next (as opposed to some random one).
I originally read you as saying the second thing, which seems like it would entail running one’s life as a series of nested open loops (sort of like lisp).
In any case, I immediately implemented the second thing, on a trial basis. I’ll see how it goes.
Less payoff to getting distracted? To being distractible?
Why is that? Because if you get distracted you have to complete the distraction?
Thanks. Awesome.
Well, of course, it’s whatever works for you.
For a simple example, let’s say I’m (1) putting new sheets on my bed, and then (2) I get an incoming phone call, which results in me simultaneously needing to (3 and 4) send a calendar invite and email while still on the phone.
I’ll pick which of the cal invite or email I’m doing first. Let’s say I decide I’m sending the cal invite first.
I’ll then,
(4) Send cal invite—done—off stack.
(3) Send email—done—off stack.
(2) Check whether anything else needs to be done before ending call, confirming, etc. If need to do another activity → add it to stack as new (3). If not, end call.
And here’s where the magic happens. I then,
(1) Go finish making the bed.
I’m not fanatic about it, but I won’t get a snack first or anything significant until that done.
This, yes. Emphasis added.
Well, I can speculate on theory but I’ll just say empirically — it works for me.
But let’s speculate with an example.
You’re midway through cleaning your kitchen and you remember you needed to send some email.
If you don’t really wanna clean your kitchen deep down, you’re likely to wind up on email or Twitter or LessWrong instead.
Now that’s fine, if I see a second email I want to reply to, I’ll snipe that.
But at the end, I have to go finish the kitchen unless things have materially changed.
Knowing there’s no payoff in “escaping” is probably part of it. It probably shapes real-time cost/benefit tradeoffs somewhat. It means less cognitive processing time needed to pick next task. It makes one pick tasks slightly more carefully knowing you’ll finish them. It leads to single-tasking and focus.
Umm, probably a lot more. I’m not fanatic about it, I’ll shift gears if it’s relevant but I don’t like to do so.
Cool. This clarified what you’re pointing at, for me.