Why the Brain Needs More Downtime (2013)
scientificamerican.com
scientificamerican.com
If I start the day by knowing what to do, then I don't really feel the burnout. For example, if I'm designing either a piece of hardware or firmware, and I know how to tackle the problem and it is just the matter of implementing it, I can code/design for 10 hours straight and when the workday ends, I still feel full of energy.
However, if the day is full of "decisions" (engineering or managerial), at the end of the day, I feel exhausted (and irritable, according to my family)
With something like a job offer, if you don't get the job you're no worse off than you were before. There's really only an upside potential. That has got to be less stressful.
A lot of times in the engineering situation we have to make these critical decisions which have a large impact on how the rest of some project goes. But the attitude generally seems to be about mitigating negative consequences, and not really hoping for or working toward some very positive outcome.
There is a similar analog in a lot of human behavior. Part of how I characterize it to myself is whether I feel that I'm, "digging myself out of a hole" or just striving for the highest gain possible (while lower gain is also fine). They two create vastly different experiences, the latter being far more positive.
In other words, finding a way to deal with low certainty situations might be key, compared to just dealing with huge amounts of rote work.
- Cultivating a slight bias for making a decision; I remind myself that sometimes any decision is way better than no decision. Especially when a) time is a factor, b) managing people who want leadership.
- Prune the decision tree. When no option seems good, I switch modes and look for decisions that seem bad. Like SATs: rule out the bad answers and then guess.
- Calibrate expectations of information. Like Poker: Care about (and attach judgement mostly to) making the right call given the cards on the table, as opposed to winning any one pot.
* make a list of pros and cons
* give each item an importance score from 0 to 10
* if the sum of pros is at least twice that of the cons: do it
I believe you can do this for small decisions as well, without creating a list. Because most of the time you have a sense about the pros being twice as valuable as the cons.Edit: Sorry, this comment is a little unrelated because the parent talked about making a choice. My comment is more about 'should I progress'.
This is very obvious situation. But what if sum is not twice larger? Or if you are not confident in your importance score? This is where game becomes harder.
Changing contexts fast whilst taking decisions on these different contexts.
I was the only tech guy in this startup and I would handle basically everything on the tech side, working daily in three different languages and various "services". After a while as long as I had planned what I had to do for the day/week things were fine, but somedays I might be tackling this hard backend problem and I get asked to fix a frontend bug right now, I fix the bug, deploy it and go back to the backend stuff, couple hours later, I get a technical support call, again I must stop what I am doing to fix whatever needs to be fixed.
So, this thing of going back and forth between the areas in which I was responsible for would really take it's toll on my work, not necessarily in my productivity/hour, but in the amount of hours really worked, amount of sleep needed(which I found quite curious) and the chance of having some small anxiety crisis(which is something I kinda have to coupe with).
"I'm just here to ask the right questions".
You ain't getting paid 2 million to ask the right questions. You're here to find the answer. I can have any person off the street ask me the right questions.
I doubt that. "Asking the right question" really means being able to identify which problems exist. From the anecdotes I read on HN about dysfunctional companies, this is sorely lacking.
backlog on deck doing waiting impeded done
This has reduced my stress and gives me a place to put things to do as they come up.
I read Personal Kanban: Mapping Work | Navigating Life by Jim Benson & Tonianne DeMaria Barry first. I found the book a bit overdone in explaining and justifying why. But maybe that is just me. I'm a scrum coach with 11 years experience as a scrum coach and 2 years as a product owner so I get the backlog, planned, doing, done thing.
These managerial decisions have, by their very functional nature, a heavier body load.
- No code reads easier than linear code.
- Linear reads easier than branched code.
- Branched reads easier than polymorphic code.
„You know what the right thing to do is. Possibly due to experiene in the task and ecpected outcomes.“
Overall, it was both encouraging, since I'm now convinced that humans work better in short bursts followed by at least some physical activity, but also discouraging in the organizational friction I encountered in my experiment.
Not all personality types are willing to solve problems (aka working) for their own intrinsic motivation.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=204240
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=943722
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1675197
I disagree with the notion that wanting to solve problems necessarily leads to having the discipline or desire to work.
The problems I choose to solve in my spare time are almost always more interesting than the ones I solve for work because I choose them out of interest, whereas the ones for work are chosen due to more practical reasons.
There's also the issue that some problems are shitty and boring. You're not "solving" a problem when you're writing another boring CRUD app.
- It's interesting / challenging
- A sense of duty / professionalism
- A sense of teamwork / camaraderie
This is entirely anecdotal of course. I also will often head to a cafe to get some 'human/ambient' time (another motivator). Being at home can be lonely.
I'm just saying that HN is really biased toward known problem-solving personalities, this should be taken into account in the context of this discussion :-)
I always see people criticizing all sort of tests because they are not good regarding to some criteria. Well, this is true for all of them. Those tests are trying to divide billions of people into few categories, you lose information anyway. There are 8 billions of personalities that should be split into 16 categories, some people will match exactly, other will lies in-between and will not match the characteristics.
I don't know these big-five or hexaco tests, but by the principle they also try to reduce the dimensionality of 8 billions people to n<100 categories, the same as MBTI. They may be better than MBTI, probably, but this does not mean the later may not bring useful information for our discussion.
I made some quick stats one of the HN pool (probably not statistically significant, but still a good indication), INTJ are 2.5% in the real population but 30% of HN, INTP 4% but 28.7% on HN, ENTP 6% but 10% on HN, and ENTJ 5.5% but 7.5% on HN. The four together represent ~80% of HN, but only ~20% of the real population. Those are also the four most represented categories on HN, and curiously belongs to the "Intellectual" class of personalities [1], as you would except to find on HN.
Maybe it's not the best test, maybe it has some problems, but it is still a tool that can give us some bases for thinking and discussions.
[1] https://mypersonality.info/personality-types/population-gend...
Example: witches didn't float, yet you can probably assign some properties that would cause people to label them as such.
My direct manager is OK with that but the guy one level up always makes comments about people not in the office so I guess for promotions and raises it's better to be in the office.
And also due to some bad apples, the entire category of people willing to work from home is considered as a bunch of slackers - so you want to "work" from home, uh?
What they don't know is that when I work from home I produce 1.3-1.5x more than when I work at the office - do I like to work everyday from home, though? No!
Well, that's half the problem. The other half is the tendency of many managers to view all requests to work from home as a request to stay home and goof off on the clock. I've worked places where the apparent measure of productivity is how many aggregate ass-in-seat hours the department put in.
My guess: these people aren't very productive or useful when stuck 8 hours in an office either.
Be micro-managed (by your manager, or by peer pressure in an open-space) is not a reasonable way of having productive engineers.
I'm now always a bit wary about hiring someone who has never worked remotely because I know the chances it won't work out are high.
I accept that it's possible to have a team that would do significantly better than that, but definitely don't agree with the utopian view that you can offer WFH to just any employee and they'll be productive, and crucially that it won't affect other employees who might need their input.
Maybe this is because this is the day they actually used to implement stuff free of people asking them questions about other stuff...
Siiiiigh... http://i.imgur.com/cXBhfPt.png
Unfortunately the 9 hour in office format constrain me to stay on my seat, so I'll try work on easier things at that time while beeing quite unproductive
How to we bring this fact to companies? It seems only the most ""progressive"" companies like Facebook or Google really understood this
Anecdotally, Thomas Edison was said to sleep only 3-4 hours a night and take frequent (very frequent) naps throughout the day.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/02/11/thomas-edison-on-sl...
My workspace nap time is usually between 1:30PM and 3:00PM.
On some days when I can't nap or don't I am foggy for the rest of the work day. On days when I nap this feeling is gone.
I 63 years old and love naps anyway. On the weekend I can nap in the corner of the couch for 20 to 30 mins sitting up. I used to be a road (plane) warrior and traveled for work 45 to 50 weeks a year. I had to learn to sleep wherever, like airports, on the plane, etc. So now I can sleep anywhere most days.
For example if I go to the doctor's office and have a long wait I can tap a nap if my body says it wants one.
My team is a team of 2 and they work in an open space outside of my door. They seem to like it a lot but they respect each others need to be quiet.
We work with another dev/creative team that is in an open office and is 8 people and they hate the open space. Everyone has headphones on but phone calls and visitors disrupt the quiet. Sometimes one of them comes to my open space and sits at one of the tables to get some quiet time in.
Edit: typo
I would love to have that option in my open office.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_and_polyphasic_slee...
I think some people just inherently have more energy than others.
On sleep, 5-6 hours is optimal for me. Too much can be bad, I feel groggy and have brain-fog the rest of the day. I can get by on fewer for one day, but more than that and it becomes painful. I think a lot of this also has to do with lifestyle. How often and when do you eat, have sex, get sunlight, drink water, go out doors, etc. Many levels can be played with here.
Would be interested in hearing any hacks for getting by on less sleep.
I would be very careful with that. 6 hours is already very low. We (as in: science) could probably come up with a recommendation here if we had any fucking clue why we actually sleep. There are of course a bunch of theories, but nothing definite enough to base policy decisions on.
To give rest to the body and the mind (to a lesser extent during REM sleep)?
I know a number of people who tried polyphasic sleep to 'waste' less time on sleep. They were doing the version where you only sleep 20 minutes every couple of hours.
One of them told me the weird sleep schedule altered his mental faculties, but he didn't notice until he stopped doing it - one of the faculties affected was the faculty to tell his faculties were affected, apparently.
Out of the dozen or so people I know who tried, only 1 managed to sustain it for more than one month.
He went to a restaurant while on poly sleep. There was a sign posted for a lunch special. He couldn't make sense of it and thought it was badly written.
He went back after going back to a normal sleep schedule and realized the sign made perfect sense. He had managed to break his reading comprehension.
Turns out he was borderline dysfunctional but couldn't really tell at the time.
I'm starting to notice that on weekdays I actually perform better with 6 hours of sleep rather than 8 or 9. Then on the weekend I would "sleep in" to make up for the lost sleep time.
For some reason, if I sleep for 8 or 9 hours, I wake up feeling like I don't want to do anything. I don't feel sluggish or anything. I just feel "satisfied". Like there's nothing to be done. I can just "be". I can't bring myself to focus on any specific task. Nothing feels urgent.
When I sleep 6 hours, somehow I can focus more.
This is combined with not consuming caffeine. If I drink coffee after I have slept only for 6 hours, it makes me tired and sluggish.
I feel like many engineers are better and more productive late at night. Mornings sap the energy from my body. I often need a solid three hours just to "boot up", but at night I absolutely kill it with productivity.
I wish the world revolved more around our schedule.
It's like my entire schedule is shifted by two days.
Same here but in a different way than you describe. I become scatterbrained and jump from task to task never able to focus on anything because my brain is just firing too fast for its own good.
Of course dip too far below 6 hours and I once more can't focus. This time because my brain runs away from any perceived obstacle and opens the nearest distraction (like HN)
In all seriousness though I don't find the interruption that bothersome.
Coffee probably isn't helping me either.