Hacker News Reader

>Block off each hour of the day and and fill it with one of the TODO items

Generally agree with the points but I'd like to note that this point is the most likely failure point in the method. Organizing the day by hours doesn't work for a lot of people. Most productivity books in the old days (60's) recommended it. They generally don't anymore due to the low success rate. That was one of the first things I tried as a student and it didn't work.

I find time and productivity management similar to dieting. It's not about which one is theoretically or objectively the best. It's about which method you personally can stick to. What works for one person will not for the next guy.

I can stick to eating candy and cake.

For how long?

Until it is all empty and my stomach is sick ...

And then I don't like it for a while...

When I crave chocolate pudding, I'll eventually make a bowl, and instead of splitting it into many desert cups (which I would just crave for), I eat the entire bowl in one go. Then I'm cured from pudding for a while.

Chips (or fries) though, I can't resist. Better not to buy any...

This is a common way to deal with diets and other things.

Do enough of the bad stuff to get sick of it enough to associate it with bad feedback, and that should keep you away from it in the future.

I try this with beer from time to time, the hangover isn't enough to make me quit for any significant amount of time :p.

This is addressed in Cal's book. He acknowledges no plan will survive the day perfectly. Basically, you just re-prioritize your blocks throughout the day. The goal is not to break the day into hour long blocks as much as it is to always have a priority and to maintain focus on that priority. Things happen and no plan survives contact with reality. I have found this method to work well and fit with a modern knowledge worker's work patterns for the most part.

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth - Mike Tyson

There's a lot of truth and value in that quote, but understanding the context behind it is important. It's boxing - everyone understands they will be punched in the mouth, has practiced getting punched, etc.

You need a plan, but have to be able to adapt to changing circumstances.

For reference, that quote was given in an interview about his upcoming fight against Evander Holyfield. Holyfield dominated the fight, Tyson bit him twice, and the fight was stopped in the 11th round with Holyfield as the winner.

(It would have been more arrogant to say, but perhaps more honestly stated as "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth by Mike Tyson". Tyson is widely considered to be the hardest hitting boxer in history. He retired with a record of 50-6, with 44 wins by knockout and 22 of those knockouts were in the first round.)

I feel like "reality" is a good placeholder for Mike Tyson. It hits quite hard at times :)

> "You need a plan, but have to be able to adapt to changing circumstances."

+1

Unfortunately, not all us are the masters of our own universe of deadlines. Too often they're semi arbitrary, set by someone who's not aware of the intricacies, etc.

The point being, even when you have a great plan to get something done, it might not be good enough in the broader (distorted) context? Then what?

You do the best you can? You are always the master of your dealing with your reality.

Communicate. Express your perspective. Manage your reaction. Master what you have domain over, your reactions to the world. Do not be a slave to disappointment.

Sou, let's say a new deadline sets you up for failure. You communicate this perspective. You manage the pang of panic, get to work, do your best.

It's still failure.

It's not that you disappoint yourself, since you _knew_ it was practically impossible to succeed. You dealt with your reality, you mastered your domain. People will still get angry and disappointed that the deadline was not met. Not always, but some (most) of the time, you'll end up taking the blame, or even disciplined/fired.

What you're met with is "So what, change jobs, reframe your perspective, grab life by the balls".

This kind of positive thinking does not solve anything. It's simplistic and misdirected. You'll eventually find this situation in every job you take (or make). What can you learn from the experience? No amount of "mastering your reality" will make this a positive experience. Ok, maybe the first time, you learn that you can't always win. But that is all, no lessons learned for all subsequent ocurrences.

Yes, I'm bitter. But you're saccharine.

Not your fault, but i'm sick of seeing this kind of naive responses that belong in mugs or motivational posters.

I don't think that this belongs on a mug. What is your alternative? What would you do instead?

I'm not saying that this response will fix the problem. But it seems that the first part: communicate your perspective; is crucial. If you don't, then you still fail, but people will believe you thought it possible.

I like to disagree and commit. Keeps me sane, and at least I can show that I knew shit would hit the fan.

That was my point. The ancient stoics would advise you to administer control over what you can. If you did the best you can to influence the situation to a positive result, and it still failed, there is nothing you can do. All that is left is how you react to the situation. Modern psychology would call this CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy). Basically, your reaction and how you deal with things internally is all that is left after you have done what you can. Life has so many elements beyond our control. Focus on what you can change and do not let the unchangeable pull you down. I appreciate your frustration at my advice. If I didn't practice it myself and know how hard it can be to follow, I would never blithely hand it out as some sort of cure all to what ails your mind. It is hard. The mindset takes work. It isn't a magical switch to flip. This is /not/ positive thinking. Stoics did not practice positive thinking in the way pop culture does. In fact they embraced reflecting on negative aspects of life. People will get angry at you for things beyond your control. Your friends or loved ones may die tomorrow. You might get fired. The goal is not to make bad experiences as positive. It is to acknowledge the bad things happened and return to a neutral or centered mental state so you can go on living life. It is kind of a Zen philosophy on that never aiming for "positive" outcomes all the time that we experience fulfillment and joy. There is a lot more to CBT and Stoicism, but this is the high level of it. Hope this explains it some more.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-g...

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/cognit...

You're conflating the two Tyson/Holyfield fights. Tyson bit Holyfield twice in the second fight which was stopped in the third round (with Tyson being disqualified).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Tyson#Tyson_vs._Holyfield...

“In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” – General Dwight D Eisenhower

“Failing to plan is planning to fail.”

"Prior planning prevents piss-poor performance"

+1

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

Some clarification for readers: this generally doesn't mean that a plan is scrapped entirely; it means that changes are normal and anticipated (i.e. NOT an automatic sign of failure) that as new information comes to light and circumstances shift, those executing a plan should be adaptable enough to make adjustments where prudent. In fact, decentralized command was developed in order to allow highly-functioning teams to actively exploit unforeseen advantages which develop as a battle/campaign unfolds.

Although these concepts were forged on the battlefield, they are 100% relevant to civilian 'battles' as well - in this case, time management.

Fwiw I prefer Mike Tyson's:

"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."

Or something like that. Life and work are random and sometimes chaotic. That's never going to change. Plans __and (personal) expectations__ should be recalibrated to align with reality.

You've hit one of the core problems, but your perception of what Cal recommends and what you should do to achieve deep work is wrong.

For deep work, you should be able to block a chunk of your day to do important tasks without being interrupted. That's not the same as organizing the day by hours. This blocked chunk can be dynamic to accommodate emergencies, but you must be able to say nobody should interrupt me for the next few hours at some point in your day.

Otherwise how can you engage in something deep? I've been in this situation many times. I can't do any productive work in my office because there's an endless stream of interruptions, emergencies and stupid things going on. That's why I have to resort to doing all significant work at home, where nobody can annoy me.

I was not in position to block away time like that for years. Currently I am in such position, but that is rather exceptional state. (Home was worst than in work actually.)

Home was worst than in work actually

Yeah, finding that at the moment.

There's a very relevant article on this subject by Paul Graham: http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html

This is a great article. I’ve come back to it many times over the years.

But it always puzzles me why Y Combinator companies don’t organize with the built-in default of private offices, even in brand new startups, but at least for sure in YC companies that grow to tens of employees or more.

Given such an impassioned writing about the need for privacy in workspace, why don’t we see YC putting out articles or blog posts on the value of private offices, for example like Stack Overflow does.

It’s like YC wants to be viewed as progressive (for recognizing how bad open-plan offices were ahead of the curve) but then to ignore this to just grift from unwitting junior employees who may unquestioningly join a startup and not think to negotiate for protection of the privacy they need as a basic workspace tool.

I recall that Cal Newport suggests three ways of scheduling deep work. 1) dedicate a portion of the day: Writer John Grisham regularly writes from 7 to 10 every morning. 2) dedicate a portion of the year: Cal gives the example of a professor who moves out to a remote cabin for several months each year to be away from distraction and do deep work. 3) ad hoc with tracking: Cal himself fits in deep work whenever he can and tracts it, making sure that he is spending the desired amount of hours every week. Any of these methods can work.

Yes, and the article also lists them out. Cal Newport gives these strategies for scheduling deepwork:

- Monastic: “This philosophy attempts to maximize deep efforts by eliminating or radically minimizing shallow obligations.” — isolate yourself for long periods of time without distractions; no shallow work allowed.

- Bimodal: “This philosophy asks that you divide your time, dedicating some clearly defined stretches to deep pursuits and leaving the rest open to everything else.” – dedicate a few consecutive days (like weekends, or a Sunday, for example) for deep work only, at least one day a week.

- Rhythmic: “This philosophy argues that the easiest way to consistently start deep work sessions is to transform them into a simple regular habit.” – create a daily habit of three to four hours every day to perform deep work on your project.

- Journalistic: “in which you fit deep work wherever you can into your schedule.” — Not recommended to try out first, since you first need to accustom yourself to deep work.

What has worked for me in the past has been to create an initial list of TODO items comprising a mix of vague inquiries, curiosities, and specific tasks.

During the day I work from that list, either performing the work for the item or expanding an item into additional more detailed items. Most items will expand into multiple smaller items as they are picked up.

Completed items get a few comments and are moved below the unfinished items, so that a historical stack gets built up over time which can be fodder for monthly progress reports.

I have found this to be incredibly useful from a productivity standpoint, a morale boost, and as a historical record. It requires some discipline to sit down for 15 minutes at the end of each workday to update the list.

This just seems like a crazy amount of micro-management when often the answer is to just set a goal and complete it. Categorising and reducing tasks in this way is surely not healthy long term. Sorry! No more shallow work today. Can't do that. It simply can't work for most people.

As with goals, this will just push you in a direction. You don't have to be absolutely rigid, but at least you'll start to feel when you are straying from your real goals.

Yeah, but just setting a goal and completing it is something a lot of people just don't do anymore - not when you let yourself get distracted by things like emails, messages, or people appearing at your desk. Focusing on getting a task done (and not tolerating any distractions from that) is the main point of the "technique", I'd say.

> * Restrict shallow work to 2 hours (after 2 hours, say no to everything shallow)

Except when the initial classification of a task as “shallow” is incorrect, and it actually should’ve been “deep” (although, this shouldn’t happen too often, except when it does happen).

Agreed, really a great book!