How I regained concentration and focus(innoq.com)
innoq.com
How I regained concentration and focus
https://www.innoq.com/en/blog/wie-ich-meine-konzentration-wiederfand/
428 comments
Getting rid of the apps I think is the most effective - and as a bonus - much less opportunity for intrusion and manipulation.
Although if we are specifically talking about social media such as Facebook then I mainly advocate at this point just to dump it. You can still use the separate messenger app and function even with a fully deactivated account.
Instagram I found (for myself) relatively easy to spend a small amount of time on every few days but the amount of advertisements has just gotten insane. After not logging on for 3 days or similar it appears to now be giving me about 5 ads for each real post of someone I follow (half of these are "suggested posts" which are not true advertisements but are really not much different). You would think they would be able to track the fact that when they do this I almost immediately close the app and use it less. I am just amazed they do not start with at least a few page scrolls of no ads and then slowly transition them in.
Although if we are specifically talking about social media such as Facebook then I mainly advocate at this point just to dump it. You can still use the separate messenger app and function even with a fully deactivated account.
Instagram I found (for myself) relatively easy to spend a small amount of time on every few days but the amount of advertisements has just gotten insane. After not logging on for 3 days or similar it appears to now be giving me about 5 ads for each real post of someone I follow (half of these are "suggested posts" which are not true advertisements but are really not much different). You would think they would be able to track the fact that when they do this I almost immediately close the app and use it less. I am just amazed they do not start with at least a few page scrolls of no ads and then slowly transition them in.
I stopped using FB in the traditional way by unfollowing literally everyone. however I use it much more for groups now. I really get a lot of value out of local community groups in particular.
My method is using private browsing to open addicting websites. This way their address will not be saved in history and I'll have to type it which sometimes stop me from doing that in mid-way. Also helps with automatically logging out.
I've done this with YouTube and it's been extraordinarily effective for me. Without the history associated with my account, the recommendation engine just shows me the default junk, preventing me from falling down rabbit holes when I just want to watch some video. For keeping in touch with channels that I still want to follow, I've subscribed to them via RSS.
If you need an extra push to enforce that you only use private browsing, you can install any browser extension that blocks sites and then tell your browser to not permit that extension to run in private windows.
If you need an extra push to enforce that you only use private browsing, you can install any browser extension that blocks sites and then tell your browser to not permit that extension to run in private windows.
We sound like casino addicts who voluntarily try to be banned from casinos.
At least we’re only losing time, not money. But we’re still losing health, by staying in bed too much because of social media…
At least we’re only losing time, not money. But we’re still losing health, by staying in bed too much because of social media…
The problem is that whereas casinos are strictly recreational, a lot of YouTube content is actually extremely informative and educational. The problem is that going to YouTube just for the educational stuff still subjects you to the addictive stuff.
For me the educational stuff is the addictive stuff. I have to force myself to stop watching people talk about doing things and actually go do things myself!
Just as there are far fewer producers than consumers, so too are there far fewer do-ers-of-interesting-things than people who only dream of or fantasize about doing interesting things.
Au contraire. You can always make more money. The only thing you cannot make more of is time.
time is more valuable than money, we lose out big by getting addicted to nonstop videos.
There are also extensions that block all recommendations. Makes YouTube a much calmer experience. Go watch one video. Now...you are done.
Yup, I use Unhook and it was a game changer.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/unhook-remove-yout...
With youtube, on the phone, setup an alter account, go to settings, switch on "pause watch history" and "pause search history".
You can then see how sick that algorithm is in recommending and pushing junk. Only now its junk you will despise.
You can then see how sick that algorithm is in recommending and pushing junk. Only now its junk you will despise.
A few other suggestions too:
- if you need an app, turn off notifications at least (and move it occasionally to another folder)
- turn on iOS Screen Time so you have that second to re-think if you want to use the app in the first place (pattern interruption)
- turn your phone colors to greyscale - I know it sounds odd but I had it like that for a couple of years or so and it made me reduce phone time, more productive and less stimulated by the phone (even for a good long while after turning it off)
- if you need an app, turn off notifications at least (and move it occasionally to another folder)
- turn on iOS Screen Time so you have that second to re-think if you want to use the app in the first place (pattern interruption)
- turn your phone colors to greyscale - I know it sounds odd but I had it like that for a couple of years or so and it made me reduce phone time, more productive and less stimulated by the phone (even for a good long while after turning it off)
This one never did anything for me. But then, I was never into scrolling things with pictures, much more into reading text.
Do you know why it worked for you?
Do you know why it worked for you?
Grayscale also worked for me-- even beyond looking at images (only Wall Street Journal seemed somewhat immune). The lack of contrast or something was just so jarring and served as a reminder that I am trying to stay focused.
Yeah same. In my simple mind I liken modern apps (esp. social apps) a bit like a casino - there's so much colors and "things going on" that it just feels a bit too intense for me over time. And color was one of the few app-configurations (along with muting notifications, adding Screen Time, and maybe complete uninstallation) that I had control over.. at least on the desktop web you can have extensions block some stuff for you. I tried greyscale mode on desktop too btw but to ruin the surprise for you - it SUCKED! :-)
Adding to that list: disable mobile data for Safari and Chrome so I don't mindlessly browse on the go or during lunch.
Great suggestions, I'll add:
- Get a really slow phone
I found my phone/news/Facebook addiction grew significantly when I upgraded my previous iPhone 4S (took a few seconds to unlock, another few seconds to open an app) to my current iPhone X (everything was/is instant). Previously I had used my phone as a tool, I had to really want to look at Facebook or Google a thing before opening it, now I just open it almost by muscle memory and the tsunami of news and Facebook just washes over me and I feel like I am powerless to stop it.
- Get a really slow phone
I found my phone/news/Facebook addiction grew significantly when I upgraded my previous iPhone 4S (took a few seconds to unlock, another few seconds to open an app) to my current iPhone X (everything was/is instant). Previously I had used my phone as a tool, I had to really want to look at Facebook or Google a thing before opening it, now I just open it almost by muscle memory and the tsunami of news and Facebook just washes over me and I feel like I am powerless to stop it.
I find trivial inconvenience essential for establishing positive habits.
They make me focus on my intent to establish a habit.
Habit establishing requires perseverance in the face of a bit of bother.
The big hurdles are the big hurdles. Small frictions get smoothed by repetition…or by simply becoming ordinary parts of the process.
Willingness to do things that suck is the nature of positive habits.
To a first approximation if it doesn’t feel a bit unpleasant at first, it probably isn’t a positive habit.
They make me focus on my intent to establish a habit.
Habit establishing requires perseverance in the face of a bit of bother.
The big hurdles are the big hurdles. Small frictions get smoothed by repetition…or by simply becoming ordinary parts of the process.
Willingness to do things that suck is the nature of positive habits.
To a first approximation if it doesn’t feel a bit unpleasant at first, it probably isn’t a positive habit.
Interesting take on how habits feel at first as without system 2’s input (From Daniel Kahneman’s thinking fast and slow) habits carve their way into our brains basically seeking the most reward or dopamine. So without constant monitoring of system 2 we end up as entertaining craving systems, seeking patterns to satiate the urge for dopamine. Good habits may be bitter at first but the rewards are reaped in the long run.
this so much. I had tried giving up twitter but the convenience was always there. Then one day I had enough and told a gun nut to set himself on fire. Now whenever I am tempted to get on twitter, I have that offensive "delete this tweet" screen show up to remind me that I shouldn't bother with this crap. I'm all the better for it.
> and logging out after each session
I started using a Cookie AutoDelete plugin for privacy reasons; but it's also been great for this purpose, so I don't have to remember to log out.
I started using a Cookie AutoDelete plugin for privacy reasons; but it's also been great for this purpose, so I don't have to remember to log out.
I never archive my passwords on social sites and the idea to reset every time is a real burden. This helps too.
As an indirect consequence of switching to a Linux smartphone, All those soul sucking apps/services are immediately lost. I can still access them through Firefox if I want, But without push notifications(Say notification pollution) of a native app I can do it systematically on a pre-determined schedule.
Also, OP mentions that the Pomodoro timer didn't work for him. I find that the task of manually triggering the timer is a distraction and chore by itself; So I created a butt triggered productivity timer which starts automatically when I sit on the chair before my workstation and it has done wonders to my productivity and health(Taking a walk during break).
Also, OP mentions that the Pomodoro timer didn't work for him. I find that the task of manually triggering the timer is a distraction and chore by itself; So I created a butt triggered productivity timer which starts automatically when I sit on the chair before my workstation and it has done wonders to my productivity and health(Taking a walk during break).
Also:
- delete browser bookmarks, desktop icons, "favorites" ...
- delete browser bookmarks, desktop icons, "favorites" ...
Aaron Swartz wrote a blog post about the news[1] and just how terrible it is for the brain. Reading his post had a major impact on me—since then I have always thought differently about the time I spend online.
It’s interesting how people, including myself, try to justify various addictions. How am I supposed to stay informed about important topics without the news? How do I know how to help people in need without knowing what’s going on? There are much, much better ways than reading CNN/NYTimes every day. Also, there really is nothing new about the human condition today compared to a hundred years ago.
[1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews
It’s interesting how people, including myself, try to justify various addictions. How am I supposed to stay informed about important topics without the news? How do I know how to help people in need without knowing what’s going on? There are much, much better ways than reading CNN/NYTimes every day. Also, there really is nothing new about the human condition today compared to a hundred years ago.
[1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews
I hadn’t seen that post before. This paragraph hit me as a tragic irony:
‘This seems to be true, but the curious thing is that I’m never involved. The government commits a crime, the New York Times prints it on the front page, the people on the cable chat shows foam at the mouth about it, the government apologizes and commits the crime more subtly. It’s a valuable system — I certainly support the government being more subtle about committing crimes (well, for the sake of argument, at least) — but you notice how it never involves me?’
‘This seems to be true, but the curious thing is that I’m never involved. The government commits a crime, the New York Times prints it on the front page, the people on the cable chat shows foam at the mouth about it, the government apologizes and commits the crime more subtly. It’s a valuable system — I certainly support the government being more subtle about committing crimes (well, for the sake of argument, at least) — but you notice how it never involves me?’
The bit his argument is missing is about how the news gets funded.
Me, currently I pay for a Guardian subscription, because I think it plays an important role in our democracy - although I don't actually read it.
Me, currently I pay for a Guardian subscription, because I think it plays an important role in our democracy - although I don't actually read it.
I occasionally do, so thank you!
Plus, whatever the news is talking about endlessly this week will most likely be far down the list of important events come next voting seasons (or whatever milestone is important to you).
Kinda like the Murry Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect
https://loricism.fandom.com/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_Effect
https://loricism.fandom.com/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_Effect
Man, I don't get it. News is bad for you so become deliberately ignorant? Don't get distracted by the world so you can work more? It's like saying traffic lights distract you from driving.
I much rather want to talk to the person who reads books written by experts, than to talk to the person who watches the news every day.
I'm sorry but there just isn't any comparison. Have you ever read news about something you are an expert at? It's just laughable inaccurate.
News is entertainment, not information. If you want information, read a book written by an expert at the field.
I'm sorry but there just isn't any comparison. Have you ever read news about something you are an expert at? It's just laughable inaccurate.
News is entertainment, not information. If you want information, read a book written by an expert at the field.
The world moves faster than experts write books. The US has an important election coming up in a few months. Regardless of which part of the political spectrum a person is on there are issues most will care about a great deal that will be extremely impacted by the outcomes of the elections. Issues that are way too recent to get coverage in books written by experts.
Like it or not, engagement with civic society requires a person to be more current on what is going on in their towns, state and country than a book publishing schedule allows.
Besides, there's a lot of room in between experts' books and passively consuming whatever the top headlines are on any given day. You don't have to choose between infotainment news & a complete vacuum of knowledge about current affairs.
Like it or not, engagement with civic society requires a person to be more current on what is going on in their towns, state and country than a book publishing schedule allows.
Besides, there's a lot of room in between experts' books and passively consuming whatever the top headlines are on any given day. You don't have to choose between infotainment news & a complete vacuum of knowledge about current affairs.
Sure, but how many people are looking up congressional voting records, examining budgets, and reading thousands of pages of court decisions and the text of proposed legislation to form honest, independent opinions? It sure seems like most people use the internet and tv/cable news to reenforce their red/blue preference by watching shows or reading articles/posts that focus on how horrible blue/red is. Even for prominent sources, the depth of discussion is typically extremely shallow, appealing mostly to emotions, and highly biased towards the 'team' supported by the organization publishing it.
In the voting booth, almost nobody will actually consider the candidates based on their individual merits or plans, regardless of team. The number of voters that dare to split the ticket is well below 10%, outright proving that there's little consideration of 'important issues' ; people pick a side and stick with it.
In the voting booth, almost nobody will actually consider the candidates based on their individual merits or plans, regardless of team. The number of voters that dare to split the ticket is well below 10%, outright proving that there's little consideration of 'important issues' ; people pick a side and stick with it.
That's literally what journalists do. At least good ones. The entire point of this thread seems to be that a lot of journalism is low quality and pandering to emotional responses, which is certainly true. But the solution isn't to just shut yourself off. If you read the NY Times, Washington Post, maybe long-form stuff in the The Atlantic, New Yorker, Economist and listen/read to NPR and local public media you'd be well-informed and only feel outrage if something outrageous happens.
I never said that being a responsible member of civic society was simple or required no work.
Complaining about needs needs to put effort into finding good sources of informations sounds about the same to me as if a colleague was complaining about having to read the documentation and latest release digests of software they use. That's the job.
Complaining about needs needs to put effort into finding good sources of informations sounds about the same to me as if a colleague was complaining about having to read the documentation and latest release digests of software they use. That's the job.
> The US has an important election coming up in a few months
Fortunately news media are committed to keeping the public informed up to the minute with the latest poll results so that everyone will know who seems to be winning or losing the imaginary horse race.
Occasional updates will also be provided regarding a candidate's appearance, family, hobbies, pets, and any scandals or rumors thereof. Pundits will also be invited to comment on these topics, as well as who they are betting on.
Fortunately news media are committed to keeping the public informed up to the minute with the latest poll results so that everyone will know who seems to be winning or losing the imaginary horse race.
Occasional updates will also be provided regarding a candidate's appearance, family, hobbies, pets, and any scandals or rumors thereof. Pundits will also be invited to comment on these topics, as well as who they are betting on.
There are over a million books written annually in the English language alone.
I'll track headlines every few days. I listen to a few in-depth podcasts. An hour on a substantial topic is useful.
I try to be aware of weather and local elections. That last is becoming stunningly difficult, FWIW.
Otherwise, news has a useful lifetime of < 24h in most instances. Philosophy, technology, history, culture ... are far more durable. Spend your time on those instead.
The tendency for public broadcasters to replace ever more long-form content and discussion with Yet Another News Show Hyping The Cycle Yet More ... is among the reasons I've curtailed even most of my public-broadcasting diet.
For a time there was a weekly programme which would cover 3--4 stories in depth with background, and do so well. It had been on a bit of a fade for some years and began what I suspect is its final implosion about a year ago. That had been a useful option for me --- an hour a week, substance, most of the hype and uncertainty had already resolved. Unfortunately it seems I'm now shopping for a replacement, though I'm not entirely sure I want one.
I'll track headlines every few days. I listen to a few in-depth podcasts. An hour on a substantial topic is useful.
I try to be aware of weather and local elections. That last is becoming stunningly difficult, FWIW.
Otherwise, news has a useful lifetime of < 24h in most instances. Philosophy, technology, history, culture ... are far more durable. Spend your time on those instead.
The tendency for public broadcasters to replace ever more long-form content and discussion with Yet Another News Show Hyping The Cycle Yet More ... is among the reasons I've curtailed even most of my public-broadcasting diet.
For a time there was a weekly programme which would cover 3--4 stories in depth with background, and do so well. It had been on a bit of a fade for some years and began what I suspect is its final implosion about a year ago. That had been a useful option for me --- an hour a week, substance, most of the hype and uncertainty had already resolved. Unfortunately it seems I'm now shopping for a replacement, though I'm not entirely sure I want one.
None of it matters.
>The US has an important election coming up in a few months. Regardless of which part of the political spectrum a person is on there are issues most will care about a great deal that will be extremely impacted by the outcomes of the elections.
It's going to happen anyways whether you watch TV or not.
>You don't have to choose between infotainment news & a complete vacuum of knowledge about current affairs.
Yes you do.
>The US has an important election coming up in a few months. Regardless of which part of the political spectrum a person is on there are issues most will care about a great deal that will be extremely impacted by the outcomes of the elections.
It's going to happen anyways whether you watch TV or not.
>You don't have to choose between infotainment news & a complete vacuum of knowledge about current affairs.
Yes you do.
> Issues that are way too recent to get coverage in books written by experts.
Can you give an example?
Can you give an example?
> I much rather want to talk to the person who reads books written by experts, than to talk to the person who watches the news every day.
I'm inclined to prefer the book-readers too, but the way this is phrased sets up a bit of a false dichotomy.
Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while. And there is something moderately interesting (and educational) about following along, thinking about where the world will go and why, and seeing if you turn out to be right a few days/weeks later.
For a while, my entire daily news consumption was just listening to the FT News Briefing [1] during my commute. It's about 10 minutes, and -- most days -- it was just the right amount of news.
[1]: https://www.ft.com/ft-news-briefing
I'm inclined to prefer the book-readers too, but the way this is phrased sets up a bit of a false dichotomy.
Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while. And there is something moderately interesting (and educational) about following along, thinking about where the world will go and why, and seeing if you turn out to be right a few days/weeks later.
For a while, my entire daily news consumption was just listening to the FT News Briefing [1] during my commute. It's about 10 minutes, and -- most days -- it was just the right amount of news.
[1]: https://www.ft.com/ft-news-briefing
> Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while.
Can you give an example?
Can you give an example?
Also, if you engage with someone who consumes from a different news bubble than you do, it's incredibly irritating, while engaging with someone who consumes from the same news bubble as you is incredibly boring.
News is as much about breadth as depth. There's relevant news on topics I'm never going to read a book about. And a lot of news is very much written by experts and a lot books written by biased cranks.
> News is bad for you so become deliberately ignorant?
I actively avoid news (to the point of changing channels on the TV and Radio when it comes on), and yet somehow I still managed to be kept aware of what's going on, and avoid being ignorant.
> It's like saying traffic lights distract you from driving.
It's actually more like saying every pedestrian in a city is going to jump in front of you when you're driving. You can be aware of pedestrians, cars, bikes, and be a careful considerate driver without needing to fear that every person is trying to jump in front of your car, in the same way that you can be an informed person without getting daily updates on the top 10 stories in the UK right now.
I actively avoid news (to the point of changing channels on the TV and Radio when it comes on), and yet somehow I still managed to be kept aware of what's going on, and avoid being ignorant.
> It's like saying traffic lights distract you from driving.
It's actually more like saying every pedestrian in a city is going to jump in front of you when you're driving. You can be aware of pedestrians, cars, bikes, and be a careful considerate driver without needing to fear that every person is trying to jump in front of your car, in the same way that you can be an informed person without getting daily updates on the top 10 stories in the UK right now.
There's a lot of wiggle room between sane consumption and addiction. And addiction is becoming the norm. I'd add that even if you were to consume no news at all, you'd still get the summary of it one way or another.
I'll now continue with my hot take: being informed, even being an expert, on anything outside your field of work is overrated, if not useless.
Say you've been following the recent war in great depth. Or the pandemic. Or US politics. You've invested hundreds of hours reading about it and have developed an understanding far above average.
Now what? What are you going to do with it? Debate online, a lost cause? What is the tangible benefit of understanding without purpose?
I'll now continue with my hot take: being informed, even being an expert, on anything outside your field of work is overrated, if not useless.
Say you've been following the recent war in great depth. Or the pandemic. Or US politics. You've invested hundreds of hours reading about it and have developed an understanding far above average.
Now what? What are you going to do with it? Debate online, a lost cause? What is the tangible benefit of understanding without purpose?
Agreed - I think one could argue they enjoy reading it, but in a practical sense 99% of news is largely useless, especially from feeds, since there's no real reason to expect news from the feed to be relevant to you. Arguably the same goes for most things (eg HN too), with an occasional relevant article showing up every so often.
In general, I think reading news/forums is more for enjoyment/addiction than practicality, though.
In general, I think reading news/forums is more for enjoyment/addiction than practicality, though.
You'll have witnessed history unfold in front of your very own eyes.
You'll know the difference between what the history books will claim 20 years from now and the public debate shift based on that, and what you've actually witnessed.
Granted, you are (likely) not actually on the ground where the tanks and rockets and soldiers meet, but you are another layer or two closer to being a witness of history. Which you are not if you ignore it.
You'll know the difference between what the history books will claim 20 years from now and the public debate shift based on that, and what you've actually witnessed.
Granted, you are (likely) not actually on the ground where the tanks and rockets and soldiers meet, but you are another layer or two closer to being a witness of history. Which you are not if you ignore it.
> You'll know the difference between what the history books will claim 20 years from now and the public debate shift based on that, and what you've actually witnessed.
No, you'll know the propaganda you're being fed which often only gets revealed 20 years later. Like what happened in Iraq.
Every time you think you're being informed by the media, you should consider if you would have believed them 18 years ago when the media was full of pundits manufacturing consent for war against Iraq by claiming they had WMDs. The playbook doesn't really change, only the story being told. You only get the real story much later.
No, you'll know the propaganda you're being fed which often only gets revealed 20 years later. Like what happened in Iraq.
Every time you think you're being informed by the media, you should consider if you would have believed them 18 years ago when the media was full of pundits manufacturing consent for war against Iraq by claiming they had WMDs. The playbook doesn't really change, only the story being told. You only get the real story much later.
Let's assume that's the case. Then without having witnessed the propaganda, I'd not have proper context to what you just told me. I'd have to go with somebody (you) claiming what had been the propaganda back in the day. And that sounds pretty unbelievable, so it's good that I witnessed it, then I can appreciate the point that you are making.
Either way, better to have had open eyes and ears than not.
Either way, better to have had open eyes and ears than not.
Not sure you needed to experience Nazi propaganda back in Nazi Germany to understand the dangers of that propaganda or why it was wrong. Of course you'll miss some nuance but I'm not really sure how important that really is.
There are not many people around anymore who have witnessed it and can tell the difference.
And it's a good example of my point. Once thing that's for sure is that the relative importance of "western allies" vs. USSR in their role of ending WW2 does not match reality, or what you'd have perceived on the ground. USSR had over 10 million dead soldiers (and the same in addition in civilian deaths). That's about a factor of 1 compared to the western allies in the European theatre. The eastern front was huge, bloody, deadly, and USSRs role in fighting back and steamrolling over German troops into Berlin was crucial in ending all that. The popular narrative nowadays is that the US ended the war, most movies and war documentaries are about the western front, etc.
Of course Stalin was a dictator and what happened during the cold war on the eastern side of the iron curtain and what's happening now in and from Russia is terrible and unacceptable. But without having witnessed events as they unfolded, it's much easier to be buy into today's narrative of the situation back then, which is heavily skewed.
And it's a good example of my point. Once thing that's for sure is that the relative importance of "western allies" vs. USSR in their role of ending WW2 does not match reality, or what you'd have perceived on the ground. USSR had over 10 million dead soldiers (and the same in addition in civilian deaths). That's about a factor of 1 compared to the western allies in the European theatre. The eastern front was huge, bloody, deadly, and USSRs role in fighting back and steamrolling over German troops into Berlin was crucial in ending all that. The popular narrative nowadays is that the US ended the war, most movies and war documentaries are about the western front, etc.
Of course Stalin was a dictator and what happened during the cold war on the eastern side of the iron curtain and what's happening now in and from Russia is terrible and unacceptable. But without having witnessed events as they unfolded, it's much easier to be buy into today's narrative of the situation back then, which is heavily skewed.
No doubt the bloody eastern front had a big role, but it's hard to argue that it wouldn't have ended soon anyway with the atomic bomb. Would anything less have convinced Japan to surrender?
What is the tangible benefit of being that witness?
What's the tangible benefit of reading a history book? What's the tangible benefit of learning about quantum physics, evolution theory or the history of the French Revolution?
My iPhone works anyway, the grocery store sells chicken anyway, and the latte at Starbucks won't taste any different.
None of that directly changes by you learning more things. But it makes you a more well-rounded educated person, equipped to make better decisions impacting your own life and possibly society as a whole. And, frankly, to make sth out of you that's more than a monkey living merely to survive and procreate.
My iPhone works anyway, the grocery store sells chicken anyway, and the latte at Starbucks won't taste any different.
None of that directly changes by you learning more things. But it makes you a more well-rounded educated person, equipped to make better decisions impacting your own life and possibly society as a whole. And, frankly, to make sth out of you that's more than a monkey living merely to survive and procreate.
More time to play in white water river parks and more time well wasted on ski lifts. I sometimes chat with tourists and listen when they tell me what is important to them.
'Deliberately ignorant' is your value judgment. Spend some time in rural eastern Europe, and the perspective changes for the better. Media propaganda is simply unimportant.
'Deliberately ignorant' is your value judgment. Spend some time in rural eastern Europe, and the perspective changes for the better. Media propaganda is simply unimportant.
I don't understand this at all. Work and family restrict my travel. Reading news on my phone is inherently portable. And I'm not sure what visiting rural Easter Europe is supposed to prove. A lot of it is engulfed in war and I can't imagine those people are better off being completely ignorant of what Russia is doing. Certainly many of them are to everyone else's detriment. Media propaganda is obviously a bad thing, but reading credible news isn't. Unless you want to descend into abject solipsism
Are you going to do anything about the war in eastern Europe?
If the news causes no change in your actions, you might as well have put a small pebble in front of the phone and had it, instead of your eyes, absorb the photons emitted by the screen.
If the news causes no change in your actions, you might as well have put a small pebble in front of the phone and had it, instead of your eyes, absorb the photons emitted by the screen.
I think this is a brilliant remark, although it likely will be taken the wrong way.
I've personally come to the conclusion that us humans aren't designed to take on the misery of the entire human population, and that we should stop projecting this assumption.
If there's no difference between caring and not caring, we should be quite a lot more humble in virtue signaling, or best just shut up.
I've personally come to the conclusion that us humans aren't designed to take on the misery of the entire human population, and that we should stop projecting this assumption.
If there's no difference between caring and not caring, we should be quite a lot more humble in virtue signaling, or best just shut up.
You suggest I do what? I could talk to people about two decades of NATO encroachment on (shall not be spoken) R. Or discuss with people how in the weeks prior to conflict, VP Harris was in Munich and said Ukraine should join NATO. Or discuss how comedian and Vogue model Zelinsky said Ukraine should re-acquire nuclear weapons. While true, none of those fit the rythmn of the mainstream narrative.
Well, joining NATO at this point seems like a wise decision, don't you agree? If you want to call it "NATO encroachment on Russia", why doesn't Russia attack NATO then?
Why the hell would Ukraine join NATO? I thought Russia was their brother? Any idea why they would want to join NATO? Ah! Maybe it's because they don't want to be invaded by the brother neighbour that likes to invade little countries around them.
NATO expansion is Russia's fault, don't be stupid and claim otherwise. Look at how this war already quickly expanded NATO.
Keep listening to your Russian propaganda.
Why the hell would Ukraine join NATO? I thought Russia was their brother? Any idea why they would want to join NATO? Ah! Maybe it's because they don't want to be invaded by the brother neighbour that likes to invade little countries around them.
NATO expansion is Russia's fault, don't be stupid and claim otherwise. Look at how this war already quickly expanded NATO.
Keep listening to your Russian propaganda.
I'm not sure what you're getting at aside from asserting Russian propaganda. Ukraine has every right join NATO and if Russia thinks that's a provocation then they should take a look in the mirror. NATO isn't a mutual defense association, not an anti-Russia club. The only reason they think so is because they keep invading countries.
February 20 Zelensky in Munich started to talk back the 1994 no-nukes agreement.
https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/14001201000618/Ukraine-Threa...
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000...
Donbas vote on self-autonomy has curiously not been allowed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49903996
"Proposed in 2016 by Germany's then-foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the plan details free and fair elections in the east under Ukrainian law, verification by the OSCE international security organisation, and then self-governing status in return."
'Ukraine has every right join NATO ...'
Maybe. Just as Cuba had every right to host USSR nuclear missiles in 1962?
'Why the hell would Ukraine join NATO? I thought Russia was their brother?'
Yes, eastern Ukraine aligns with R. Western Ukraine hates R. The movie 'Mr. Jones' may enlighten you about the starvation, and the NYT propaganda at the time.
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000...
Donbas vote on self-autonomy has curiously not been allowed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49903996
"Proposed in 2016 by Germany's then-foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the plan details free and fair elections in the east under Ukrainian law, verification by the OSCE international security organisation, and then self-governing status in return."
'Ukraine has every right join NATO ...'
Maybe. Just as Cuba had every right to host USSR nuclear missiles in 1962?
'Why the hell would Ukraine join NATO? I thought Russia was their brother?'
Yes, eastern Ukraine aligns with R. Western Ukraine hates R. The movie 'Mr. Jones' may enlighten you about the starvation, and the NYT propaganda at the time.
> February 20 Zelensky in Munich started to talk back the 1994 no-nukes agreement. https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/14001201000618/Ukraine-Threa...
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000...
Russia failed their obligations under the agreement that they willing gave up their nukes under, so Ukraine is within their right to seek to acquire nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Russia.
> Yes, eastern Ukraine aligns with R. Western Ukraine hates R. The movie 'Mr. Jones' may enlighten you about the starvation, and the NYT propaganda at the time.
Eastern Ukraine aligned with Russia before the invasion I’m not sure how much eastern Ukraine aligns with Russia now expect for maybe bullets into their soldiers
Russia failed their obligations under the agreement that they willing gave up their nukes under, so Ukraine is within their right to seek to acquire nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Russia.
> Yes, eastern Ukraine aligns with R. Western Ukraine hates R. The movie 'Mr. Jones' may enlighten you about the starvation, and the NYT propaganda at the time.
Eastern Ukraine aligned with Russia before the invasion I’m not sure how much eastern Ukraine aligns with Russia now expect for maybe bullets into their soldiers
Maybe Nazi Germany had a right to the Sudetenland? You can't just make these assertions as though we're talking hypothetically. Maybe in 2019 you could pass this bs but now that Russia went and invaded and is indiscriminately killing and kidnapping civilians it's beyond question that Russia is an unequivocal bad guy and Ukraine missed a chance to better protect themselves because Europe was too timid.
Fun fact: the USSR asked to join NATO.
I'm suggesting you limit your news to things which are actionable rather than affective.
Yes, deliberate ignorance pendulum swings too far. Of course "free" information is not very useful because someone else is paying for it, motivated by their interests not yours. So do the adult thing and don't throw up your hands and give up, instead pay just a bit for useful information. That way you know a bit more about who is funding it and why.
"Media propaganda is obviously a bad thing, but reading credible news isn't."
I would tend to agree with you but since Covid hysteria I do not believe in mainstream media anymore. So that’s an issue because I’m not able to find credible news anymore.
Reading news that will have little to zero impact on your life takes away time you can spend doing more meaningful activities. It doesn't just have to be 'work'. It can be hobbies, spending time with your kids, whatever you want.
Not all news is global. And besides we all vote. I hope. Do you live your life with no perspective of your world?
I agree, and that's why my comment targeted news that has 'little to zero impact on your life'.
"Believe me it is better to understand the balance-sheet of one's own life than of the corn trade." - Seneca
"Believe me it is better to understand the balance-sheet of one's own life than of the corn trade." - Seneca
Rhetoric is a dangerous sword - its sharpest edge is the pommel. You seem to think you've pointed out a logical inconsistency in Aaron's argument structure. What you actually did was propose that news does not exist; actually, that information itself doesn't exist.
In the actual argument they claimed that news wasn't the best information source in an argmax over sources on the basis that other mediums have selective pressures which more strongly correlate with utility generation - partly because of medium influences and partly because things which aren't new are subject to selective pressures for longer and thus the filtering mechanism of that selective pressure is more discriminating.
You aren't engaging with that argument, but you act like you are. So when you claim that no information is the alternative proposition you've actually made a mathematical claim: that the count(set{news, **other_sources}) == 0. This is clearly nonsensical because the minimum size of the argmax over information sources necessarily included news and so was obviously at least one, but often more. So your basically asking people who would agree with you on the basis of your argument to take on the claim that 0=N. Yet if it does then it follows that news doesn't exist in the set where you only get to choose news. So they have to not only believe that you are right, but also that news is not a source that they can choose, but this contradicts your premise.
Some questions to ponder to help you get it:
1. Why aren't you trying to refute the existence of evolution and natural selection?
2. Why aren't you trying to disprove that approximation accuracy is a function of the computation that goes into the approximation?
If you really thought you were right you would be trying to tear down the works of Charles Darwin and would be laughing at Donald Knuth for the stupidity of classifying things by computational complexity. Yet you aren't.
In the actual argument they claimed that news wasn't the best information source in an argmax over sources on the basis that other mediums have selective pressures which more strongly correlate with utility generation - partly because of medium influences and partly because things which aren't new are subject to selective pressures for longer and thus the filtering mechanism of that selective pressure is more discriminating.
You aren't engaging with that argument, but you act like you are. So when you claim that no information is the alternative proposition you've actually made a mathematical claim: that the count(set{news, **other_sources}) == 0. This is clearly nonsensical because the minimum size of the argmax over information sources necessarily included news and so was obviously at least one, but often more. So your basically asking people who would agree with you on the basis of your argument to take on the claim that 0=N. Yet if it does then it follows that news doesn't exist in the set where you only get to choose news. So they have to not only believe that you are right, but also that news is not a source that they can choose, but this contradicts your premise.
Some questions to ponder to help you get it:
1. Why aren't you trying to refute the existence of evolution and natural selection?
2. Why aren't you trying to disprove that approximation accuracy is a function of the computation that goes into the approximation?
If you really thought you were right you would be trying to tear down the works of Charles Darwin and would be laughing at Donald Knuth for the stupidity of classifying things by computational complexity. Yet you aren't.
Agreed. People just want their worldview spoon-fed to them. Once they realize that it's not healthy, it's too daunting to actually put in the effort needed to construct their own worldview and apply it to their life, thus the head-in-sand ignorance approach.
I'm surprised Aaron Swartz, of all people, had this view.
I'm surprised Aaron Swartz, of all people, had this view.
No, they just realise it's not productive anymore. It's a time sink that pushes misery and drama into your life without any practical way to do anything about it.
I don't think the human mind is designed to absorb all the worlds ills and misery, the news amplifies the worst of what's going on in the world and delivers it to you minute by minute, the only rational way of dealing with it is to either cut it out or become unspeakably cynical about it all.
I don't think the human mind is designed to absorb all the worlds ills and misery, the news amplifies the worst of what's going on in the world and delivers it to you minute by minute, the only rational way of dealing with it is to either cut it out or become unspeakably cynical about it all.
I realised a long time ago that even shedding merely a single tear every time an evil deed is done would lead to dying of dehydration in one's sleep.
I mostly try to cut out the news, but the options are not limited to just cutting it out or becoming cynical: an ex went into politics with a genuine desire to make the world right. She is (or was) Green Party (US), so not making much progress, but it is at least a different path.
I definitely agree our minds aren't fit for this world: more people online than heartbeats in our lifetimes, combined with a psychology that treats a list of more than 7-ish items as infinite.
I mostly try to cut out the news, but the options are not limited to just cutting it out or becoming cynical: an ex went into politics with a genuine desire to make the world right. She is (or was) Green Party (US), so not making much progress, but it is at least a different path.
I definitely agree our minds aren't fit for this world: more people online than heartbeats in our lifetimes, combined with a psychology that treats a list of more than 7-ish items as infinite.
[deleted]
> It's like saying traffic lights distract you from driving.
It's more like saying that a mindset primed on "The Fast and The Furious" is not suitable for good driving.
It's more like saying that a mindset primed on "The Fast and The Furious" is not suitable for good driving.
I can't square it either. Lets say that you live in a world where rich people want to control the narrative by making entertaining news shows to distract the populace from what is important, but needed a way to trick the people that sought to dig deeper from more authoritative sources that are less TV-entertainy... then I think it would make sense to tell the people that are digging deeper that it is bad for them and they should stop paying attention to the news for their own mental health and productivity.
I recognized that I was over consuming the news during the Trump presidency and needed a reset, and decided to not spend any more time reading the news than the short summaries that Axios posts and ignore all other forms (including John Oliver, although I do still watch Closer Look).
It appears that my actions and aspirations don't seem to be making the world a better place, but it is too depressing a thought to think that the best thing for me to do is be ignorant to the bad things in the world.
I plan on trying out subscribing to Delayed Gratification to see if that is a better path. https://www.slow-journalism.com/
I recognized that I was over consuming the news during the Trump presidency and needed a reset, and decided to not spend any more time reading the news than the short summaries that Axios posts and ignore all other forms (including John Oliver, although I do still watch Closer Look).
It appears that my actions and aspirations don't seem to be making the world a better place, but it is too depressing a thought to think that the best thing for me to do is be ignorant to the bad things in the world.
I plan on trying out subscribing to Delayed Gratification to see if that is a better path. https://www.slow-journalism.com/
If it's truly important, it will filter to you naturally.
if news were what it should be, then yes. But given that news is what's being presented as news today, it does more harm than good.
> There are much, much better ways than reading CNN/NYTimes every day.
Reading those once a day is actually pretty good, let's say at a dedicated time. In contrast to many-times-a-day-let-me-just-check-the-app. The latter is just causing dopamine rushes. The former keeps you informed.
What did you have in mind?
Reading those once a day is actually pretty good, let's say at a dedicated time. In contrast to many-times-a-day-let-me-just-check-the-app. The latter is just causing dopamine rushes. The former keeps you informed.
What did you have in mind?
Swartz recommends reading books or long-form essays instead, and I agree. It doesn’t even matter if they were written recently. Like I said earlier, barely anything about the human condition has changed in the last hundred years. For example, I recently read “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius. Even though it was written over two thousand years ago by a Roman Emperor, you could almost mistake some parts as being written two days ago by a millennial. There is an infinite amount of wisdom and knowledge to be gained from some of these old works that is impossible to earn by just reading the news every day.
Could you elaborate on the news sources you use to read about the current events of the world. I am looking for a podcast that in 30 minutes gives a summary of the weekly news or 10 minute podcast that gives a summary of the daily events. This way one doesn’t have to visit the news sources such as CNN on New York time websites.
Turning off all notifications on my personal phone was a life changer. No longer I feel like I'm wearing an electronic collar. Giving everyone who has your contact information access to your attention is poison to the ability to concentrate. Another big thing for me was cutting down on infinite scrolling, blogs and videos and spending a lot more time with long form content (mainly books). Attention is our most precious resource and we should guard fiercely against attempts to monetize it.
My phone is always on mute (no vibrate either)
Only alarms to wake up
Only alarms to wake up
Having a family and responsibilities made this infeasible for me. Most apps on my phone are denied notifications, but people can still text/call me.
I also have family and responsibilities. But I am very careful whom I give unfettered access to my attention.
The issue for me is, for example, my wife drops my kid off for a camp and then the camp calls me in an emergency. So I can’t just only take notifications from known callers.
You can do this. I do. Known numbers only and whitelist school, doctor, etc. If you really wanted to go further you could have a second number via google voice you only give to those places. Maybe even tie notifications on that to your calendar where you put your kids events.
I just can’t… it might be some counselor’s random cell phone calling me. Plus the kids go to many camps per summer, and many activities during the year, so I’d be constantly updating my phone book even if not for the main issue.
I am also a parent coming on the end of a summer, and whitelisting people who _may_ contact me about my child sounds like a nightmare.
Kids survived perfectly fine in the past without their parents being available 24/7.
It seems disrespectful to my wife and the camps to refuse to be available for emergencies.
The kids that survived, survived perfectly fine.
The kids that didn't survive were buried and no longer interact with us.
The kids that didn't survive were buried and no longer interact with us.
Unless you as an individual are somehow more equipped to deal with emergencies than camp staff, I'm not sure being reachable would make any difference. I would hope in a real emergency, the first call would be to the appropriate emergency service regardless.
[deleted]
Many summer camps require that you be available to retrieve your kid if e.g. they start showing Covid symptoms. I'd love to drop them off and forget about it, believe me.
I guess you could get a dual Sim phone and only give out the second number for that kind of situation.
Few years back brother of my spouse took his wife to Spain (thousends kilometrs from here) to drive around and see some sights. At some point they got a flat tire and while he was trying to fix it two nice gentlemans on motorbikes took everything they had by force (including phones). My spouse brother managed to borrow a phone frome some stranger that was driving by. And when he tried to call the only number they both could remember, his fathers, he did not answers.
Can You guess why? Thats right - he also had a policy to not take phone calls from unknown numbers (especially foreign). They had to go to ours country ambassy in Spain (which took a while) and beg for help.
Since that day his father answers all calls :)
Can You guess why? Thats right - he also had a policy to not take phone calls from unknown numbers (especially foreign). They had to go to ours country ambassy in Spain (which took a while) and beg for help.
Since that day his father answers all calls :)
You can leave a voice mail. I don’t answer to unknown number anymore due to heavy phone spam. My thought is "if it’s really important they will leave a message".
That's the sensible answer. Nowadays it is crazy to answer the phone. If the message is useful to me then I respond.
Thats interesting - I have two phones (with different numbers of course) and I almost get no spam calls (maybe a bit on the company phone but its still very low number). I must be doing something right here :)
Generally that seems like a good idea. In case of father from my story somehow this was not possible - I do not remember why - either he had voice mail turned off (it could have been paid service at that time) or he did not know how to use voice mail.
112 is way easier to remember then anyone's family member numbers and way more effective in emergencies.
You can get money for gas, food and shelter by calling 112 ? I do not think this works that way :)
Jokes aside - by calling father they could get access to other members of family who could help with their knowledge what to do next and I bet they would do a lot more to help them than anyone one the other side of emergency number(direct money tranfer could save the day here).
The teacher from school or preschool will call from basically random phone. Possibly own phone. Or whatever office she is in phone. Camp counselor always calls from own phone which is fairly often different one then where you are supposed to call.
Neither of these calls often. Maybe once a year you get call like that. But when they call, you really want to pick up.
Neither of these calls often. Maybe once a year you get call like that. But when they call, you really want to pick up.
On most recent version of Android, they have a whitelist feature where repeat callers (2 times withing 15 minutes) can bypass DoNotDisturb.
Only my close family are whitelisted.
Most time people call twice during an emergency. You could also say to call back again in case of emergency in your voicemail message.
Only my close family are whitelisted.
Most time people call twice during an emergency. You could also say to call back again in case of emergency in your voicemail message.
Everybody who depends on you directly (partner, children, parents, and extended family) should be on you VIP contact list and have direct access to you. I find that reduces my anxiety. I don't get distracted by notifications, or the thought that someone might be dying and trying to reach me.
Just commenting about phone calls
I have stranger phone call anxiety and the other thing is spam/scam calls. Which thankfully my phone has been good at flagging/blocking.
Regarding notifications I used to have phones that either had LED blinking indicators or sound/beeping ahh, crazy used to just drop what I was doing to check it.
I have stranger phone call anxiety and the other thing is spam/scam calls. Which thankfully my phone has been good at flagging/blocking.
Regarding notifications I used to have phones that either had LED blinking indicators or sound/beeping ahh, crazy used to just drop what I was doing to check it.
What are the odds? A couple of hours after I posted my comment above I got a WhatsApp message saying that my aunt was in the ICU. She died minutes later. This stuff happens.
If wife is nice, she can be whitelisted, no?
I have family and responsibilities, too. I've so far survived by allowing ONLY notifications from texts and phone calls. The key is that I'm able to ONLY give my text information and telephone information to family.
I know others probably can't do that, but it works great for me.
I know others probably can't do that, but it works great for me.
Not sure about iOS, but with Android you can create exceptions for selected contacts in the do-not-disturb mode.
I've added my family members to that exception list, and leave the phone on do-not-disturb mode 24/7.
I've added my family members to that exception list, and leave the phone on do-not-disturb mode 24/7.
This works well for some people, but not universally as noted elsewhere in the thread.
I guess it basically comes down to: how likely is a call from an unknown number to be important for me? It turns out this is wildly different for different lives.
I guess it basically comes down to: how likely is a call from an unknown number to be important for me? It turns out this is wildly different for different lives.
Humans lived centuries without instant messaging. Probably nothing wrong happen if you miss a call.
If you have Android. Minimalist is very helpful in blocking app notifications.
I disabled notifications for every app on my iPhone aside from Phone, Messages, and an app that tells me when I left my car door unlocked.
I deleted all apps that distracted me, Instagram, Facebook, Firefox, Email, Slack, Facebook Messenger, Telegram. I check the ones I care about on my laptop/desktop. I deactivated my Instagram/Facebook because I kept logging back into them and scrolling for a bit -- not for very long, but any free moment I'd look for entertainment there.
Any time I need some app, e.g. YouTube to show a video to a friend, or Uber to catch a ride, I'll download it and delete it once I'm done with my task.
I've found that my screen time has gone down drastically. I used to spend 3 hours a day on Instagram, Facebook, Hacker News. Now I spend closer to .75-1.5 hours, with about 50% of that being very difficult to trim down because it's mostly useful (1:1 texting, finding music on Spotify, using Maps). I still have HN, xkcd, and the NYT for reading, but that's not much more than 15-20 minutes of my day, which I think is acceptable.
I also put my phone in grayscale with reduced white point. This makes it much less enjoyable to read, and reduced white point makes it much more difficult to see/use, which reduces the time I spend.
It's a lot of effort, but it's so easy to get sucked into your phone. Every little moment when I'm bored I'd pull it out and look for something. It's so much more valuable to be doing nothing, and to not be controlled by little notifications on my phone when something happens.
I wish I could get an absolutely stripped down iPhone. I want Maps, Spotify, Messages, Phone, CarPlay, and that's about it. Maybe it would let me switch profiles for travel that has extra apps, or to some entertainment mode with a time-delay (e.g. if I wait 5 minutes I can open up Netflix). Something like the Light Phone [0] seems interesting, but not having CarPlay is a non-starter because I find it so useful. I suppose I could have two iPhones -- one for everyday carry that is barebones, and a second with the rest of my apps that I can keep in a drawer 95% of the day, but that sounds just so wasteful.
[0]: https://www.thelightphone.com/
I deleted all apps that distracted me, Instagram, Facebook, Firefox, Email, Slack, Facebook Messenger, Telegram. I check the ones I care about on my laptop/desktop. I deactivated my Instagram/Facebook because I kept logging back into them and scrolling for a bit -- not for very long, but any free moment I'd look for entertainment there.
Any time I need some app, e.g. YouTube to show a video to a friend, or Uber to catch a ride, I'll download it and delete it once I'm done with my task.
I've found that my screen time has gone down drastically. I used to spend 3 hours a day on Instagram, Facebook, Hacker News. Now I spend closer to .75-1.5 hours, with about 50% of that being very difficult to trim down because it's mostly useful (1:1 texting, finding music on Spotify, using Maps). I still have HN, xkcd, and the NYT for reading, but that's not much more than 15-20 minutes of my day, which I think is acceptable.
I also put my phone in grayscale with reduced white point. This makes it much less enjoyable to read, and reduced white point makes it much more difficult to see/use, which reduces the time I spend.
It's a lot of effort, but it's so easy to get sucked into your phone. Every little moment when I'm bored I'd pull it out and look for something. It's so much more valuable to be doing nothing, and to not be controlled by little notifications on my phone when something happens.
I wish I could get an absolutely stripped down iPhone. I want Maps, Spotify, Messages, Phone, CarPlay, and that's about it. Maybe it would let me switch profiles for travel that has extra apps, or to some entertainment mode with a time-delay (e.g. if I wait 5 minutes I can open up Netflix). Something like the Light Phone [0] seems interesting, but not having CarPlay is a non-starter because I find it so useful. I suppose I could have two iPhones -- one for everyday carry that is barebones, and a second with the rest of my apps that I can keep in a drawer 95% of the day, but that sounds just so wasteful.
[0]: https://www.thelightphone.com/
iOS focus mode added recently is a godsend!
Isn’t it funny how much attention these anti-procrastination posts are getting on essentially a procrastination site?
(Tongue in cheek! I love HN. I just know that I sometimes do abuse it as a procrastination device.)
(Tongue in cheek! I love HN. I just know that I sometimes do abuse it as a procrastination device.)
Hacker News doesn't count because i am "learning something", even though i can't recall a single thing I read today
Hah. Yeah it feels like the knowledge I gain here most often is just further training of my "intuition module" with little to nothing discrete being committed to memory.
My parents use the same argument about social media.
“Facebook doesn’t count because I only use it to keep track of what people I know are doing.”
That has to be right up there with the number of times I have heard “I don’t use Facebook, I only use Instagram”.
“Facebook doesn’t count because I only use it to keep track of what people I know are doing.”
That has to be right up there with the number of times I have heard “I don’t use Facebook, I only use Instagram”.
It’s also funny how all these posts are so “western” in style: ‘Hey look at me, I did something a bit difficult for 3 days, now I am a guru!’
Not trying to knock the author but the time window is simply too small and this approach is simply too common online. Let’s see if the author can actually change lifestyle for more than 5 years and then we can discuss about “lessons learned”.
Not trying to knock the author but the time window is simply too small and this approach is simply too common online. Let’s see if the author can actually change lifestyle for more than 5 years and then we can discuss about “lessons learned”.
This is a bit harsh; the article does contain a lot of useful advice. I myself implemented many of these tips about two years ago, and am still going strong. I do fall off the wagon here and there and get sucked into my phone, especially when I'm avoiding something in real life, but I really value having minimal notifications. I also love focus modes (though I've only known about them for about a year I think) -- great for working, sleeping, and overall mental health. But I would stress this important point: if you have trouble implementing these steps, there may be a bigger issue in your life that you're avoiding.
What does that have to do with being “western”?
the self-help and productivity genre does have a uniquely American bent (more so than Western I'd say), these blog posts always read like some form of digital Protestantism, they do love their busywork. Immediately jumping to thinking you're procrastinating, rather than say contemplating when you're not churning out one book per year is an attitude you won't find everywhere.
I think this doesn't do the intentions of the author much justice. He clearly explained how his addictions destroyed his ability to focus on any task at all, no matter how much value you place on that task.
Reading a book or watching a TV series uninterrupted are hardly ambitious or productive tasks, yet entire generations now can't focus on such "lengthy" task.
Reading a book or watching a TV series uninterrupted are hardly ambitious or productive tasks, yet entire generations now can't focus on such "lengthy" task.
I say this is bogus, anyone can still read a book that is interesting. The problem is that most people are not exposed to interesting books anymore, since most books published in the last few years are undeserving of attention. I tell this for personal experience, when I find a book that grabs my attention I can spend several hours reading, but most books don't even deserve 15 min. My strategy is to spend more time researching things that I like and really want to read.
Well put. That focus on “productivity” also has something of what Nietzsche called the “slave mentality”. That belief that you’re worth only what you produce, like a cow. I actually subscribe to this reductionist belief myself in many ways - but it’s an easy target to feel smug about when reflected back by somebody else out there preaching it as gospel.
Exactly what I thought. He just changed to a new habit and wants to say that this "cured" his procrastination problems. I would suggest that it did nothing, at least for now. Maybe in a couple of years it may be different.
I don't see the author claiming they're a guru. I just see them sharing their experience on their own personal struggle, focusing on what ended up working for them.
Also, I'm sure it's been longer than 3 days since they've found these things worked for them. By 5 years, they're likely going to forget their struggle.
Also, I'm sure it's been longer than 3 days since they've found these things worked for them. By 5 years, they're likely going to forget their struggle.
Many Asian, North African, and Middle Eastern countries struggle with similar problems. And, this is not even developed/developing nations. I see it in economically poor or non-industrialized countries too.
When it comes to HN, I definitely have mixed feelings about the procrastination aspect. Yet I am unwilling to drop it since there are stories that I am genuinely interested in and make life better. So it is a net positive in my books.
Just in case people don't realise: HN has a built-in anti-procrastination feature. You can set it in your profile. I have mine setup so that I can spend 10 minutes on HN every 2 hours.
Where would you go if you wanted to target procrastinators?
HN is the only site I know that has server level procrastination blocking. I love it for that.
Block websites will help definitely.
another "threat" is when you have a few kids, your daily life is cut into pieces with random and sometimes strong background noises 24x7x365, not much you can do there.
personally, that impacts my focus the most and there is no cure, and it usually lasts for about 20 years when kids are finally into colleges.
obviously there are many good stuff out of raising kids, and I enjoyed it, but focus-on-tech-advancement is not one of them.
another "threat" is when you have a few kids, your daily life is cut into pieces with random and sometimes strong background noises 24x7x365, not much you can do there.
personally, that impacts my focus the most and there is no cure, and it usually lasts for about 20 years when kids are finally into colleges.
obviously there are many good stuff out of raising kids, and I enjoyed it, but focus-on-tech-advancement is not one of them.
This is why many people with kids want to physically return to the office - fewer distractions.
I've WFH for the past 8+ years, my kids are now 18 and 15 (so they were 10 and 7 when I started WFH).
They can definitely be a distraction, but I was able to minimize it by having an office with a door + setting reasonable boundaries. Also, they're out of the house at school for many hours (except for COVID -- that was a bit tougher, but that was the case for everyone).
I have no regrets. One of the reasons I WFH is to have less time on the road and more time w/ family. My oldest has said that he's glad I WFH, and that he didn't like me being away when he was younger.
Of course, every person/family is different. But for me & my family, I think minimizing the distractions in other ways while WFH + accepting the remaining distractions was worth it in the end.
They can definitely be a distraction, but I was able to minimize it by having an office with a door + setting reasonable boundaries. Also, they're out of the house at school for many hours (except for COVID -- that was a bit tougher, but that was the case for everyone).
I have no regrets. One of the reasons I WFH is to have less time on the road and more time w/ family. My oldest has said that he's glad I WFH, and that he didn't like me being away when he was younger.
Of course, every person/family is different. But for me & my family, I think minimizing the distractions in other ways while WFH + accepting the remaining distractions was worth it in the end.
Anecdotally all but one of the parents I know (including myself) prefer working remotely. I tried to find if there were any survey results and found a survey by Harris Poll on behalf of Zapier that said that "56 percent of parents want the option to work remotely" [1].
I have a private office in our home and know that's not a luxury for many others, but the quality of life as a parent working from home vs being in the office is dramatic. With the kids home during the summer the noise and distraction levels do go up, but honestly are still less bothersome then the open office floor plan I was in previously. I think it really depends on your home situation as well as how your office was setup, but my guess is that a majority of parents would prefer remote positions if available.
[1] https://zapier.com/blog/remote-work-report-by-zapier/
I have a private office in our home and know that's not a luxury for many others, but the quality of life as a parent working from home vs being in the office is dramatic. With the kids home during the summer the noise and distraction levels do go up, but honestly are still less bothersome then the open office floor plan I was in previously. I think it really depends on your home situation as well as how your office was setup, but my guess is that a majority of parents would prefer remote positions if available.
[1] https://zapier.com/blog/remote-work-report-by-zapier/
My kids leave me alone at home. My PMs at work however…
Among my peer, parents want to work from home. Single childless people want to be in office.
Having kids in the house is like being in a damn WWI trench with shells exploding over your head constantly. Ok, maybe not that bad, but it's horrible for your ability to get anything meaningful done. And then by the time they hit the sack and you finally have a few moments peace, you are worn out and ready to hit the sack yourself. My ability to burn the midnight oil has gone to zero basically.
I find that when I regularly exercise and don’t drink at dinner I can put kid to bed and have a few more hours available. But - big but - spending that evening time working has become anathema to me.
The best rule I’ve put in place is work happens during the day or it doesn’t happen.
The best rule I’ve put in place is work happens during the day or it doesn’t happen.
Wow…extremely relatable.
Sometimes I only want to price compare something online and order it, which should be a 5-10 minute process. It’ll take me 30 minutes spread over 10 3-minute bursts.
In between I need to end fights, clean faces, fetch out of reach toys, lift them out of a chair, lift them into a chair, no the other chair, hand them a stuffed animal, pick the stuffed animal up from the ground, clean food from the floor…
By which time I just order on Amazon. Yes maybe I pay more but at least I can order in one click and be done with it…
Sometimes I only want to price compare something online and order it, which should be a 5-10 minute process. It’ll take me 30 minutes spread over 10 3-minute bursts.
In between I need to end fights, clean faces, fetch out of reach toys, lift them out of a chair, lift them into a chair, no the other chair, hand them a stuffed animal, pick the stuffed animal up from the ground, clean food from the floor…
By which time I just order on Amazon. Yes maybe I pay more but at least I can order in one click and be done with it…
It definitely put many things in perspective for me. As a young single guy you look at suburbia, minivans, one click ordering, children's museums, etc. with a bit of skepticism or incredulity. Then once I got married and had kids I could instantly understand those things, even if I didn’t necessarily like them.
I’m curious because I’ve had kids early. Will I ever be able to catch up with peers who’ve decided their focus would be on their job and forego having children later in life?
Maybe. Maybe not. But no matter what those other people do, they’ll never ever be able to get more youthful, energetic years with their children and (hopefully) grandchildren. All that money and even Elon can’t buy time.
I had kids relatively young for a yuppie male (27) and while that was 100% the “right time” I would have done it earlier if I had known how great they are.
I had kids relatively young for a yuppie male (27) and while that was 100% the “right time” I would have done it earlier if I had known how great they are.
I’m really struggling with this right now.
I’m turning 33 next month and really want children. I have endless memories of my dad and grandfathers teaching me amazing lessons and being best/strongest men I have ever been around. I want to fulfill that role that for someone! We didn’t have much money but camping or diy building is something fondly reminisce on and made me who I am.
My partner is 25 and is not decided on children yet due to also growing up poor and and having a rougher realationship with their fam. We’ve lived together a year now but she recently got an IUD and was happy about the ‘10 years of freedom’.
To her kids is a ‘probably after I finish all my goals/traveling’.
We were recently vacationing in Barcelona and met 3 young boys at the hotel and played a game of uno with them in the lobby. They lived in the Bay Area and I imagine their parents were techies, they were indian, 6-12yrs, long hair, well spoken, had skateboards, and wearing tie dye.
I CANNOT stop thinking about them.
I’m considering an ultimatum but I love her so much.
Sorry for the rant HN, I just needed somewhere to say it.
I’m turning 33 next month and really want children. I have endless memories of my dad and grandfathers teaching me amazing lessons and being best/strongest men I have ever been around. I want to fulfill that role that for someone! We didn’t have much money but camping or diy building is something fondly reminisce on and made me who I am.
My partner is 25 and is not decided on children yet due to also growing up poor and and having a rougher realationship with their fam. We’ve lived together a year now but she recently got an IUD and was happy about the ‘10 years of freedom’.
To her kids is a ‘probably after I finish all my goals/traveling’.
We were recently vacationing in Barcelona and met 3 young boys at the hotel and played a game of uno with them in the lobby. They lived in the Bay Area and I imagine their parents were techies, they were indian, 6-12yrs, long hair, well spoken, had skateboards, and wearing tie dye.
I CANNOT stop thinking about them.
I’m considering an ultimatum but I love her so much.
Sorry for the rant HN, I just needed somewhere to say it.
Let's say you stay together now, and 10 years from now she still doesn't want children (which, for the record, is very much her prerogative). What will you do?
If you don't split up at that point, this difference is likely to become a source of resentment. You may also regret not having split up earlier so that you could meet someone who is a better match for you sooner.
This is the kind of thing that people really need to be on the same page about for the relationship to be viable long-term. Attitudes towards money (how much to spend, save, etc) is another.
If you don't split up at that point, this difference is likely to become a source of resentment. You may also regret not having split up earlier so that you could meet someone who is a better match for you sooner.
This is the kind of thing that people really need to be on the same page about for the relationship to be viable long-term. Attitudes towards money (how much to spend, save, etc) is another.
The worst thing you can do for yourself, your partner, and your future kids would be to pressure your partner into having children when she’s not ready or doesn’t want to. Her path is her own, and it’s completely valid.
My advice is to have an honest conversation where you try to understand where she’s at on this and why, without trying to change it.
And then if you determine that she really doesn’t want kids, or may not ever, you might have to make a very hard choice to either accept that and let go of your dream of having kids, or to follow another path without her.
But own it as your choice, without resentment. She doesn’t owe you a child.
My advice is to have an honest conversation where you try to understand where she’s at on this and why, without trying to change it.
And then if you determine that she really doesn’t want kids, or may not ever, you might have to make a very hard choice to either accept that and let go of your dream of having kids, or to follow another path without her.
But own it as your choice, without resentment. She doesn’t owe you a child.
I met a guy who was ~ 45 or so. He had been with his (then ex-) partner for 15+ years. She had wanted kids, and he kept saying "next year", "not ready yet", etc. Finally, at the age of 43 she gave him an ultimatum to make up his mind, and he replied "nah... don't want kids". She dumped him right away.
I met her too a little bit later, and boy, the resentment was strong with her. I couldn't blame her.
With things like kids, please don't be wishy-washy; make up your mind and set specific goals, timelines, etc. Kids are an expensive investment of both money and time.
I met her too a little bit later, and boy, the resentment was strong with her. I couldn't blame her.
With things like kids, please don't be wishy-washy; make up your mind and set specific goals, timelines, etc. Kids are an expensive investment of both money and time.
I feel you. It's a really tough place to be.
I'm 32 and my wife is 33, we've been together for 12 years. I started having the itch to have kids when I turned 30, but my wife 100% doesn't want them. Choosing between a life without children or leaving the person I've shared my whole adult life with is intolerable.
All I can say is you're not alone and I wish you the best.
I'm 32 and my wife is 33, we've been together for 12 years. I started having the itch to have kids when I turned 30, but my wife 100% doesn't want them. Choosing between a life without children or leaving the person I've shared my whole adult life with is intolerable.
All I can say is you're not alone and I wish you the best.
> I’m considering an ultimatum but I love her so much.
Dictating, forcing things is not the way to go for such things. You cant force children onto an unwilling mother. Its best if such things are handled amicably and with consensus.
Dictating, forcing things is not the way to go for such things. You cant force children onto an unwilling mother. Its best if such things are handled amicably and with consensus.
It's a binary choice. Either who you're with will want kids, or not, and if you're determined to have them but they simply refuse despite all appeals of any kind then what consensus are you talking about? In other words, there has to be a point where you say you're leaving someone unless they also want kids. This is an ultimatum whether you want to call it that or not. Beating around the bush politely about it doesn't change or resolve anything.
Surely an ultimatum is not force but choice, you are asking what the other person's final choice is?
I want chips for tea (deep fried julienned potatoes for your evening meal), you don't want chips, I say "I'll go out for tea then", you decide how important it is for you; you're literally in control.
Clearly the stakes are very different but it couldn't be further from dictatorship.
I don't think avoiding hard choices helps either party in the long run.
I want chips for tea (deep fried julienned potatoes for your evening meal), you don't want chips, I say "I'll go out for tea then", you decide how important it is for you; you're literally in control.
Clearly the stakes are very different but it couldn't be further from dictatorship.
I don't think avoiding hard choices helps either party in the long run.
I know the feeling. I think your best bet would be sharing with her gently and honestly, and if that doesn't go like you hope then looking into some couples' counseling/therapy to resolve this if she's agreeable.
Family baggage is tough and there may be stuff she needs to work on within herself too before she's ready. Encouraging that is a good way to be supportive and work towards the goal of kids together.
Strongly advise against ultimatums
Family baggage is tough and there may be stuff she needs to work on within herself too before she's ready. Encouraging that is a good way to be supportive and work towards the goal of kids together.
Strongly advise against ultimatums
You should find a new partner.
Not necessarily. There is almost always room to have a discussion and to see if there can be compromise acceptable to both sides first.
In this case, it may be acceptable to have kids at a later age; in addition, there could be other related concerns not mentioned in the comment (a lot of information is lost when writing about something online), which could make having kids acceptable.
Then if it's truly a red line issue (one partner absolutely does not want to have kids, while the other does), both people will know that they at least tried very hard to work it out, and reached an understanding that there could be long-term unhappiness or resentment if the relationship persisted. Then there can be few to no regrets with moving on, which is difficult after being in a relationship for a long period of time.
In this case, it may be acceptable to have kids at a later age; in addition, there could be other related concerns not mentioned in the comment (a lot of information is lost when writing about something online), which could make having kids acceptable.
Then if it's truly a red line issue (one partner absolutely does not want to have kids, while the other does), both people will know that they at least tried very hard to work it out, and reached an understanding that there could be long-term unhappiness or resentment if the relationship persisted. Then there can be few to no regrets with moving on, which is difficult after being in a relationship for a long period of time.
There is no compromise on children. Some people want them, some don't. This is one of the biggest sources of relationship strife and needs compatibility quickly or folks should agree to part and stop wasting time.
It's not a black-and-white issue. There is compromise if a person doesn't want children right now, but is genuinely open to it when there is more career stability. Some people may also be open to children, but not at the expense of giving up one's career (some couples have worked it out by having the man de-prioritize his career for a while).
I do agree that people can waste time if a person says they "don't want children right now," but really mean that they "don't want children ever." In either case, there is no harm to clarify this before going right to breaking up over hesitations.
I do agree that people can waste time if a person says they "don't want children right now," but really mean that they "don't want children ever." In either case, there is no harm to clarify this before going right to breaking up over hesitations.
I read generated. Too much, too dense.
But let me still respond to this, as freedom of speech:
Leave a message for the top female executive at the company she most admires. Ask your wife then leave the message. Just tell them leave this message. I've heard of similar messages. That executive will talk to your wife and will try to give her the message you want to give her.
Apparently for women once you realize you're a fertility-dead-end your body takes its toll on your failure. Not for men as much because a man is fertile much longer, and more uncertainly, and it's more reasonable for him to be a fertility-dead-end because men are better and worse than women, they are a gamble by their very nature.
But let me still respond to this, as freedom of speech:
Leave a message for the top female executive at the company she most admires. Ask your wife then leave the message. Just tell them leave this message. I've heard of similar messages. That executive will talk to your wife and will try to give her the message you want to give her.
Apparently for women once you realize you're a fertility-dead-end your body takes its toll on your failure. Not for men as much because a man is fertile much longer, and more uncertainly, and it's more reasonable for him to be a fertility-dead-end because men are better and worse than women, they are a gamble by their very nature.
Stop waiting. This may not be popular with the hive mind, but if you want kids and she doesn’t: move on.
I love my wife more than anything outside my family, but the kids are on another level. In 20 years you may not remember your current partner’s face. But you won’t pass a moment without thinking about your children, if you choose to have them.
I love my wife more than anything outside my family, but the kids are on another level. In 20 years you may not remember your current partner’s face. But you won’t pass a moment without thinking about your children, if you choose to have them.
I was in the same situation, except she wanted kids and I do not. So I broke up with her.
The biggest concern is that there doesn't seem to be a concrete end goal for when you can have children. From what you've written, your partner is 25, has an IUD, and communicated that she doesn't want children for the next 10 years. The endpoint of "probably after I finish all my goals/traveling" is so vaguely defined, that it could never happen. One can spend a lifetime pursuing goals and traveling.
You likely already considered the fertility odds, but to add context, according to a resource approved by the department of health for Victoria, Australia [0], the odds of having a child increasingly drop from age 35 onwards. There are also likely risks for men trying to have children after the age of 40, according to a balanced article on WebMD [1].
Negotiation is an option besides an ultimatum, and I actually think most opinions on the internet about relationships go for breakups far too soon. You have valid concerns that you can address with negotiation; in specific:
1) There is no clarity for the timeline of having kids (10 years plus after a vague goal of reaching all other goals of your partner).
2) From the tone of your partner, it's possible she doesn't seem to be taking your valid concern with seriousness, though perhaps serious conversations may just didn't come to mind at the time you wrote your comment.
3) Your partner hasn't seriously discussed the fertility implications of having children that late, at least from the contents of your comment.
To compromise, consider the red lines. Would you be willing to stay in the relationship without kids? If the answer is "no," it's almost inevitable you will be resentful and the relationship is likely to have a very negative effect on your life.
Would your partner be willing to have kids? If the answer is "no," it's also almost inevitable she will be resentful if she reluctantly goes into it; if the answer legitimately is "yes, but after a certain point of time," then you have room to work it out. The compromise solution is to have a specific endpoint when you will try for kids (with a clear "yes" for trying for children at that point). If there is none, moving on may be a hard decision but the right one for personal happiness for both people in the long-term.
As with any online advice, please take this comment with a huge grain of salt because there is an enormous amount of information and nuance lost when communicating a situation over text (or even over a conversation in person). However, the main principles of compromise—knowing each others' red lines, and account for possible long-term resentment due to agreements favoring one side disproportionately—may hopefully still be helpful. Best of luck to you.
[0] https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtrea...
[1] https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20141202/older-dads-health
You likely already considered the fertility odds, but to add context, according to a resource approved by the department of health for Victoria, Australia [0], the odds of having a child increasingly drop from age 35 onwards. There are also likely risks for men trying to have children after the age of 40, according to a balanced article on WebMD [1].
Negotiation is an option besides an ultimatum, and I actually think most opinions on the internet about relationships go for breakups far too soon. You have valid concerns that you can address with negotiation; in specific:
1) There is no clarity for the timeline of having kids (10 years plus after a vague goal of reaching all other goals of your partner).
2) From the tone of your partner, it's possible she doesn't seem to be taking your valid concern with seriousness, though perhaps serious conversations may just didn't come to mind at the time you wrote your comment.
3) Your partner hasn't seriously discussed the fertility implications of having children that late, at least from the contents of your comment.
To compromise, consider the red lines. Would you be willing to stay in the relationship without kids? If the answer is "no," it's almost inevitable you will be resentful and the relationship is likely to have a very negative effect on your life.
Would your partner be willing to have kids? If the answer is "no," it's also almost inevitable she will be resentful if she reluctantly goes into it; if the answer legitimately is "yes, but after a certain point of time," then you have room to work it out. The compromise solution is to have a specific endpoint when you will try for kids (with a clear "yes" for trying for children at that point). If there is none, moving on may be a hard decision but the right one for personal happiness for both people in the long-term.
As with any online advice, please take this comment with a huge grain of salt because there is an enormous amount of information and nuance lost when communicating a situation over text (or even over a conversation in person). However, the main principles of compromise—knowing each others' red lines, and account for possible long-term resentment due to agreements favoring one side disproportionately—may hopefully still be helpful. Best of luck to you.
[0] https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtrea...
[1] https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20141202/older-dads-health
Are there statistics for this type of thing (average age when first child arrives)? I knew I was an outlier (I had my first kid at 20, and yes it was a conscious decision), but 27 being relatively young makes me feel like an even greater outlier than I had predicted.
Do you feel like there is really anything to "catch up" on?
I'm in my mid 30s with no kids - while I can see that my career happens to be more advanced than close friends who had kids early, the signal to noise ratio is pretty high.
I'd think about it this way: enjoy the path you've set yourself on and savour the years where you have both your kids and your health. When they become less dependent on you, the option to lean in to a career is still available, and with a few more grey hairs you probably won't have to work so hard to prove yourself to begin with.
I'm in my mid 30s with no kids - while I can see that my career happens to be more advanced than close friends who had kids early, the signal to noise ratio is pretty high.
I'd think about it this way: enjoy the path you've set yourself on and savour the years where you have both your kids and your health. When they become less dependent on you, the option to lean in to a career is still available, and with a few more grey hairs you probably won't have to work so hard to prove yourself to begin with.
Tip: don’t give advice to people with kids when you don’t have them yourself. We don’t want it because you all have zero idea what we go through.
This reads as somewhat mean spirited, which I hope you didn’t intend. I thought his advice was supportive – they very clearly acknowledged not being a parent but then pointed out that there isn’t a clear cut productivity gap. That kind of reassurance seems useful since people can easily tell themselves they’re irrecoverably behind and worry far more than is helpful.
Maybe it is. You’re responding to a mentally broken man.
I'm sorry you feel broken. Virtual hugs from an internet stranger.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
That sounds rough. I hope you can find a path to recovery.
Nothing about their advice is specific to the role of parenting itself, but more about perspective on life choices in general. If they were telling you how to be a parent, sure, but there's nothing wrong with trying to learn from each other's experiences.
Not having kids may afford some advantages in some circumstances, but in my experience, the decision is often made for reasons that most people don't see, and not just because of career goals. I know plenty of parents and non-parents, and if there's one thing I can say about non-parents, rarely is career progression a sufficient form of purpose / satisfaction in life. Most parents I know would never trade their decision to have kids for a slightly faster trip up a career ladder, but that faster trip isn't necessarily real either.
I'm in my mid 30s, and I personally will never have kids. I made this choice partially because of the environment I grew up in, where I was a defacto parent for younger siblings for most of my formative years. I love my siblings, but simply put, I'm done parenting, and have enough of my own baggage I'm still dealing with after that experience. This baggage is heavy enough that work is still a struggle. I may appear unencumbered to those around me, but that doesn't automatically equate to more bandwidth to advance my career.
I've found career success, yes, but not because I don't have kids. If anything, my career focus impeded my personal growth, so I'm working on that in my 30s.
Ultimately it's a tradeoff, and while some people may occasionally find themselves at an advantage in some way, it's unclear if this is an advantage to aspire to, or if it leads to any improvement in life satisfaction.
If there's one thing I can say, it's that work and career progression isn't really what it's cracked up to be, and isn't "enough" for long.
Not having kids may afford some advantages in some circumstances, but in my experience, the decision is often made for reasons that most people don't see, and not just because of career goals. I know plenty of parents and non-parents, and if there's one thing I can say about non-parents, rarely is career progression a sufficient form of purpose / satisfaction in life. Most parents I know would never trade their decision to have kids for a slightly faster trip up a career ladder, but that faster trip isn't necessarily real either.
I'm in my mid 30s, and I personally will never have kids. I made this choice partially because of the environment I grew up in, where I was a defacto parent for younger siblings for most of my formative years. I love my siblings, but simply put, I'm done parenting, and have enough of my own baggage I'm still dealing with after that experience. This baggage is heavy enough that work is still a struggle. I may appear unencumbered to those around me, but that doesn't automatically equate to more bandwidth to advance my career.
I've found career success, yes, but not because I don't have kids. If anything, my career focus impeded my personal growth, so I'm working on that in my 30s.
Ultimately it's a tradeoff, and while some people may occasionally find themselves at an advantage in some way, it's unclear if this is an advantage to aspire to, or if it leads to any improvement in life satisfaction.
If there's one thing I can say, it's that work and career progression isn't really what it's cracked up to be, and isn't "enough" for long.
lampshades(2)
This is a bit crude way to put it, but maybe you're right.
At least for me, becoming a father changed my perspective on everything so much that it's almost like I'm not even the same species anymore as I was before having them. Sometimes people without children feel like they're not even proper adults even if they are older and/or more senior at work or whatever.
At least for me, becoming a father changed my perspective on everything so much that it's almost like I'm not even the same species anymore as I was before having them. Sometimes people without children feel like they're not even proper adults even if they are older and/or more senior at work or whatever.
Spot on, I’m so different now than I was then I disregard anything anyone without kids says.
> Sometimes people without children feel like they're not even proper adults
I feel like they’re not real adults too.
> Sometimes people without children feel like they're not even proper adults
I feel like they’re not real adults too.
> I feel like they’re not real adults too.
FWIW, This doesn't sound like a healthy place for you to be.
Childless people giving parenting advice to people with children is on average going to be just as off target as most times where humans try to give advice without any personal lived experience. It doesn't indicate anything else though, prima facie.
FWIW, This doesn't sound like a healthy place for you to be.
Childless people giving parenting advice to people with children is on average going to be just as off target as most times where humans try to give advice without any personal lived experience. It doesn't indicate anything else though, prima facie.
> Spot on, I’m so different now than I was then I disregard anything anyone without kids says.
I would posit this is universally correct. Us not-parents can "believe" we can accurately imagine what you go through or what we would do in your place. Theoretically speaking, the theory matches reality :)
Yet imagining is literally not enough! People without children do not viscerally know what it is to parent, 24/7 for the rest of your days for the foreseeable future. How the accumulated indescribable-joy and the mounting exhaustion that you simultaneously carry influences slash impacts your decision-making and relentlessly molds the options you'll choose to make for the rest of your life.
Good luck explaining how different this parenting experience can be for every person and child, even within the same family in the same environment two children can be polar opposites with no obvious reason other than "life finds a way".
> I feel like they’re not real adults too.
I say this with all my empathy: the fact that for you parenting is such a core part of the adult experience is not only correct but beautiful, and anybody who tries to invalidate that is extremely wrong.
That said, there is another layer of unkindness in your position that you must unpack yourself, if you wish to have adult-level relationships with people with a different set of adult-core concepts.
I would posit this is universally correct. Us not-parents can "believe" we can accurately imagine what you go through or what we would do in your place. Theoretically speaking, the theory matches reality :)
Yet imagining is literally not enough! People without children do not viscerally know what it is to parent, 24/7 for the rest of your days for the foreseeable future. How the accumulated indescribable-joy and the mounting exhaustion that you simultaneously carry influences slash impacts your decision-making and relentlessly molds the options you'll choose to make for the rest of your life.
Good luck explaining how different this parenting experience can be for every person and child, even within the same family in the same environment two children can be polar opposites with no obvious reason other than "life finds a way".
> I feel like they’re not real adults too.
I say this with all my empathy: the fact that for you parenting is such a core part of the adult experience is not only correct but beautiful, and anybody who tries to invalidate that is extremely wrong.
That said, there is another layer of unkindness in your position that you must unpack yourself, if you wish to have adult-level relationships with people with a different set of adult-core concepts.
Seek therapy now.
I guess to convince yourself you didn't make a bad decision with long-term consequences you have to demonize anyone that disagrees with you
Another unsolicited tip: take quality advice anywhere you can get it
This reads harsh, so apologies if that wasn't intended. Just... I feel this is more of a disservice than anything
This reads harsh, so apologies if that wasn't intended. Just... I feel this is more of a disservice than anything
Are you the parent hive mind or what?
I had my first kid at 15; are you that early? It was a rough start. Mom and I are still together 24 years later. We played life on hard mode and I don't recommend it. I got a near full academic ride to a university but had trouble getting books and supplies. My wife worked mostly as a waitress at first. After several attempts at different jobs, I landed as a software developer. I was in my 30s before we could save a penny. I make a couple hundred grand a year now and can buy my (now three) kids what they need and want and my retirement account is healthy
I don’t think you will. I don’t think I will either. I’ve stopped caring about career advancement because it’s a fools errand for me.
Competing with single people is incredibly depressing. (I have to find a way out of this hell hole, I hate tech)
Competing with single people is incredibly depressing. (I have to find a way out of this hell hole, I hate tech)
It depends.
The "mid" positions often require a grind. For example to get a skill.
The "top" positions often are a new set of hoops that you need to jump. First you need to actually get the position: what sometimes is about who you know, sometimes about what you do, sometimes sheer luck (e.g. those above you quit) or by just grinding and applying everywhere. Also at some point a new hoop are sales. Nobody cares that you cant do your job if you can bring in new customers worth millions.
In many ways life is pure luck. If you choose the right company you can get options and become a millionaire while someone better will rot in a failed startup (If you are in Europe you are out of luck - generally no options).
Maybe you start a company while you are still relatively young? Many did. Many failed. There are also those motivational lists who show billionaires who started a company after a certain age.
I was thinking of writing a book about this, but I am not sure if there is a market for that. Since what I wrote above sounds a lot like those sharlatan self help books.
The "mid" positions often require a grind. For example to get a skill.
The "top" positions often are a new set of hoops that you need to jump. First you need to actually get the position: what sometimes is about who you know, sometimes about what you do, sometimes sheer luck (e.g. those above you quit) or by just grinding and applying everywhere. Also at some point a new hoop are sales. Nobody cares that you cant do your job if you can bring in new customers worth millions.
In many ways life is pure luck. If you choose the right company you can get options and become a millionaire while someone better will rot in a failed startup (If you are in Europe you are out of luck - generally no options).
Maybe you start a company while you are still relatively young? Many did. Many failed. There are also those motivational lists who show billionaires who started a company after a certain age.
I was thinking of writing a book about this, but I am not sure if there is a market for that. Since what I wrote above sounds a lot like those sharlatan self help books.
You can write a longform blog post and submit it to HN, I would read it. Ribbonfarm's "The Gervais Principle" (2009) [0] is a top example of a very long blog post split over multiple parts, yet insightful enough to be shared widely on HN and still provoke thought, long after a first read.
[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
I'd like to question the premise that you have to "catch up" with peers, and that comparisons make sense. Especially in the private sector, career growth isn't solely dependent on technical skills.
Some peers can get big career boosts due to nepotism or networking and switching companies. Others leave a large company, giving up the chance of promotions to senior management, and create their own startup or join another at a senior level for advancement. Other people change industries and start at a junior position. Yet others decide to work a stable job for lesser pay, maybe at certain departments or agencies in the public sector.
I honestly don't see where competition with peers becomes a factor, so long as you're working enough to maintain valuable skills that hiring managers and organizations are looking for.
Some peers can get big career boosts due to nepotism or networking and switching companies. Others leave a large company, giving up the chance of promotions to senior management, and create their own startup or join another at a senior level for advancement. Other people change industries and start at a junior position. Yet others decide to work a stable job for lesser pay, maybe at certain departments or agencies in the public sector.
I honestly don't see where competition with peers becomes a factor, so long as you're working enough to maintain valuable skills that hiring managers and organizations are looking for.
You will get out of your career what you put into it. I had kids at 24/26 and have found success relative to my peers in the field.
Sure there are sacrifices to be made with respect to career options. You can't (or shouldn't) just move cities every three years when a new job comes up, but working remotely can level that playing field quite a bit.
Sure there are sacrifices to be made with respect to career options. You can't (or shouldn't) just move cities every three years when a new job comes up, but working remotely can level that playing field quite a bit.
You won’t beat them by absolute number of hours. However, you can surpass your peers by having more focus, being more organized, and thinking outside the box.
Anecdotal evidence: PhDs with children often are just as productive if not more than those without. Most PhD students are inefficient due to not focusing and thinking they infinite time.
Anecdotal evidence: PhDs with children often are just as productive if not more than those without. Most PhD students are inefficient due to not focusing and thinking they infinite time.
I've looked recently at a study of academics based on papers they authored that showed parents are more productive. IIRC, fathers were most productive, mothers less productive during early years of child-rearing but ultimately beat-out non-parents.
In that limited study, if you're female you'd be expected to catch and over-take your peers -- presumably early child-rearing gives you more time after you've overtaken your peers. Again, from the study, if you're male then your output would be expected to be "better" from just after your kids come. Mother's were more productive before they became pregnant, if you follow; perhaps trying to get ahead before pregnancy.
If anyone asks I'll dig out the link. My work shared it, it showed the opposite of what they said it did ...
In that limited study, if you're female you'd be expected to catch and over-take your peers -- presumably early child-rearing gives you more time after you've overtaken your peers. Again, from the study, if you're male then your output would be expected to be "better" from just after your kids come. Mother's were more productive before they became pregnant, if you follow; perhaps trying to get ahead before pregnancy.
If anyone asks I'll dig out the link. My work shared it, it showed the opposite of what they said it did ...
It's really up to you and depends on what you want your career to look like.
Also, be careful of playing games where people are willing to give up more than you are. For me, I don't derive as much meaning from a career as I thought I would, probably because I put too much expectation that it would provide that.
Also, be careful of playing games where people are willing to give up more than you are. For me, I don't derive as much meaning from a career as I thought I would, probably because I put too much expectation that it would provide that.
> "For me, I don't derive as much meaning from a career as I thought I would, probably because I put too much expectation that it would provide that."
"Designing Your Life" is a book based on a Stanford course on career planning that explored this idea very well. A summary is at [0], and a relevant idea is that focusing on one area of your life is likely not sufficient for a good life. For example, over the course of a week, it can be useful to make sure you are hitting goals in "work, play, love, and health." It can sound like common sense, but it's useful to consciously do this, especially for people inclined to optimize for just work, at the expense of physical health and relationships.
An anecdote that stuck out to me was a positive example about a person who rose to a high level at a large company, then kept refusing promotions because he finally struck a good balance between career and having time for family. I'm sure this may not always be the best idea, but I liked the idea behind inclusion of the anecdote, which is that continuously climbing the career ladder may not actually be helpful for one's personal goals.
[0] https://dansilvestre.com/designing-your-life-summary/
"Designing Your Life" is a book based on a Stanford course on career planning that explored this idea very well. A summary is at [0], and a relevant idea is that focusing on one area of your life is likely not sufficient for a good life. For example, over the course of a week, it can be useful to make sure you are hitting goals in "work, play, love, and health." It can sound like common sense, but it's useful to consciously do this, especially for people inclined to optimize for just work, at the expense of physical health and relationships.
An anecdote that stuck out to me was a positive example about a person who rose to a high level at a large company, then kept refusing promotions because he finally struck a good balance between career and having time for family. I'm sure this may not always be the best idea, but I liked the idea behind inclusion of the anecdote, which is that continuously climbing the career ladder may not actually be helpful for one's personal goals.
[0] https://dansilvestre.com/designing-your-life-summary/
Thank you for your reply. I will try this out soon.
I'm already at the point where I'm uncertain if I want to progress on the career ladder. Advancement in my career at this point mostly means striking out on my own more through product-based businesses.
I'm already at the point where I'm uncertain if I want to progress on the career ladder. Advancement in my career at this point mostly means striking out on my own more through product-based businesses.
[deleted]
Did he regain concentration and focus? It's more like he just reduced distractions. That's not the same.
What if being distracted is not a bug but a feature and his mind doesn't want to continue the path of constantly writing books? Instead of eliminating distractions, it could be more helpful to find the activities that don't create the desire for distractions.
What if being distracted is not a bug but a feature and his mind doesn't want to continue the path of constantly writing books? Instead of eliminating distractions, it could be more helpful to find the activities that don't create the desire for distractions.
He also says the pandemic didn't affect him, but honestly, whether it was Long COVID or an indirect psych effect of isolation, I've had extreme issues concentrating ever since 2020 that have been absolutely bullshit to manage.
Re: wide-scale reports of cognitive decline since lockdowns:
> In lab animals, isolation has been shown to cause brain shrinkage and the kind of brain changes you'd see in Alzheimer's disease — reduced brain cell connections and reduced levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, which is important for the formation, connection, and repair of brain cells.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/how-isolation-a...
> In lab animals, isolation has been shown to cause brain shrinkage and the kind of brain changes you'd see in Alzheimer's disease — reduced brain cell connections and reduced levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, which is important for the formation, connection, and repair of brain cells.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/how-isolation-a...
Course we don't know if that would still be the case for rats that were capable of communicating with others online.
my mind doesn't want to continue the path of constantly working. I've done a lot of kinds of work and am not young, coding is my third career, and I've never found "the activities" that pay rent and don't create the desire for distractions. Want it or not (I don't want it) that's a problem it's on me to solve.
If you’re looking for a ‘lean’ source of news (just the facts, no commentary) try Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
(RSS feed available)
(RSS feed available)
Unfortunately, it is a mistake to think that just because you are only presented with high quality facts (statements that are very likely to be true), that you are getting an objective view of the story. You would be surprised how unrepresentative a story can be made purely through omission or selective emphasis, and Wikipedia is very guilty especially of the latter. The talk pages are usually very revealing of what the articles fails to mention, if you happen to catch them before the discussion gets archived.
This is something a lot of people don't understand.
It is impossible to have an objective and bias-free source of information, simply because the amount of information that exists is unimaginably enormous. It's impossible for any single human mind to absorb everything that's happening, so we have to rely on services whose job is filtering that information into a small set of important bits.
By selectively choosing which bits of information you share or emphasize, multiple different sources can all technically be telling the gods honest truth, while also all pushing completely contradictory narratives.
Everyone is pushing a narrative, and it's critical that we all try to understand the incentives of the pushers of information we ingest.
It is impossible to have an objective and bias-free source of information, simply because the amount of information that exists is unimaginably enormous. It's impossible for any single human mind to absorb everything that's happening, so we have to rely on services whose job is filtering that information into a small set of important bits.
By selectively choosing which bits of information you share or emphasize, multiple different sources can all technically be telling the gods honest truth, while also all pushing completely contradictory narratives.
Everyone is pushing a narrative, and it's critical that we all try to understand the incentives of the pushers of information we ingest.
I liked the way Howard Zinn (who had his own rather strong biases, of course) made that point in the afterword to A People's History of the United States:
>But there is no such thing as a pure fact, innocent of interpretation. Behind every fact presented to the world—by a teacher, a writer, anyone—is a judgment. The judgment that has been made is that this fact is important, and that other facts, omitted, are not important.
>But there is no such thing as a pure fact, innocent of interpretation. Behind every fact presented to the world—by a teacher, a writer, anyone—is a judgment. The judgment that has been made is that this fact is important, and that other facts, omitted, are not important.
I learned this when I dated a law student while in college. They teach an entire class to the first year students dedicated to presenting the facts of the case, the way lawyers do in their opening statements. They actually had to create the set of facts for each side. It was really interesting how you could totally bias it by what you emphasized or left out and the different words used (i.e. word connotations).
Manufacturing Consent is a must-read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
> Everyone is pushing a narrative
But this an exaggeration. Some people are truly equivocal on a question, yet still able to muster the effort to write about it.
One way this happens is that some specific issue puts the author's internal values in tension. An example would be recall/impeachment of some corrupt official, where the tension is between the two goods of removing the bad actor from power, and maintaining the norm of orderly transition of government power.
But this an exaggeration. Some people are truly equivocal on a question, yet still able to muster the effort to write about it.
One way this happens is that some specific issue puts the author's internal values in tension. An example would be recall/impeachment of some corrupt official, where the tension is between the two goods of removing the bad actor from power, and maintaining the norm of orderly transition of government power.
This is very true about agenda setting.
What is great about Wikipedia's "Current events" portal is that you don't have to sift through tweets that are selected by the news feed algorithm to make you angry, or a stream of op-eds that are selected by an editor to do the same, in order to get to the facts. Much healthier psychologically while still staying reasonably informed.
What is great about Wikipedia's "Current events" portal is that you don't have to sift through tweets that are selected by the news feed algorithm to make you angry, or a stream of op-eds that are selected by an editor to do the same, in order to get to the facts. Much healthier psychologically while still staying reasonably informed.
Wikipedia is incredibly biased in terms of what news it cherry picks though. Just read through the debates of what gets proposed for inclusion, and then think about the stuff that's outright deleted.
Do you have some examples?
There was a great article posted here a few years back I’d love to find again, that discusses how to use Wikipedia to reinforce a position without lying. Splitting your side into a bunch of mutually reinforcing pages, careful choose of when to include or exclude adjectives, and so on. I found it pretty eye-opening.
For example, the entire entry for "mass formation" was deleted. The Dutch version still exists:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massavorming
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massavorming
"Just read through the debates of what gets proposed for inclusion, and then think about the stuff that's outright deleted."
I kinda also would like to see a concrete example.
I would recommend people use sites like allsides.com or ground.news to read from a wide variety of sources across the political spectrum. Any one site (even one edited by a variety of people) will have its own set of biases, so I find it best to visit Web sites that contain links to coverage of the same event from a few different sources with different biases.
I think it's better to manually assess bias and think critically about how news articles report information. The sites you linked are interesting, but had some major flaws.
For example, AllSides includes Breitbart as a source. While it identifies it with the maximum value to the right, it doesn't give a barometer of credibility. For a reader deciding whether Breitbart is worth reading, one should closely examine credibility, not just political leaning. PolitiFact and Media Bias/Fact Check discussed the credibility of Breitbart at length [0] [1].
Then for ground.news, the way it portrays bias is also relatively simplistic. The most prominent indicator is left/center/right, but biases have a lot more nuance. It's more useful to account for how certain publications take certain policy stances. Leanings can be anti-establishment, pro-establishment, socialist, neoliberal, pro-consumption (e.g. Wired), or anti-consumption, and this information is lost when relying on left-center-right categorizations.
The best way to do this is to manually select a few publications that are high on factual credibility, write down their specific biases or leanings, and compare stories across the personally-curated selection of publications. You then personally have more control and understanding of the articles you are presented.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/stella-imm...
[1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
For example, AllSides includes Breitbart as a source. While it identifies it with the maximum value to the right, it doesn't give a barometer of credibility. For a reader deciding whether Breitbart is worth reading, one should closely examine credibility, not just political leaning. PolitiFact and Media Bias/Fact Check discussed the credibility of Breitbart at length [0] [1].
Then for ground.news, the way it portrays bias is also relatively simplistic. The most prominent indicator is left/center/right, but biases have a lot more nuance. It's more useful to account for how certain publications take certain policy stances. Leanings can be anti-establishment, pro-establishment, socialist, neoliberal, pro-consumption (e.g. Wired), or anti-consumption, and this information is lost when relying on left-center-right categorizations.
The best way to do this is to manually select a few publications that are high on factual credibility, write down their specific biases or leanings, and compare stories across the personally-curated selection of publications. You then personally have more control and understanding of the articles you are presented.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/stella-imm...
[1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
Both of those sites are useful and I'd like to add one more: I've been using TheDailyEdit[0] app (it was on the front page here not too long ago). It doesn't tell you what political spectrum the publisher is on, but it does help you identify when the article is using manipulative language. The coolest thing though is that when you're in an article it shows you what was missing but reported by other sources. So I can read news I like but be sure that I'm not missing something because of 'bias by omission' by the publisher.
[0] https://dailyedit.com/
[0] https://dailyedit.com/
cant find the rss feed for that page.
You are right, I the feed it’s not coming from Wikipedia itself: https://www.to-rss.xyz/wikipedia/current_events/
My distraction is from all the family stuff I have to deal with. My lack of concentration is because I lack motivation - I don't see any reason to try hard at work since it's all politics and BS.
Hi friend!
My family stuff is what keeps me going though. My work is a basket case at the moment, 12-month contract ends in 4 weeks, and it's almost a full time job applying for jobs.
I've had three managers in my not-quite 12 months, none that I've worked with very closely, one that thinks I'm no good because I unwittingly stepped on the toes of a couple of institutionalized colleagues by "doing my job", who complained to this guy who'd been my boss a total of less than a week at the time.
"Just do what you're told" was his advice. So, what you're saying is coast until the contract is over? Done and done.
Makes it hard to get a good recent reference though, lucky the market is thirsting for warm bodies.
My family stuff is what keeps me going though. My work is a basket case at the moment, 12-month contract ends in 4 weeks, and it's almost a full time job applying for jobs.
I've had three managers in my not-quite 12 months, none that I've worked with very closely, one that thinks I'm no good because I unwittingly stepped on the toes of a couple of institutionalized colleagues by "doing my job", who complained to this guy who'd been my boss a total of less than a week at the time.
"Just do what you're told" was his advice. So, what you're saying is coast until the contract is over? Done and done.
Makes it hard to get a good recent reference though, lucky the market is thirsting for warm bodies.
Sounds all too familiar.
I had 7 or 8 managers over the past 2.5 years. I picked up and completed several extra stories over the previous couple sprints only to recieve negative feedback that it wasn't what they wanted me to work on, even though I asked them if there was anything specific they wanted me to do next and had recieved no response. Oh, and my company will not allow managers to give employees recommendations/references at all.
I had 7 or 8 managers over the past 2.5 years. I picked up and completed several extra stories over the previous couple sprints only to recieve negative feedback that it wasn't what they wanted me to work on, even though I asked them if there was anything specific they wanted me to do next and had recieved no response. Oh, and my company will not allow managers to give employees recommendations/references at all.
> My family stuff is what keeps me going though. My work is a basket case at the moment, 12-month contract ends in 4 weeks, and it's almost a full time job applying for jobs.
Unsolicited advice: if you can, wait for September to really start looking for employment. August is slow season in recruitment because people are still on vacation while September is the last month of the quarter, so recruiters have targets to reach for the projects scheduled to start in Q4.
Unsolicited advice: if you can, wait for September to really start looking for employment. August is slow season in recruitment because people are still on vacation while September is the last month of the quarter, so recruiters have targets to reach for the projects scheduled to start in Q4.
Thanks for the advice, but I'm not in the US - I'm somewhat across the August slow-down though due to keeping up with overall macro markets etc.
P.S. Australia's Reserve Bank is a couple of hours away from raising interest rates again. Currently it's sitting at 1.35%, expectation is for a 50 basis point increase.
P.S. Australia's Reserve Bank is a couple of hours away from raising interest rates again. Currently it's sitting at 1.35%, expectation is for a 50 basis point increase.
Also not in the US - Eastern EU. Switching jobs on an almost annual basis I've found that large organizations all over the world think in quarters, so smaller ones are compelled to as well.
Ad PS Thanks, this is important info.
Ad PS Thanks, this is important info.
Work for money.
My experience is that the more politics and BS and organization has, the more you can coast. Individual performance can get lost in the noise.
Even in orgs that have their stuff together, I see a preference for internal transfer over termination. I think it's some sort of HR sunk cost fallacy.
Even in orgs that have their stuff together, I see a preference for internal transfer over termination. I think it's some sort of HR sunk cost fallacy.
My experience is that the politics and BS lead to BS ratings that go against the written policies because there are contradictory backroom policies.
In this market, we can't seem to hire anyone (we aren't competitive on salary). So I guess it makes sense that they want to keep the low performers since they wouldn't be able to backfill. This still sucks since there's a lot of stress dealing with poor ratings and not know if you will get fired. And then even if you do work hard and perform well, there'd no guarantee that will increase your rating or comp.
In this market, we can't seem to hire anyone (we aren't competitive on salary). So I guess it makes sense that they want to keep the low performers since they wouldn't be able to backfill. This still sucks since there's a lot of stress dealing with poor ratings and not know if you will get fired. And then even if you do work hard and perform well, there'd no guarantee that will increase your rating or comp.
I'm kind of coasting myself (not being a leader/taking anything big on). What I like it about it is, I can leave work at work after work and focus on my own things that are more challenging.
At the moment I burned money/got into a lot of debt trying to get a start up going. When that failed I just grabbed the first job/company that gave me an offer. I'm not that pumped about what I do but I can deal with it for now. Pay is still good for my level (low six figs) and it's 100% remote.
At the moment I burned money/got into a lot of debt trying to get a start up going. When that failed I just grabbed the first job/company that gave me an offer. I'm not that pumped about what I do but I can deal with it for now. Pay is still good for my level (low six figs) and it's 100% remote.
What money? There's no way to get a raise at my company without a promotion and they won't promote me. I have no motivation to work hard if it won't be rewarded. I do the minimum to get paid my shitty salary.
If your current job can't motivate you, work on a side project or look for another job.
And don't be the weakest link in the (faulty) chain. It's leaves a better impression by notifying external inefficiency and quitting because lack of change, rather than being fired because your motivation and productiveness withered in silence.
And don't be the weakest link in the (faulty) chain. It's leaves a better impression by notifying external inefficiency and quitting because lack of change, rather than being fired because your motivation and productiveness withered in silence.
Yeah, I have side projects. They aren't anything that I could make money on though. If I had a better option I would leave.
Personally, I wish I could have more side projects to post them on my Github and use them as a developer portfolio.
I have a few years of experience as a Web Dev, but sadly my GitHub is barren from code.
I have a few years of experience as a Web Dev, but sadly my GitHub is barren from code.
I have an Angular site, a Python project, and a couple of Android apps. I don't think it matters. The Android apps helped me get a job out of college. But I feel like now that I've been in the industry, nobody cares about dev portfolios. It's all about the current/prior job.
Who said anything about your current company?
I don't have the skills to switch to a different company, tech jobs are limited in my area, I don't perform well remotely, and my wife won't consider relocating. My current shitty job is the best job I can get.
> I don't have the skills to switch to a different company
Go and learn. Skills are not set in stone.
> I don't perform well remotely, and my wife won't consider relocating
I understand that. I don't know you, but maybe a nicer setup with more (not too direct) sunlight can make it better?
Go and learn. Skills are not set in stone.
> I don't perform well remotely, and my wife won't consider relocating
I understand that. I don't know you, but maybe a nicer setup with more (not too direct) sunlight can make it better?
"Go and learn. Skills are not set in stone."
Sure, but learning takes time, which I have little of. It's also much easier for some than others (getting significantly more difficult as I age).
The main remote issue is that my wife interrupts me to do stuff or answer questions throughout the day. I also feel I'm slower to learn remotely. I think that if I'm an expert in the tech already, then remote could work.
Sure, but learning takes time, which I have little of. It's also much easier for some than others (getting significantly more difficult as I age).
The main remote issue is that my wife interrupts me to do stuff or answer questions throughout the day. I also feel I'm slower to learn remotely. I think that if I'm an expert in the tech already, then remote could work.
I get it, but you already have a job. I assume you are be pretty busy, but at least you already have a secure source of money and you're not against the clock or anything like that.
You don't need to spend all day in a class like a university student. An hour a day dedicated to lectures, practice and taking some notes with pencil and paper* can do wonders on the long term.
As for your wife, maybe you can talk to her and ask her to leave you alone for some specific times, unless it's urgent. Or ask her to send you a message instead of talking so it doesn't interrupt your focus so much.
* Some research on learning has proven that taking notes like that is way more effective than typing on a keyboard.
You don't need to spend all day in a class like a university student. An hour a day dedicated to lectures, practice and taking some notes with pencil and paper* can do wonders on the long term.
As for your wife, maybe you can talk to her and ask her to leave you alone for some specific times, unless it's urgent. Or ask her to send you a message instead of talking so it doesn't interrupt your focus so much.
* Some research on learning has proven that taking notes like that is way more effective than typing on a keyboard.
Thanks. I have tried talking to her, but the results weren't great. I do try to learn things outside of work. The main problem is if you don't use it, you lose it. Without constant practice it's hard to build and retain skills. I don't even have an hour a day free for that due to work and home responsibilities.
You don't lose it completely, though. And it's easier to relearn and get back on track than to learn it the first time.
I learned C like ten years ago and then I moved on to PHP and then to JavaScript. I'm sure I forgot most of it. But thanks to that, I'm now learning Golang and when it came to pointers it clicked almost instantly.
I learned C like ten years ago and then I moved on to PHP and then to JavaScript. I'm sure I forgot most of it. But thanks to that, I'm now learning Golang and when it came to pointers it clicked almost instantly.
True, the concepts transfer. But for me the concepts are always easy. The implementation/syntax/libraries are harder for me. I know at least I can go back and use prior projects as a guide... if I ever return to that tech. That's probably a big one for me, that I feel like the work ends up being thrown away if i never use it again. Although things like Android development has changed significantly with things like apk to aab, Java in Eclipse to Kotlin in Studio (Jet Brains), etc.
Work remotely, but leave your house.
It's okay to say tech jobs aren't the right fit as well.
They might not be. I'm hesitant to admit that because 1) They used to be and I was a high performer at a mediocre non-tech company 2) There's nothing else I can do to earn enough to support my family.
>There's nothing else I can do to earn enough to support my family.
Honest question that I know won't be well-received on HN: I don't know your personal details, but do you think there is not anyone else in a lower paid job who has figured out a way to support their family?
Frustration stems from when reality doesn't meet our expectations. You can choose to try and bend reality to your will or change your expectations. One is significantly easier than the other.
Honest question that I know won't be well-received on HN: I don't know your personal details, but do you think there is not anyone else in a lower paid job who has figured out a way to support their family?
Frustration stems from when reality doesn't meet our expectations. You can choose to try and bend reality to your will or change your expectations. One is significantly easier than the other.
Sure, I can take a lower paying job. We would likely have to sell our house and move to an apartment and give up hope of retirement. The thing is, many of these people in lower paying job still make decent money, but those are skilled jobs. I would have to go to a trade school or apprentice for many of those, but likely couldn't due to needing an income. Because I would be unskilled labor, I would probably be looking at jobs around $20/hr with benefits (if I'm lucky). Without benefits, we'll be bankrupt quickly.
Most of my frustration is because my bosses are assholes. I now expect bosses to be assholes, but it's still frustrating.
Most of my frustration is because my bosses are assholes. I now expect bosses to be assholes, but it's still frustrating.
Get the skills, limited doesn’t mean none, get better at performing remotely, drop the wife…
You are in complete control over your life, but you have to accept that responsibility. Stop blaming externalities and start owning your choices.
You are in complete control over your life, but you have to accept that responsibility. Stop blaming externalities and start owning your choices.
Everything is a tradeoff. Just because someone view the weight of the choices differently doesn't mean they are wrong. Check your ego.
Did I say you were wrong? No, you did.
No ego, just facts, and your attitude here is crap, your headspace is so negative I’m not at all surprised you’re suffering such as you are.
No ego, just facts, and your attitude here is crap, your headspace is so negative I’m not at all surprised you’re suffering such as you are.
Based on your comment history, you seem to be very aggressive and derogatory. I would almost say you're trolling. It's quite pedantic to claim you never said someone is wrong even after you've said several things which effectively say that.
I'm not the person who is causing your anger and frustration, but the fact that you choose to berate me instead of do anything about your situation speaks volumes.
While I think it's healthy to not tie your identity and well-being to your job, I think it might be a bad habit to view everything through the lens of a financial transaction.
We've all probably worked with people who will only lift a finger if it benefits them. Create an organization of people with this mindset and much of the necessary but un-glorious work never gets done. I suppose you could say people can play the long game and do that stuff in hopes of getting noticed, but if it doesn't and you have a transactional mindset, it's a recipe to be miserable. (We've probably all worked with those people too - the ones who feel slighted because they believe they've done all the hard work without getting rewarded).
We've all probably worked with people who will only lift a finger if it benefits them. Create an organization of people with this mindset and much of the necessary but un-glorious work never gets done. I suppose you could say people can play the long game and do that stuff in hopes of getting noticed, but if it doesn't and you have a transactional mindset, it's a recipe to be miserable. (We've probably all worked with those people too - the ones who feel slighted because they believe they've done all the hard work without getting rewarded).
I don't think it's fair: it's absolutely possible to be motivated by the recognized fact that you provide for your family, and still have healthy friendly relations with colleagues, and be interested in a long-term success of your employer.
It's also absolutely possible to create an ugly monster of organization while cheering up your team with whatever we-change-the-world mission.
It's also absolutely possible to create an ugly monster of organization while cheering up your team with whatever we-change-the-world mission.
I agree with you that it's possible. It's just been my experience that the people who take that mindset tend to slack off once they realize they can get the same paycheck to provide for their family while also doing less work. If your internal utility function is to maximize money and minimize effort, that's going to occur more often than not. To buffer that, management needs to hold them accountable, but that's easier said than done, especially in large organizations.
"It's just been my experience that the people who take that mindset tend to slack off once they realize they can get the same paycheck to provide for their family while also doing less work."
I think it's mostly the people who realized the company has deceived them, either in the company values/mission or the "pay for performance" scheme being BS.
There shouldn't be anything wrong with someone just doing their job for the salary. If their performance falls below what's expected (and clearly defined) for their level, then that's a problem. They shouldn't be penalized for not doing extra work when they aren't being rewarded.
Employers need to have compensation models that make sense too. I was once told I could get a promotion if I consistently worked 1 hour longer everyday. That's a 13% increase in hours for a 7% pay raise, for a position with more responsibility and expectations. These managers are either idiots or predators - anyone with an MBA should understand that's a shitty value proposition. Either way, they lost my respect.
I think it's mostly the people who realized the company has deceived them, either in the company values/mission or the "pay for performance" scheme being BS.
There shouldn't be anything wrong with someone just doing their job for the salary. If their performance falls below what's expected (and clearly defined) for their level, then that's a problem. They shouldn't be penalized for not doing extra work when they aren't being rewarded.
Employers need to have compensation models that make sense too. I was once told I could get a promotion if I consistently worked 1 hour longer everyday. That's a 13% increase in hours for a 7% pay raise, for a position with more responsibility and expectations. These managers are either idiots or predators - anyone with an MBA should understand that's a shitty value proposition. Either way, they lost my respect.
I think you hit on some very important points, but there's a couple issues. For one, not every singular duty can clearly defined. That's why many job descriptions will have a clause like "and other duties as assigned." Ultimately, we're hiring teammates in order to solve problems. I want to work with people who try to solve those problems irrespective if it adds to their personal identity or was meticulously defined in their job posting. If people are actively seeking out and solving problems, that's not the same as the transactional mindset I'm talking about. That mindset tends to actively avoid problems because they are work or "not their job". That's also not the same as framing the issue of "if you work X more, you'll get paid Y more".
That time-transaction mindset leads to exactly what you alluded to. "If I spend 13% more time here, I should get 13% more pay." What that doesn't say is if those 13% more hours were spend solving previously unsolved issues for the organization.
That time-transaction mindset leads to exactly what you alluded to. "If I spend 13% more time here, I should get 13% more pay." What that doesn't say is if those 13% more hours were spend solving previously unsolved issues for the organization.
"If people are actively seeking out and solving problems, that's not the same as the transactional mindset I'm talking about."
At least at my company, there's no differentiation. I do look for problems to solve. I have volunteered for extra roles and responsibilities that others didn't want. So why do the the people that are too smart to take on the role of application security champion for the team get promoted, while those security champions are passed over?
It seems you're describing that engagement is better than transactional mindset. That's true from the employer's perspective. That's only true from the employee's perspective if the employer is rewarding that.
The promotion I was talking about was brought up because I was already performing at the next level and was engaged- filling the lead role for the team the prior year and volunteering for additional projects. So yeah, the problems and work that I did would have gone undone or the team's work would be uncoordinated.
'That time-transaction mindset leads to exactly what you alluded to. "If I spend 13% more time here, I should get 13% more pay."'
To be real, that's the company's mindset that they should require you to work an extra 13% for a 7% raise, a rate decrease. The defined expectations for that next level are demonstratably higher. Arguably those higher expectations should be matched with a higher rate not a lower one. This concept is critical to understand
At least at my company, there's no differentiation. I do look for problems to solve. I have volunteered for extra roles and responsibilities that others didn't want. So why do the the people that are too smart to take on the role of application security champion for the team get promoted, while those security champions are passed over?
It seems you're describing that engagement is better than transactional mindset. That's true from the employer's perspective. That's only true from the employee's perspective if the employer is rewarding that.
The promotion I was talking about was brought up because I was already performing at the next level and was engaged- filling the lead role for the team the prior year and volunteering for additional projects. So yeah, the problems and work that I did would have gone undone or the team's work would be uncoordinated.
'That time-transaction mindset leads to exactly what you alluded to. "If I spend 13% more time here, I should get 13% more pay."'
To be real, that's the company's mindset that they should require you to work an extra 13% for a 7% raise, a rate decrease. The defined expectations for that next level are demonstratably higher. Arguably those higher expectations should be matched with a higher rate not a lower one. This concept is critical to understand
>So why do the the people that are too smart to take on the role of application security champion for the team get promoted, while those security champions are passed over?
To put it bluntly, it's likely because the company doesn't value solving security as much as you may think they should. Solving problems is the same as solving valuable problems. If your goal is to be promotable, the problems you should solve should be as close as possible to the items your company values the most. Unfortunately, things like quality and security are not often valued until after things go wrong.
>The defined expectations for that next level are demonstratably higher.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it sure seems like you're saying the performance for the higher pay is above and beyond what you're currently doing. Now whether those expectations are above what you're willing to do for the pay is a personal decision.
>That's only true from the employee's perspective if the employer is rewarding that.
This is probably where we fundamentally disagree. I think employees also benefit from being engaged. I've worked with people on assembly lines who were engaged with work that most would find monotonous. Instead of finding the work some tedium to be put up with, they actually found ways of getting personal fulfillment out of it. Same goes for low-status jobs elsewhere I've worked. I think your sentiment here is really what underlies unhappiness with work and you'd eventually find the same regardless of how handsomely you'd get paid.
Everything you've outlined at this point seems to indicate you work at a company that has a culture that is misaligned with what you're after. But you also aren't willing to take a risk of changing that. I doubt there are any silver bullets here that will make some magic happen without professional or personal risk.
To put it bluntly, it's likely because the company doesn't value solving security as much as you may think they should. Solving problems is the same as solving valuable problems. If your goal is to be promotable, the problems you should solve should be as close as possible to the items your company values the most. Unfortunately, things like quality and security are not often valued until after things go wrong.
>The defined expectations for that next level are demonstratably higher.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it sure seems like you're saying the performance for the higher pay is above and beyond what you're currently doing. Now whether those expectations are above what you're willing to do for the pay is a personal decision.
>That's only true from the employee's perspective if the employer is rewarding that.
This is probably where we fundamentally disagree. I think employees also benefit from being engaged. I've worked with people on assembly lines who were engaged with work that most would find monotonous. Instead of finding the work some tedium to be put up with, they actually found ways of getting personal fulfillment out of it. Same goes for low-status jobs elsewhere I've worked. I think your sentiment here is really what underlies unhappiness with work and you'd eventually find the same regardless of how handsomely you'd get paid.
Everything you've outlined at this point seems to indicate you work at a company that has a culture that is misaligned with what you're after. But you also aren't willing to take a risk of changing that. I doubt there are any silver bullets here that will make some magic happen without professional or personal risk.
"Create an organization of people with this mindset and much of the necessary but un-glorious work never gets done."
I've done a lot of the work that nobody else wants to do. It wasn't any harder than the work others do. So it's not like I want to be rewarded more than them, but just not penalized for it. People who joined the company around the same time as me are managers and leads. I'm a midlevel. I've even filled the role of a lead for a year, but politics made it so my manager couldn't give me a high rating. After 10 years you'd think I'd at least be a senior and have a salary of $100k. I don't think I'm asking for the world here, and certainly many of the other 10 year employees are farther along because they're better than me.
I've done a lot of the work that nobody else wants to do. It wasn't any harder than the work others do. So it's not like I want to be rewarded more than them, but just not penalized for it. People who joined the company around the same time as me are managers and leads. I'm a midlevel. I've even filled the role of a lead for a year, but politics made it so my manager couldn't give me a high rating. After 10 years you'd think I'd at least be a senior and have a salary of $100k. I don't think I'm asking for the world here, and certainly many of the other 10 year employees are farther along because they're better than me.
> I think it might be a bad habit to view everything through the lens of a financial transaction
Unless you want to get promoted into management...
Hire new people to do the inglourious work.
Unless you want to get promoted into management...
Hire new people to do the inglourious work.
>Hire new people to do the inglourious work.
But I'm assuming this means hiring people without the same transactional mindset? Otherwise, there will just be endless employee churn as they realize there's nothing in it for them.
It's hard for me to get on-board with a management approach that effectively says, "I don't want to do this stuff because I want to get paid but it's okay for you to do it because I don't care whether you get paid or not." Either you think the work is worth doing or you don't, but it's a weak leadership style to say it's only worth doing if someone else is doing it. (That's different that strategically assigning duties to get the most out of the team.)
But I'm assuming this means hiring people without the same transactional mindset? Otherwise, there will just be endless employee churn as they realize there's nothing in it for them.
It's hard for me to get on-board with a management approach that effectively says, "I don't want to do this stuff because I want to get paid but it's okay for you to do it because I don't care whether you get paid or not." Either you think the work is worth doing or you don't, but it's a weak leadership style to say it's only worth doing if someone else is doing it. (That's different that strategically assigning duties to get the most out of the team.)
"But I'm assuming this means hiring people without the same transactional mindset?"
Our company tries to outsource the more boring/routine stuff to overseas contractors. The results vary.
Our company tries to outsource the more boring/routine stuff to overseas contractors. The results vary.
Many cultures even in the West look down on that kind of attitude.
I stopped watching 24-hour news channels in 1991 when I saw how the Gulf War coverage was turning so many into zombies. By 2010 I had stopped regularly reading a list of news web sites I'd constructed. HN is about the only thing I read regularly online, and I'm getting less regular with that. I watch local news sometimes but only to sneer at the local weatherman who's job here in central Texas could be performed by one of my pugs. If I'm going to starve to death pushing a pleasure lever it ain't gonna be one connected to the infotainment industry.
Hear hear.
To add, I started treating most information outlets, including HN, as endless faucets of propaganda, misinformation AND misdirection. The outrage is, at best, a farcical play of human dramas unfolding on a stage. To take any of this seriously is borderline pathological.
To add, I started treating most information outlets, including HN, as endless faucets of propaganda, misinformation AND misdirection. The outrage is, at best, a farcical play of human dramas unfolding on a stage. To take any of this seriously is borderline pathological.
I see that Rolf Dobelli has a book on avoiding news now. But he made his point crystal clear in an article he wrote in 2010 already, and put as a freely downloadable PDF on his website. I can't find it there now, but here's a link to that PDF on some other site: https://www.gwern.net/docs/culture/2010-dobelli.pdf
One would think he would also avoid the great majority of books out there too, as they’re just as trashy and toxic as news are.
Gwern's site is a gold mine of various interesting tidbits
If you want to get your life back, read Stolen Focus. It has all these tips and tricks but it does a lot more - it explains why our focus is shot, and dissects the forces behind it.
It's much more sinister than most people suspect.
https://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Focus-Attention-Think-Deeply/d...
I was spending hours per day on Twitter, and then I learned that overusing social media rewires your brain, and you essentially unlearn to digest information in bigger chunks. This book will horrify you, and that's exactly what needs to be done.
And if a book (to listen to) is too much for you to focus on - listen to Ezra Klein's interview with the author, at least: https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/its-not-your-fault-you...
It's much more sinister than most people suspect.
https://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Focus-Attention-Think-Deeply/d...
I was spending hours per day on Twitter, and then I learned that overusing social media rewires your brain, and you essentially unlearn to digest information in bigger chunks. This book will horrify you, and that's exactly what needs to be done.
And if a book (to listen to) is too much for you to focus on - listen to Ezra Klein's interview with the author, at least: https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/its-not-your-fault-you...
This book grabbed my eye too, but then I saw Matthew Sweet on Twitter (@DrMatthewSweet) kept questioning the studies used and suggesting that Hari has cherry picked results to support his point. I've no idea if this was the case but some interesting stuff to look at I think.
A good summary thread is here : https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/147912591089697587...
A good summary thread is here : https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/147912591089697587...
Sure, it's not perfect. The author's flaunting of his privileged lifestyle - taking months off a year to just chill - really ground my gears, but he seemed genuine in his quest to find the reason why he could no longer think clearly.
Does that make him biased - of course, but whether or not the study of how topics get covered faster across decades was peer reviewed is rather unimportant. What I know is that I was able to read half a book in one session, and now I am struggling with a single page.
Does that make him biased - of course, but whether or not the study of how topics get covered faster across decades was peer reviewed is rather unimportant. What I know is that I was able to read half a book in one session, and now I am struggling with a single page.
It is said that Napoleon did not open his mail for 3 weeks after it arrived. His belief was that most issues would resolve themselves and were therefore unimportant for him to attend to.
If you go back and watch the news from 2-3 weeks ago it is amazing how much of it is just nonsense. It's especially hard to go back and watch covid discussions from a year ago and hear just how wrong most information was.
If you go back and watch the news from 2-3 weeks ago it is amazing how much of it is just nonsense. It's especially hard to go back and watch covid discussions from a year ago and hear just how wrong most information was.
Sounds like a great way to get a bench warrant for avoiding a legal summons in today's day and age.
Knuth has a secretary which prioritizes his snail mail. I think filters are a great way to go. I have tried to pre-bin my mail but my tray organizer has just been covered over with assorted cruft, which kinda makes the system untenable until I stop procrastinating...
Knuth has a secretary which prioritizes his snail mail. I think filters are a great way to go. I have tried to pre-bin my mail but my tray organizer has just been covered over with assorted cruft, which kinda makes the system untenable until I stop procrastinating...
The HN forum pushes through many "articles" around improving "productivity", while all the solutions are in plain sight. We justify our bad habits-social media because work colleagues are there (so as not to miss the water cooler conversations) and YouTube because there is a lot of "educational content".
We forget that our actions determine outcomes. The imperative to act lies solely on the individual. Most notifications systems have been designed based on UI/UX dark patterns to "maximise" interaction. Instead, I see the younger generation slipping into a complete lack of concentration.
My way to handle the onslaught of notifications is to keep them switched on for family instead. Work colleagues get a different tone (I use Telegram) because it's cross platform and inherits notification settings from the main applications.
This way, it helps boost my interaction. It offers me tabs to organise my intake, and all high post channels are archived, which I rarely check. I use Inoreader extensively; use Twitter lists to follow specific accounts (that add to my knowledge base) instead of following futile "success stories" or "collaboration" or "publications".
We forget that our actions determine outcomes. The imperative to act lies solely on the individual. Most notifications systems have been designed based on UI/UX dark patterns to "maximise" interaction. Instead, I see the younger generation slipping into a complete lack of concentration.
My way to handle the onslaught of notifications is to keep them switched on for family instead. Work colleagues get a different tone (I use Telegram) because it's cross platform and inherits notification settings from the main applications.
This way, it helps boost my interaction. It offers me tabs to organise my intake, and all high post channels are archived, which I rarely check. I use Inoreader extensively; use Twitter lists to follow specific accounts (that add to my knowledge base) instead of following futile "success stories" or "collaboration" or "publications".
As someone with serious concentration issues (unless I'm hyperfocused, I may have undiagnosed ADHD) I found the biggest help for me was cutting out caffeine.
hmm... caffeine actually helps for ADHD as it's a stimulant. I can only take my meds on weekdays and I've pretty much had life long addiction to either coke, pepsi or red-bull. When I started taking effective medication I basically stopped drinking caffeinated drinks. Just don't need it. I can't take my meds on the weekends, and virtually always I go get something with caffeine in it to help.
it depends - caffeine uses different receptors than are helpful for many people with ADHD, and since it isn’t managed by someone outside, it’s easy to get big swings of usage or other problems due to, well ADHD.
It’s common that folks with ADHD will use Caffeine, it just doesn’t work as well as other stimulants for many people.
It’s common that folks with ADHD will use Caffeine, it just doesn’t work as well as other stimulants for many people.
As I said, I may have ADHD as I have a lot of the classic symptoms, but I have a daughter with diagnosed ADHD and I do not have nearly as significant symptoms as she does. All I know is cutting caffeine improved my general concentration and significantly decreased my anxiety as a bonus.
As a person completely unqualified to diagnose anything but with similar problems, I suspect the real root of your issue might just be the anxiety. If you could address the roots of that, caffeine would probably become irrelevant.
Untreated ADHD is a common cause of anxiety
ADHD travels with friends and anxiety definitely tends to be one of them! When you get a proper diagnosis they try to rule out if it's not simply just anxiety, and or something like obstructive sleep apnea. Both of these can have ADHD-like symptoms. Luckily for me I have all three of these things, so it's been fun teasing apart what's what, but that's why a formal diagnosis is an important process.
Same here. Caffeine helps me getting into the first hyperfocused session, but after that the rest of the day is usually just me floating around. Quitting caffeine has an overall positive effect for my base dopamine level.
Me too, mild sedative helps, like after a beer I can finally concentrate. Makes RTO a problem. :)
Was this on the short term?
No, it's complete. I was drinking 4-5 cups of coffee a day and my brain was a cluttered mess. Now it's just mildly cluttered.
On a much smaller time scale, I have noticed that when I skip my usual morning coffee (say, running out of coffee, going for a run with an accountability buddy, or traveling and staying in a "coffee desert"), I feel remarkably clear-minded and calm, even though I crave the smell, taste, experience of coffee. When I let it last, this mental calmness lasts until early afternoon, when I'd usually get coffee #2 of 2, as the dull withdrawal headache sets in and I chemotactically writhe my way toward increasingly desperate sources of caffeine.
I've been drinking at least 2 cups of coffee ("cups" is a fuzzy measure) for maybe 15 years. Maybe I should power through the withdrawal and discover for myself if I've accidentally been undermining my mental clarity and life quality this whole time, instead of giving myself energy and helping concentration as I'd been assuming.
I've been drinking at least 2 cups of coffee ("cups" is a fuzzy measure) for maybe 15 years. Maybe I should power through the withdrawal and discover for myself if I've accidentally been undermining my mental clarity and life quality this whole time, instead of giving myself energy and helping concentration as I'd been assuming.
I kinda feel the same. I wake up very calm (most days), and in a few minutes, not sure if its only the caffeine, or the mind worrying about the day... I start to "rush" and worry.
Maybe I just got used to the feeling and have to feel it to start working.
Maybe I just got used to the feeling and have to feel it to start working.
Even tea? :(
You might be able to get away with a cup of tea every once in a while, but I tend to be an "in for a penny in for a pound" type of person, so it's complete elimination or 4-5 cups of coffee for me.
To me green tea had a similar effect as coffee. Both feels great and gives huge energy and motivation boost, but at the costs of calmness, clarity and sustainability over the day.
I stopped drinking tea and my daily anxiety halved :)
I try to keep my productivity improvements secret, because any time I announce one -- especially if I also explain why it happened -- I immediately falsify whatever I just said by losing all focus and producing nothing of interest for a while.
This resonates deeply. It has to feel like a secret to me.
So, can you tell us your secret? :)
Not sure, but here are candidates.
Staying healthy.
Documentation, journaling, meditation, reviewing -- they're all different aspect of the same, uh, something.
Thinking and writing a plan before doing anything complicated. Sensing when something might be complicated.
Trusting the right people with the right tasks.
Trading money for time.
Picking my battles well.
Finding prior art.
Knowing when to learn a better way (tool, language).
Knowing when to automate.
Lacking creativity when it comes to leisure.
Staying healthy.
Documentation, journaling, meditation, reviewing -- they're all different aspect of the same, uh, something.
Thinking and writing a plan before doing anything complicated. Sensing when something might be complicated.
Trusting the right people with the right tasks.
Trading money for time.
Picking my battles well.
Finding prior art.
Knowing when to learn a better way (tool, language).
Knowing when to automate.
Lacking creativity when it comes to leisure.
I think routers should have more fine grained settings, so I can block social media during weekdays, HN on weekdays except lunchtime and evening, and allow my children only to access their 5 websites that they need for homework/study during a few hours in the afternoon. This would help me a lot.
A more extreme measure some users here used to take was not access the internet at all during their downtime. When you come home from work simply not use the internet. I guess exceptions can be made for streaming movies/music. Ideally you should download and stock up on these.
I remember some users deliberately not connecting internet to their homes to stick with this. There were also some users who switched to "dumb" phones to reduce distractions. I guess these could work.
I remember some users deliberately not connecting internet to their homes to stick with this. There were also some users who switched to "dumb" phones to reduce distractions. I guess these could work.
even with your router's domain blacklist, it may not be so easy to block all social media (specifically, apps[0]). I don't imagine cigarette manufacturers are keen on making it easier for people to quit smoking either.
[0] https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/tech/facebook-app-and-un...
[0] https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/tech/facebook-app-and-un...
My German router (FritzBox) has some of these options. Blacklist, whitelist, limited time and scheduling.
>Since about 2020... There were no external causes, even the pandemic didn’t affect me, thanks to a nice home office and online work options — so no excuses
It seems strange to disregard the pandemic merely because it didn't impact your work environment. It very likely impacted the ability to do any of their usual activities that took place outside of their home. And even if it didn't, having the entire world go through such a disaster is a reasonable possibility for a subtle or subconscious reactions.
This may not at all have been the cause, but neither is it inconsistent with their eventual solution of drastically reducing news/media consumption. If the awful things going on in the world were in some way impacting motivation & productivity then it certainly makes sense that turning them off might help.
Chalking up the mere possibility of that as "bogus excuses" is extremely dismissive for a global crisis as well, and a bit insulting to people who probably had identical issues that were very much linked to society shutting down combined w/ awful news creeping into any glance towards the outside world. The author's next statement of "“You’ve got to do something about that,” is the right attitude to take when faced with a problem of this sort, but a reason for a problem only becomes a "bogus excuse" if it's used to avoid trying to find a solution, not for its own sake.
It seems strange to disregard the pandemic merely because it didn't impact your work environment. It very likely impacted the ability to do any of their usual activities that took place outside of their home. And even if it didn't, having the entire world go through such a disaster is a reasonable possibility for a subtle or subconscious reactions.
This may not at all have been the cause, but neither is it inconsistent with their eventual solution of drastically reducing news/media consumption. If the awful things going on in the world were in some way impacting motivation & productivity then it certainly makes sense that turning them off might help.
Chalking up the mere possibility of that as "bogus excuses" is extremely dismissive for a global crisis as well, and a bit insulting to people who probably had identical issues that were very much linked to society shutting down combined w/ awful news creeping into any glance towards the outside world. The author's next statement of "“You’ve got to do something about that,” is the right attitude to take when faced with a problem of this sort, but a reason for a problem only becomes a "bogus excuse" if it's used to avoid trying to find a solution, not for its own sake.
Does anyone know how to block websites at something like the router level? I find myself able to get around normal browser-level blockers fairly easily. I'd love to use some parental controls against myself from like 6-5pm on weekdays
A custom DNS provider in the router is probably easiest. Use NextDNS or CloudFlare for Families with controls on, and then give the login for the DNS and the login for your router admin to someone else.
If you have DoH enabled, it's hard. If you don't, with OpenWrt, it's easy enough to configure its DNS server to add IPs to ipsets after a lookup, then configure the firewall to drop those requests over a time window.
> I find myself able to get around normal browser-level blockers fairly easily.
You're still just 30 seconds away from disabling the rule.
> I find myself able to get around normal browser-level blockers fairly easily.
You're still just 30 seconds away from disabling the rule.
If you're willing to be a beta tester - I'll set you up with a free account (see about[0]); I'm open to suggestions/implementing new features based on user demand (e.g. Slowdown as a Service).
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=bishopsmother
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=bishopsmother
Put Adguard Home on a Raspberry Pi, and point your router DNS to it. https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome
Removing social medias reclaimed lots of my life, the absolute peak of my happiness was when I stopped following any news at all.
There's some sort of stigma agaiinst people who don't follow the news but I ask, what positives doesfollowing the news brings to your lifes?
I realized none and there is a huge proven link between following news and anxiety/depression.
Sadly I felt back to watching news with the war in Ukraine.
There's some sort of stigma agaiinst people who don't follow the news but I ask, what positives doesfollowing the news brings to your lifes?
I realized none and there is a huge proven link between following news and anxiety/depression.
Sadly I felt back to watching news with the war in Ukraine.
I've managed to consolidate all my distracted news consumption to HN but indeed I need to break myself from this reflexive habit.
I'm in the same boat! I feel better because my twitchy fingers always lead to learning or discussing something new and interesting, but they're still twitchy fingers.
Ironically this page is a great example of why it’s hard to focus. Unnecessary images, stylization and colors. Unnecessary links to other distracting websites. Flashy flash.
Let the man create the blog he wants to create.
Maybe there's a lesson for him in that comment.
To me, mindfulness meditation helped me a lot with concentration because it was like learning mental aikido, in the sense of not trying to remove invasive information, but redirect it in a way that doesn't affect my focus. Everything stops being so important by default
Switching to text only [1] browsing changed my relationship to
information and vastly improved my focus while using computers. I
highly recommend it.
[1] Text mostly (90+%). Those few occasions I want to see images as part of a web page it's possible to turn that on.
[1] Text mostly (90+%). Those few occasions I want to see images as part of a web page it's possible to turn that on.
do you use any particular browser or extension? or do you mean stuff like gopher/gemini?
On Firefox, setting permissions.default.image in about:config to 2 blocks all images.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Permissions.default.image
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Permissions.default.image
I use w3m a fair bit, because of emacs. Also have "Links" (variant of
Lynx maybe) set up in some environments.
may sound stupid... I recently started to test around with vitamin B supplements, inspired by some NMN interview, refined Vitamin B seemingly turns back age #inmice.
Decided to play around with the real thing first... B3 itself helps me sleep better, Yeast tablets feel like coffee, a full vitamin B complex seems to aleviate focus issues. For the first time in a while I'm able to actually work on something without getting distracted much.
Suffering from some adhd-like symptoms I used to be happy to be distracted. Now I'm even unhappy when a coworker wants something. AND I don't enjoy gaming... which is weird and frustrating because I consider myself addicted to video games.
Suffering from some adhd-like symptoms I used to be happy to be distracted. Now I'm even unhappy when a coworker wants something. AND I don't enjoy gaming... which is weird and frustrating because I consider myself addicted to video games.
can you introduce me to that NMN iceberg? what the heck do these people using that experience, this undoubtedly can't be 100% legit
If you check out youtube, there are a few nmn experiences. They report some benefits without trying to sell anything.
One critic warns though. Nmn if overdosed might suppress methylation which then can lead to shitty outcomes after a few weeks.
Nmn is just refined vitamin b3, thiamine I think?
That's why I decided to try b-complex first (no overdose ). I found it works fine, back pain diminished, mood feels stable.
One critic warns though. Nmn if overdosed might suppress methylation which then can lead to shitty outcomes after a few weeks.
Nmn is just refined vitamin b3, thiamine I think?
That's why I decided to try b-complex first (no overdose ). I found it works fine, back pain diminished, mood feels stable.
For me, reddit was a big hurdle. It was such a time hole I didn't realise but I finally got sick of my reply when my partner asked about what I was reading, it was always: "Nothing"
I deleted facebook years ago for the same reason, but I convinced myself that reddit was different in some capacity, and it is in ways, but after one too many evenings of looking at "Nothing", I'm happy I've kicked it to the curb. Even at work now, I have a ublock rule to block reddit. Occasionally, I find the need to temporarily allow it due to searches on a particular topic, but it's gone as a pastime.
I deleted facebook years ago for the same reason, but I convinced myself that reddit was different in some capacity, and it is in ways, but after one too many evenings of looking at "Nothing", I'm happy I've kicked it to the curb. Even at work now, I have a ublock rule to block reddit. Occasionally, I find the need to temporarily allow it due to searches on a particular topic, but it's gone as a pastime.
How do you replace the technical subreddits though?
Like the Rust subreddit has really good discussion and it's harder to keep up on Zulip, etc.
Like the Rust subreddit has really good discussion and it's harder to keep up on Zulip, etc.
Well intended article that is a long winded recommendation to turn off your phone notifications and stop reading news. It could be a lot shorter. Aaronsw had similar thoughts about the news, back in 2006: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews
It is advice worth following, I think, though not so easy a lot of the time. My main trick for online distraction avoidance is to use separate computers for goofing off and for getting work done. Needless to say, reading HN or posting on it = goofing off.
It is advice worth following, I think, though not so easy a lot of the time. My main trick for online distraction avoidance is to use separate computers for goofing off and for getting work done. Needless to say, reading HN or posting on it = goofing off.
I don't think there is a silver bullet or a tick box solution. You have to want to stop. Change your behaviour.
This line implies that willpower can overcome all of the distractions. However, there are studies that show it's not the case.
Our brain is primordially designed to react to distractions - because it was a matter of survival or death. Media has adapted itself to harness this feature of our brains. To counter it, we have to take out much of the possible avenues to distractions out of our extrapersonal space or sight range (because we're visual creatures, out of sight = out of mind).
For more details, Andrew Huberman has a whole episode on focus and concentration that talks about this.
Our brain is primordially designed to react to distractions - because it was a matter of survival or death. Media has adapted itself to harness this feature of our brains. To counter it, we have to take out much of the possible avenues to distractions out of our extrapersonal space or sight range (because we're visual creatures, out of sight = out of mind).
For more details, Andrew Huberman has a whole episode on focus and concentration that talks about this.
The line can maybe be read that way, but I don't think it implies that. I agree with the other things.
Sometimes there really is - for people who want to focus but find it frustratingly difficult because of their brain chemistry (ADHD or whatever).
For me, it's sleeping enough, nicotine patches, green tea, L-Tyrosine, Avmacol, and no coffee. This regimen has helped me improve my work performance significantly. It doesn't "fix" everything, but it sure makes it so much easier to function and to focus what I want to focus on.
For me, it's sleeping enough, nicotine patches, green tea, L-Tyrosine, Avmacol, and no coffee. This regimen has helped me improve my work performance significantly. It doesn't "fix" everything, but it sure makes it so much easier to function and to focus what I want to focus on.
That sounds great, I've certainly too gone through a better sleep period where I focused on better sleep - no coffee for two years and lots of other measures like that. And it works. That's not a silver bullet, that's hard work. :)
For the last couple of years my sleep pattern has been crazy. Sometimes I would stay up two days in a row to rest my sleep pattern back to 9-5 schedule. I preferred to be sleep deprived as it made my job more interesting.
But lately (since a month ago) I have been thankfully able to maintain a 12/1-8:30 range sleep pattern.
I do a 15 min workout 5 days a week. I have been fasting so I eat a big meal a couple hours before sleeping. Read a book half an hour before sleep.
So far it's been working. Fasting is weight loss reasons. Also helps me personally focus since if I eat too much I get lazy/tired.
Other thing I'll comment on is regarding personal projects. I lay out a plan, when the day begins (weekend) I don't open anything (social media) I just immediately work on this project. Thankfully I can dump the most of the weekend days toward the project.
But lately (since a month ago) I have been thankfully able to maintain a 12/1-8:30 range sleep pattern.
I do a 15 min workout 5 days a week. I have been fasting so I eat a big meal a couple hours before sleeping. Read a book half an hour before sleep.
So far it's been working. Fasting is weight loss reasons. Also helps me personally focus since if I eat too much I get lazy/tired.
Other thing I'll comment on is regarding personal projects. I lay out a plan, when the day begins (weekend) I don't open anything (social media) I just immediately work on this project. Thankfully I can dump the most of the weekend days toward the project.
Sounds awesome. Thanks for the inspiration.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you have trouble doing this on your own, an alternative often not considered is going away to camp for the summer.
Quitting news had a huge positive effect of my live. Besides the benefits of better focus I'm much less (if at all) angry and anxious. The papers and news on TV that once did neutral coverage now act like the rainbow press. Every click is measured, so the boring stuff vanishes. FUD and politics everywhere.
I'm still too much on HN, but since I strictly browse to https://news.ycombinator.com/over?points=200 it's much better.
I'm still too much on HN, but since I strictly browse to https://news.ycombinator.com/over?points=200 it's much better.
I really enjoyed reading this post as I experimented with something similar 3 months ago which has drastically changed my mood/attention span:
- removed all social media apps from phone
- lock down all access to apps (screen time) and not know the password (give it to someone else)
- only allow photos, podcasts, spotify, navigation and the dial/SMS app
Screentime went from a few hours per day to about 15 minutes or so. But it has also changed my mood for the better. I still have to find a way to do the same thing on my desktop which is a lot harder (I need a browser)
- removed all social media apps from phone
- lock down all access to apps (screen time) and not know the password (give it to someone else)
- only allow photos, podcasts, spotify, navigation and the dial/SMS app
Screentime went from a few hours per day to about 15 minutes or so. But it has also changed my mood for the better. I still have to find a way to do the same thing on my desktop which is a lot harder (I need a browser)
This is very surface level. These tips can help for periods of time, but they won't last forever.
I think the things that do change your perspective forever though are philosophy and even other's philosophies on attention in general.
Reading books like "Four arguments for the elimination of television" and "Amusing ourselves to death" changed how I view our attention.
Reading older books like "tao te ching" or "meditations" gave me perspective into how much my attention matters.
I think the things that do change your perspective forever though are philosophy and even other's philosophies on attention in general.
Reading books like "Four arguments for the elimination of television" and "Amusing ourselves to death" changed how I view our attention.
Reading older books like "tao te ching" or "meditations" gave me perspective into how much my attention matters.
I'm proud of myself for reading the article to the end without distraction. I have been news free since the 2020 US election results were broadcast so I agree that a news diet is an immense boost for productivity. Why worry about things you can't really change. If it's important enough, trust me, you'll find out about it. I also use screen time to limit social media apps, but they are truly the crack cocaine of the the 21st century.
So basically block the entirety of Reddit, which I agree would be good for all humankind.
> which I agree would be good for all humankind.
I disagree with that statement. I know it's fashionable on HN to spit on Reddit, but for all its flaws, Reddit also birthed fantastic communities that are hard to replicate somewhere else due to the network effect, e.g. /r/WarCollege, /r/hoggit, /r/AskHistorians, /r/Rust, /r/LinguisticsHumor, etc. – come for the dumb memes, stay for the niche communities.
I disagree with that statement. I know it's fashionable on HN to spit on Reddit, but for all its flaws, Reddit also birthed fantastic communities that are hard to replicate somewhere else due to the network effect, e.g. /r/WarCollege, /r/hoggit, /r/AskHistorians, /r/Rust, /r/LinguisticsHumor, etc. – come for the dumb memes, stay for the niche communities.
But surely these are just commercialized versions of forums, the latter being a far more versatile medium to have discussions on? Reddit has monopolized the entire forum industry and ruined online communities.
If you are talking about default subreddits then sure but there are some great communities on reddit that I think are great pieces of the internet. A lot of which I'm sure exist because people don't need 100 different forum accounts to access them. Also generally, I see no difference between reddit and Hacker News except Hacker News drips with a unique brand of elitist smarm you can't get elsewhere.
Great article and important message.
> Lifting the phone should not unlock it. This setting is called “Display & Brightness/Activate on Lift” on the iPhone
On my phone it's called "Raise to Wake". I didn't know that you could turn this off, but I just did so because it's inconsistent and sometimes doesn't work. I like predictable behavior, even at a minor cost to convenience.
> Lifting the phone should not unlock it. This setting is called “Display & Brightness/Activate on Lift” on the iPhone
On my phone it's called "Raise to Wake". I didn't know that you could turn this off, but I just did so because it's inconsistent and sometimes doesn't work. I like predictable behavior, even at a minor cost to convenience.
It always seems odd to me when it is literally writers or other online content creators who are complaining about being distracted by other writers or online content creators.
I'd love to see someone write a blog post about why they think their own content is good for others to consume while the content that they were willfully consuming was not.
I'd love to see someone write a blog post about why they think their own content is good for others to consume while the content that they were willfully consuming was not.
the "zero news diet" should really be done more often. For myself, it would be "zero Twitter diet".
I managed to completely stop using Twitter by removing all my follows. Then when I'd mindlessly open twitter I'd be presented with a blank screen. After a few days I just stopped opening it.
This is a very smart strategy. You effectively trained yourself that there was no reward to be had from the behaviour and so broke the habit. Someone should make a browser extension that does this for other sites, essentially allows the masthead and other boring trim to load but removes all of the content.
The browser extension kinda already exists — I've accidentally done that to a few sites with Adblock Plus.
I put Twitter on my router's domain blacklist. The only way for me to read Twitter is through nitter.net, which is not much fun and readonly, so there is no risk to get addicted.
Zero HN diet would be the most effective.
[deleted]
During the aforementioned train ride, I cancelled my subscription to my formerly favorite online news portal (the German “Spiegel-Online”) and deleted the associated app from my iPhone. I used the initial motivation to cancel additional news subscriptions and deleted the related apps from my smartphone and iPad so that I wouldn’t be tempted.
Here is what he should have done: replaced his smart phone with a dumb phone if possible. It does not mean he gets rid of the smart phone but deactivate it. And have two computers: one for business and one for leisure and keep in different rooms. If possible disconnect the work computer from the web. That way there are fewer possible distractions. It's not enough to just remove apps. The device itself is addictive.
Here is what he should have done: replaced his smart phone with a dumb phone if possible. It does not mean he gets rid of the smart phone but deactivate it. And have two computers: one for business and one for leisure and keep in different rooms. If possible disconnect the work computer from the web. That way there are fewer possible distractions. It's not enough to just remove apps. The device itself is addictive.
I collection of links and quotes on stop reading "news"
We are what we read: https://tinygem.org/about#stopnews
Entire TinyGem service was created with the purpose of collecting content worth reading.
We are what we read: https://tinygem.org/about#stopnews
Entire TinyGem service was created with the purpose of collecting content worth reading.
One thing that’s worked for me is going old fashioned and getting my news in a daily 20-minute news video recap, not unlike the “old days” of watching the evening nightly newscast of your choice. These are often on YouTube nowadays, so you don’t even need a set schedule. I’ve done this with a Spanish language daily newscast (mainly to keep my Spanish sharp), and, unless there is something going on that requires my further investigation, I’m made aware of the big stories that any informed person should probably be aware of, and then can go about my day being productive. Only a 20 minute sacrifice. Just an idea if you feel you’ve let news improperly invade your time!
[deleted]
I think the follow-up needs some more elaborating.
"I won a lot of time back so that I can go back to writing 15 novels" is a little off putting for many.
Start simple with usage of your reclaimed time. Put your phone in another room and watch a 2 hour movie, uninterrupted. That's a thing a lot of people today can't even do, so already an accomplishment.
Even pure boredom, doing absolutely nothing, is healing. The point is that you have uninterrupted time, it doesn't matter if you spent it "productively".
"I won a lot of time back so that I can go back to writing 15 novels" is a little off putting for many.
Start simple with usage of your reclaimed time. Put your phone in another room and watch a 2 hour movie, uninterrupted. That's a thing a lot of people today can't even do, so already an accomplishment.
Even pure boredom, doing absolutely nothing, is healing. The point is that you have uninterrupted time, it doesn't matter if you spent it "productively".
Extra tip for iOS/macOS/iPadOS users: go to Settings / Accessibility / Display & Text Size / Color Filters and enable the Grayscale filter.
I did not see it listed here, so I will mention Digital Minimalism by Cal Newport, who, among other things, discusses news in particular, but digital distractions in general and proposes a way to deal with it by changing our relationship with technology.
I am currently going through the steps proposed by him and while not easy, it generally supports the point of the article.
That said, it is not just news.
edit: Just in case. No connection to the author other than being a happy reader.
I am currently going through the steps proposed by him and while not easy, it generally supports the point of the article.
That said, it is not just news.
edit: Just in case. No connection to the author other than being a happy reader.
I really like his message but I feel each of his books could be a blog post. Good blog posts, but nevertheless something you could read in a few minutes. Instead you have to buy/borrow a $10 book, then he rubs it in by talking about how productive he as he has written so many books.
I think you have a point here and brevity matters. At the same time, would his advice be more credible if he was struggling the way I was with various distractions ( and I am still in a lot better place than an average internet user these days )? Alternatively, would a blogpost take away from his point about digital distraction?
Amusingly, as a result of all this re-arranging I did as a result of the book, I restarted writing a book for my kid. Not a lot, but a little bit each day should an inspiration strike.
It helps to allow mind wander a little.
TLDR: I don't disagree with your point, but I think it may have been a conscious decision beyond fiscal considerations.
Amusingly, as a result of all this re-arranging I did as a result of the book, I restarted writing a book for my kid. Not a lot, but a little bit each day should an inspiration strike.
It helps to allow mind wander a little.
TLDR: I don't disagree with your point, but I think it may have been a conscious decision beyond fiscal considerations.
I recently switched Twitter to strictly timeline and that pretty much fixed Twitter for me. I still use it but it no more doom-scrolling.
[deleted]
I went on a zero news diet a while back and have recently got back on this diet again. It’s one of the best decisions I’ve made for my productivity.
For those with fear of missing out on current affairs — events are really only worth knowing about if someone has made you aware of it in real life. Otherwise it’s likely not that important.
For those with fear of missing out on current affairs — events are really only worth knowing about if someone has made you aware of it in real life. Otherwise it’s likely not that important.
[deleted]
You're on HNews?
"...I cancelled my subscription to my formerly favourite online news portal (the German “Spiegel-Online”)..."
Very good. Spiegel Online - unfortunately - became terribly bad over the last years, with click-bait headlines, sensational reporting as well as pushing fear & anxiety throughout their articles.
Very good. Spiegel Online - unfortunately - became terribly bad over the last years, with click-bait headlines, sensational reporting as well as pushing fear & anxiety throughout their articles.
Do you have a different German newspaper you would recommend now? I used to read der Spiegel regularly to keep my German from getting too rusty.
For me, the zero news diet would be really hard to apply to HN. Any suggestions (in addition to noprocrast)?
Use one of the Havkernews Digest services to get a periodic email. Fomo is the biggest reason for me to keep checking back.
try check only 1x weekly AND only the "top 10%"
go https://hckrnews.com/ -> set "top 10%"
go https://hckrnews.com/ -> set "top 10%"
I've seen this one before, but never tried it. I'll give it a try. Thanks!
I had a similar problem. My solution is to go offline in the evening- 3 hours before going to sleep.
Is there a service that gives thorough but weekly/bi-weekly news and you can select what subjects it's about. Well written, concise, factual (exclude all opinion pieces, celeb/sports news, and shopping stuff.. just tech, science, and business)
Sounds like a wide selection of magazine subscription like Nature, Science, quanta magazine, nautilus, natural geographic, wallstreet journal, and maybe the economist.
I disabled chrome and youtube for most of the time. Unless I am looking for something specific, I keep them disabled. This alone reduced by HN scrolling and YouTube binging by factor of 2-3 hrs/day!
Finally I have free time to relax and do nothing!
Finally I have free time to relax and do nothing!
Same here - I installed "Distract Me Not" on my Firefox instances and it has been a great improvement.
I use sites like https://biztoc.com once or twice a day and I'm more or less done with news. Just make sure you only read the headlines ;)
Get one of those browser extensions that limits your use. This at least tells you how much time you've spent. It's easy to get carried away reading one long form article after another.
A book and a half per year? Neither asimov nor herbert could do that. Maybe jules verne? No. Even if tech is different than SF, I strongly doubt the quality of such high book/y delivery
What I did is tell my boss about my difficulty and now they check in on me twice a day to look at my progress. I hate being micro managed, but really helped me to work on delivering.
I’m not sure if this was sarcasm, but if not …
It’s a dystopian nightmare, that you would voluntarily request this.
It’s a dystopian nightmare, that you would voluntarily request this.
Lol I hate it but the extra eyes makes me focus.
Ok. So the author tells us that news is bad for us. Isn’t that well known since like ten years ago? When opening the article I had been hoping for something new...
...if y’all catch my drift here ;)
...if y’all catch my drift here ;)
Get out and ride a bike or something. More blood to the brain; no digital distraction. Take a shower and bam! productive. That's how it works for me.
agreed the days where I get out for a morning bike ride are some of my best
The one thing I really like after switching from Android to Iphone was the consistent interface to be able to shut off all notifications in one screen.
It should frankly be criminal to predate on user's attention to the extent that most popular apps do.
I keep my phone on DnD 100% of the time and ruthlessly disable notifications, but have a semi-smart watch that vibrates for texts/calls. I'm still addicted to checking my news feeds but at least they aren't literally yanking my attention.
I keep my phone on DnD 100% of the time and ruthlessly disable notifications, but have a semi-smart watch that vibrates for texts/calls. I'm still addicted to checking my news feeds but at least they aren't literally yanking my attention.
Hard for me since I'm addicted to my own app that I'd have to be productive for.
> Install a swipe keyboard app
iPhone keyboards have built-in swipe typing now.
iPhone keyboards have built-in swipe typing now.
I'm doomed. Did not read more than the head line.
》CNN, WSJ, and BBC
That is a news equivalent of junk food. Clickbait partisan outrage generator.
I would suggest some independent podcast with daily or weekly summaries. Much higher information density.
That is a news equivalent of junk food. Clickbait partisan outrage generator.
I would suggest some independent podcast with daily or weekly summaries. Much higher information density.
Given the junk food analogy, things with much higher information density would be like drinking neat olive oil.
I think a more useful thing is to filter news down to only that news which is important rather than merely engaging, and leave engagement for either friends or hobbies with a ratio depending on your personal level of introversion/extroversion.
I think a more useful thing is to filter news down to only that news which is important rather than merely engaging, and leave engagement for either friends or hobbies with a ratio depending on your personal level of introversion/extroversion.
I just checked front side of CNN, first 6 titles are about some unofficial trip. They do not know if it will happen, what will happen, where it may happen, what that means...
There is no value for me there. Even if I invest time into filtering, there is no value to gain from that. Maybe it is important, but I am not policy maker or investor, it is not important right now for me!
I can find out about that visit week later, after it actually happened. Without all the speculations and opinions. And since it will be podcast I can listen while running or exercising, and with much lower investment from my side.
There is no value for me there. Even if I invest time into filtering, there is no value to gain from that. Maybe it is important, but I am not policy maker or investor, it is not important right now for me!
I can find out about that visit week later, after it actually happened. Without all the speculations and opinions. And since it will be podcast I can listen while running or exercising, and with much lower investment from my side.
I think you've underestimated what I mean by filtering in this case: unless you're a politician, almost literally all political news is pointless; unless you are a game developer or unsatisfied with your VR headset, literally all news about VR headsets is pointless; there's no point watching a weather forecast for any place you are not going to be in; unless you're an investor or looking to invest or borrow, financial news is pointless; unless you're in the royal family or selling memorabilia, gossip about any royal family is worthless; …
Does CNN have any content that's genuinely important to you?
But the argument also applies to podcasts: no value in any fact-based podcast if you don't act on the information it gives you, just as there's no point in fiction-based podcasts if they don't entertain you.
Does CNN have any content that's genuinely important to you?
But the argument also applies to podcasts: no value in any fact-based podcast if you don't act on the information it gives you, just as there's no point in fiction-based podcasts if they don't entertain you.
BBC less so, I think.
thanx - pragmatic collection of suggestions
Oh irony, a post about overcoming distraction gets 232+ comments.
I realise I'm responding to this far too late for anyone to actually take notice, but I'm gonna do it anyway because there is a major criticism I have of the article: that all news is bad.
I think the issue here is not the problem with news in itself but rather the consumption of news. I think what is problematic is that people are consuming news like they would consume posts on a social media platform in that they're endlessly scrolling few news stories, and keep checking the app to make sure they're on top of everything that is happening. And I completely understand how problematic this is. However, that is not to say that news itself is bad.
There are several reasons that lead me to come to this conclusion. While I'm sure not everything in the news might not be directly relevant to you, I think it helps you make better life choices when you know the state of the economy, and issues others are facing. But, I think, most importantly: it is democratically empowering to be aware of the news. Let's take the UK system of government as an example. Some things are obvious: we vote for our representatives (MPs) every 5 years at the most, and this is one opportunity to influence government but its not the only one. We can: write letters to our MPs; create, and sign petitions; join pressure groups; protest; take industrial action etc. But we can only do this effectively when we have a good awareness of current affairs. Additionally, in the UK we also vote for our local government as well. This can include councillors, and (if your area voted for it) directly elected mayors. I hear many people complain about what their local council are doing, but a lot of these people don't even vote for any councillors. I once went for a coffee, and told the person at the till that I was volunteering at the council election. His response? "I didn't even know there was an election on today." Many of us are fortunate to live in countries with the right to vote amongst other civil liberties. We ought to use them effectively in order to improve living standards for us all.
On the topic of how we consume news, if we feel it is unhealthy to scroll through a constantly updated app, we can turn to bulletins instead. In the UK, the BBC produce half-hour bulletins on weekdays at 1, 6, and 10 o'clock (shorter bulletins also exist at similar times on the weekend). You could watch, say, the 6 o'clock news in the evening, and then be done with news for the day. You could also read a newspaper. This doesn't have to be in print as some newspaper websites are either not updated frequently (e.g. The London Times/Sunday Times which is only updated for major breaking news, or in the evening to give articles for tomorrow's paper), or provide a webpage that just shows you what was printed in that day's edition of the print newspaper (e.g. The Guardian/Observer).
I think the issue here is not the problem with news in itself but rather the consumption of news. I think what is problematic is that people are consuming news like they would consume posts on a social media platform in that they're endlessly scrolling few news stories, and keep checking the app to make sure they're on top of everything that is happening. And I completely understand how problematic this is. However, that is not to say that news itself is bad.
There are several reasons that lead me to come to this conclusion. While I'm sure not everything in the news might not be directly relevant to you, I think it helps you make better life choices when you know the state of the economy, and issues others are facing. But, I think, most importantly: it is democratically empowering to be aware of the news. Let's take the UK system of government as an example. Some things are obvious: we vote for our representatives (MPs) every 5 years at the most, and this is one opportunity to influence government but its not the only one. We can: write letters to our MPs; create, and sign petitions; join pressure groups; protest; take industrial action etc. But we can only do this effectively when we have a good awareness of current affairs. Additionally, in the UK we also vote for our local government as well. This can include councillors, and (if your area voted for it) directly elected mayors. I hear many people complain about what their local council are doing, but a lot of these people don't even vote for any councillors. I once went for a coffee, and told the person at the till that I was volunteering at the council election. His response? "I didn't even know there was an election on today." Many of us are fortunate to live in countries with the right to vote amongst other civil liberties. We ought to use them effectively in order to improve living standards for us all.
On the topic of how we consume news, if we feel it is unhealthy to scroll through a constantly updated app, we can turn to bulletins instead. In the UK, the BBC produce half-hour bulletins on weekdays at 1, 6, and 10 o'clock (shorter bulletins also exist at similar times on the weekend). You could watch, say, the 6 o'clock news in the evening, and then be done with news for the day. You could also read a newspaper. This doesn't have to be in print as some newspaper websites are either not updated frequently (e.g. The London Times/Sunday Times which is only updated for major breaking news, or in the evening to give articles for tomorrow's paper), or provide a webpage that just shows you what was printed in that day's edition of the print newspaper (e.g. The Guardian/Observer).
Duh.
- setting long passwords to social media that aren't autofilled (saved in bitwarden) and logging out after each session
- nerfing addicting parts of webapps (plugins which block the facebook news feed but allow messaging/groups helped a TON)
- forbidding dedicated social media apps and only using "worse" internet sites
- router DNS blockers, even if I can get around them, the act of having to bypass it raises my awareness I'm doing something subpar for myself