November 30th, 2016 · 30 comments
The Other MIT in My Life
One of the most persistent and popular strategies in the online productivity community is the notion of tackling your most important thing (MIT) first thing in the morning.
The motivation is self-evident. Our days are increasingly filled with distraction and unexpected disruptions. If you make a point of doing one important thing before exposing yourself to that onslaught you can ensure that you make continual progress on things that matter .
I’m not sure about where the idea originated. My research suggests it was adapted over a decade ago from Julie Morgenstern’s book Never Check Email in the Morning by Lifehacker editor Gina Trapani. I first heard about MITs through Leo Babauta (a major inspiration) in the early days of Study Hacks, but continue, to this day, to hear people talk about their commitment to the strategy.
Here’s the thing: I don’t want to dismiss this advice, as I know it has helped many people transition from chaos to less chaos. But I do want to urge those who are serious about their effectiveness to look beyond this suggestion.
It’s amateur ball. The pros play a game with more serious rules…
Read more »
November 23rd, 2016 · 31 comments
My Curmudgeonly Musings Go National
On Sunday, I published an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that social media can cause more harm than good for your career.
The core of my argument is that the professional benefits of social media are being overemphasized (I don’t buy this idea that suddenly Twitter and Facebook are the main channels through which talent is recognized and opportunities spread), while the professional costs of social media are being underemphasized (see: Deep Work).
As indicated in the above screenshot, this generated some discussion.
Of the different reactions that made it onto my radar, the one I found most interesting was the question of how to define “social media” in the context of these types of cost/benefits analyses. (See, for example, the thoughtful self-analysis in this Hacker News thread.)
I think it’s worth me taking the time to clarify my thinking on this issue.
Read more »
November 16th, 2016 · 26 comments
Earlier this month, a group of researchers from Albert-Laszlo Barabasi’s circle of network scientists published an important paper in the journal Science. Its nondescript title, “Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact,” obfuscates its exciting content: a massive big-data study that dissects the publication careers of over 2800 physicists to determine the combination of factors that best predicts their probability of publishing high impact papers.
As you might expect, this endeavor caught my attention.
A high-level summary of the researchers’ results highlights two major findings:
Read more »
November 11th, 2016 · 24 comments
Earlier this summer, the beloved writer Neil Gaiman was a guest on Late Night with Seth Meyers to promote The View from the Cheap Seats.
At one point in the interview, Meyers asked Gaiman about boredom. Here was Gaiman’s response:
“I think it’s about where ideas come from, they come from day dreaming, from drifting, that moment when you’re just sitting there…”
“The trouble with these days is that it’s really hard to get bored. I have 2.4 million people on Twitter who will entertain me at any moment…it’s really hard to get bored.”
What’s the solution? Gaiman adds:
Read more »
November 7th, 2016 · 31 comments
The Lesser of Two Evils
In the early fall of 1848, a little-known congressman from the frontier of Illinois set off to Massachusetts to address fellow members of his political party, the Whigs.
His name was Abraham Lincoln.
To put Lincoln’s trip in context, it’s important to remember that the issue dominating the 1848 presidential election was the expansion of slavery into the new territory won in the Mexican War. The Democratic candidate, Lewis Cass, was in favor of extending slavery to these new territories. The stance of the Whig candidate, Zachary Taylor, was less clear, though it was generally assumed he would oppose the expansion.
This assumption was not enough, however, for the strongly anti-expansion Massachusetts Whigs. Taylor was a slaveholder and his refusal to definitively reject expansion made him, in their eyes, a sub-optimal presidential candidate — so they refused to support his nomination, and, during the summer of 1848, became riled up by Charles Sumner, a particularly well-spoken and energized young man who was pushing his fellow party members to vote instead for a dark horse third party candidate, Martin Van Buren, who was emphatically against slavery.
Here’s Sumner talking to the Whigs in Worcester in June, 1848:
“I hear the old saw that ‘we must take the least of two evils’…for myself, if two evils are presented to me, I will take neither.”
This should sound familiar.
Read more »