Full absorption or getting “hooked in”
There are some classes of generative work that require long uninterrupted stretches, during which your mind can be exclusively preoccupied with a single task. Much has been written about this idea. For instance, Paul Graham’s excellent essay “Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule“, and Cal Newport’s Book Deep Work [1].
For the most part, those resources focus on the dimension of scheduling: when you are allocating time, you need to plan long uninterrupted blocks to focus, or you’ll never have enough mental space to make progress “maker time” projects. This is absolutely correct.
However it also strikes me that this is only part of the equation. In addition to scheduling long work blocks, there’s a psychological component. If you’ve cleared away all the interruptions, but you’re distracted by considerations coming up in your own mind, or you procrastinate for the whole period, you’re not going to get the benefits. You’re not going to create very much. You need to be able to become engrossed in what you’re doing, so that it takes up your full attention.
Whether a person becomes engrossed in this way, is mostly a matter of the task and of the person. People tend to become fully engaged in domains that are compelling or interesting to them. [2]
But I also posit that there is a learnable skill in this area: a skill of learning to find what’s interesting interesting in a domain, figuring out how to get “hooked in”.
<Digression for a little bit of learning theory>
I think that this is the key skill for learning new things. If you are engrossed in or “hooked into” your subject matter, you’ll keep churning on it, or tinkering with it. You’ll work past the things that you’re stuck on. Making progress is far from effortless, but it is automatic. You’ll end up spending a lot of hours working in your domain, just as a matter of course.
(Certainly I find, that when I am in this state, I’ll get up to take a break, but I’ll keep thinking as I do, and soon find myself back at my keyboard typing out the new ideas I just had.)
In contrast, if you don’t have this kind of engagement with the material, learning anything substantial is near impossible. Learning anything hard requires many, many hours of cognitive effort. Trying to slog through, force yourself to focus, hour by hour, is a losing game.
You need to be pulled by your subject matter, not be trying to push yourself into it.
</digression>
I’ve started trying to learn more math and programming, lately, and to build up enough facility that I can learn those subjects in a reasonable amount of time. I think that my ability to get hooked in, and keep churning on the material is the first order factor of my success.
So I want to explicitly build this muscle.
Plan
Here’s my initial plan.
1. Daily habitual work
I’m going to start working every day at 9:30 AM, if not earlier. I’m expecting to start earlier than 9:30, most days, since I’ve been waking up around 6:00 AM. But I’m intentionally setting a back-stop start time that is much later than my intended wake up time, so that I can build a habit that is robust sleep disruptions. I’ll have several hours of slack in the morning.
I’m also making a point not to take any meetings (with the exception of tutoring), before 12:30 PM. So at minimum, I’ll have a 3 hour uninterrupted block every day, and often longer, for starting earlier, or for going later into the day (when I don’t have meetings).
I just have to start at or before 9:30, though. If I’m not feeling it, or I don’t want to work, for some reason, then I’ll stop.
2. Journal, every day, about the quality of my focus
After every long work period like that, I’m going to take some notes, maybe only a few sentences, about how it went and what was different about today. My goal is to become conscious of and feel out the gradients and contours of my full absorption.
My hope is to first increase my capacity at getting hooked in, and then to gradually increase my attention span.
3. Prioritize my projects, with another person, on a weekly basis
(I think this is probably mostly idiosyncratic to me.) One of the biggest blockers that prevents me from getting fully engrossed in any one thing, is that I’m usually trying to make progress on a number of projects, all of which are important to me, in the same period of weeks.
Often, I’ll start to feel deeply into a thing that I’m working on (say, some math), and I’ll get a sense of how much of it there is to learn or do. And I’ll experience some agitation and resistance, as some part of me is trying to “hold onto” all of the things that I want to do and accomplish over the next week, or month, or year. Part of me has a (reasonable) fear that if I drop the tracking of those other learning goals (in my mental/physiological “cashe”), then they won’t come to pass. This leaves me unwilling to let go of those goals to give my full attention to any one of them, and so I default to a sort of “skimming the surface” fantasizing that can, in some sense, hold all the things that I want to do.
(This, of course, rhymes with the problem that Getting Things Done aims to solve. But I have decently robust GTD like capture systems. But I in fact have limited capacity, and many priorities, and I can’t actually hit them all, and I’m not sure what to do about that. This is a contender for my top Hamming bug.)
My current, somewhat stop-gap-y plan for this, is to take some time once a week and make space for all of those competing desires and goals. And then, having made space for all of this, I’m going to prioritize which smallish goals I’m going to focus on for that week, and also, which goals I specifically deciding not to focus on for that week.
I expect this to be hard for me on a number of counts. But one of the main problems is that by default, the container of “a week” will sort of fall apart and become leaky. More or less, I’m apt refactor my local goals in the middle of a week, and/or extend them into the next week.
So to maintain the container, I think that I provide this some structure by meeting with another person once a week, first to review the previous week, and then to prioritize for the next one.
Ultimately, I think that I want to be doing this kind of prioritization on longer than the timescale of a week, but I’m going to start with this.
[1] As as side note, I’ve been pretty unimpressed with Cal Newport’s books. They seem to me to be mostly fluff. However, the topics that he writes about are often extremely important. I’d almost say that you shouldn’t bother to read his books, but you should absolutely read the titles, and enough of the first chapter to know what he means by each title.
[2] “Interestingness”, of course, isn’t some fundamental essence. It’s made of parts, like “How good are the feedback loops here?”, or “how much facility does the person have in this domain?*” (this may just be a subset of the “feedback loops” consideration), and and “how viscerally goal-relevant, is this domain to this person?
* – eg if every step of every proof is a struggle, then math will feel frustrating, not worth the effort for the reward. In contrast, if one is sometimes able to fly through steps rapidly, and get to some elegant truth with only a little work, learning more math becomes more interesting.)