pomodoro brilliance: part 1 (why it works)

working in pomodoros has provided and continues to provide me with a ton of value. there are a couple of different levels of this and it’s evolved over time, but before getting to that, here’s how/why they work. if you’re unsure of what a pomodoro is check out this 2.5 minute video before reading on.

• pomodoros work because they are based on the natural patterns of the human brain. our brains are ineffective when they are expected put to work for indefinite stretches of time. my guess is that this is an evolutionary trait that has something to do with hunting for small amounts of time, which requires high focus, and gathering, which requires low focus. just a guess. turns out, our brains are most effective, and able to stay effective for longer spans of time, when we alternate between stretches of focus and non-focus (sidenote: imo, this is why the worlds of standardized tests and the knowledge work are so bad).
• additionally, pomodoros support focus by creating specific time for distractions. this allows you to really focus during the focused times. when you don’t know when you’re going to take your next break, there’s no reason to not check your texts (or facebook, instagram, email, whatever) every time one pops up. however, if you know that you’ll be checking regularly, the need to check incessantly diminishes.

now the highest value that pomodoros provided me was during my thesis process. but i’m out of time so i’ll have to write part 2 of this tomorrow!

coming soon: the burnout vs hate your job questionnaire

a week or two ago, i stumbled upon this article: are you burnt out (or do you just really hate your job)?. it’s not actually that clear about what burn out is, but i love the idea of being able to determine the different between burn out and hating your job.

so on that note, i think building a short questionnaire or quiz could be helpful for jungle. ross and i talk to people every week (maybe even everyday) who hate what they do for work. it’s unbelievable how many people feel this way. maybe 1 in 10 people that i’ve met in the two years since finishing grad school have said that they didn’t hate their work.

some hate the work itself (meaningless number crunching, pointless or destructive selling of services or unecessary/luxury goods). some hate the environment (terrible bosses, bad management, shitty organizational culture).

now on the other hand, there are some people who actually would like their work if they weren’t so burnt out. many of my nonprofit friends love what they do, but they have to do so much of it that they hate it. or they hate their lives because of the overwork. but that’s still a minority reality.

ok so why does the difference between burnout and hating your job matter?

two reasons:

1. bell hooks explains in all about love that how we feel at and about our work is a fundamental part of our well-being (see quote below). because we spend so much time doing it, it has a pervasive impact on our time outside of work. when you love your work, the time you spend there allows you to create a positive feedback loop of wellness. the converse is also true. so hating your work/job negatively impacts many parts of your life and diminishes your capacity to be well outside of work. often this is because you have to spend so much energy recovering from and steeling yourself up for work that you’re left with less energy and motivation to bring goodness into the world. this is why “loving what you do” is not a nicety.
2. i’m beginning to believe that if we can get a large enough mass of people who recognize that they don’t have to work jobs they hate, we can actually undermine the corrupt work structures that allow those shitty jobs to exist in the first place.

so. quiz coming soon.

relevant quotes

The practice of love takes time. Without a doubt, the way we work in this society leaves individuals with little time when they are not physically and emotionally tired to work on the art of loving.
—bell hooks, all about love, chapter: mutuality: the heart of love

[insert other quote about how hooks thought her friends were crazy that she wanted a loving work environment]

religion gives people structure to do things they should do, but wouldn’t otherwise get around to

i’m really into alain de botton these days. earlier this week, i listened to the on being episode in which he was interviewed. among  many brilliant things he said, one great point he made was about how organization religion gives people structure they wouldn’t have otherwise had. and that that’s a good thing. his point developed like this (generally):

people, more often than not, know what things they need to do to be well. however, left to their own devices, we simply won’t or don’t do those things. we simply just don’t get around to them. for example, most people know that forgiveness is an important part of having healthy, lasting relationships. unfortunately, those same people may just not ever get around to doing the forgiving. or, another example he gave, was that people know that celebrating the seasons is a good idea. however, without some sort of outside prompting, most of us will just flow right through the year.

religion gives people excuses (structure) to do things they otherwise wouldn’t have gotten around to. holidays, collective rituals, and spiritual calendars give us space do those things. for example, in jainism, kshamavani is the annual day of forgiveness. description from wiki:

On this sacred day, every member of the Jain community approaches everyone, irrespective of religion, and begs for forgiveness for all their faults or mistakes, committed either knowingly or unknowingly. Thus relieved of the heavy burden hanging over their head of the sins of yesteryears, they start life afresh, living in peaceful co-existence with others.

 it’s a lot easier to go out and find the person you need to forgive about something when everyone else is doing it and it has a designated day.

as much as i have rejected the organized religion of my childhood (christianity), alain does have a good point here. as he does with many other things… more posts on that on being episode coming soon.

why i don't read fiction

earlier this week i was talking with my friend spencer and he suggested a pair of books to add to my reading list. i said that i likely wouldn’t read them. he asked why. i responded ‘because they’re fiction.’ he said we should talk about it later, but that he disagreed. 

he and i will probably talk about it later, but the reason i don’t read fiction is because i genuinely feel like i don’t have time for it. for better or worse, i feel like i carry a lot of weight from my ancestors. hopes and dreams from people who lived through incredibly difficult times are in my blood.

obviously i have the freedom to do whatever i want with my life. and yet, i feel a responsibility to do the most that i can with the life and energy i have been gifted.

not only that, but my parents spent a lot of time, energy, money, and family heartache to give my brother and me opportunities to do well (by conventional definitions).

and i feel like the best use of my time and energy is learning as much as i can as quickly as i can so that i can be the most effective change agent as possible.

and again, for better or worse, that means that i feel like if i’m going to read, i want to read things that are going to give me the most tools and teach me the fastest. of course, i believe that fiction and narrative (and futurism) are important. but given my education and socioeconomic status, if i’m going to read, i want to read something that’s going to make me a more effective change agent and fast. i loved reading ender’s game and i learned a ton from it. and reading books like pedagogy of the oppressed and resilience taught me just as much, if not more, in less time.

also, real life is crazy enough. sometimes even watching the news is surreal. to read fiction seems superfluous to me much of the time because real life is crazy enough.

so yea. that’s why i don’t read fiction.

sorry, not sorry.

(bad) trend: makers being promoted to managers

yesterday, i met up with my dear friend angela for lunch. we touched on a trend that i’ve noticed and went in depth on it because it’s happening to her.

in hierarchical organizations, there is a trend to promote skilled makers into management positions. anyone who has been in an organization for any significant amount of time has probably seen this happen. someone who’s good at what they good gets “rewarded” by being promoted. because of the way that hierarchical organizations tend to be structured (thanks industrialism), higher on the ladder means more management responsibilities along with more money. people who manage people are perceived to be worth more to the company so they are compensated more.

unfortunately, making and managing are two completely different skillsets. of course, that doesn’t mean that some people aren’t good at both. but it is a mistake to assume that someone who is good at making will also be good at managing.

the number of times i have watched this process crash a team or organization is astounding.

holy shit. light-bulb moment. now that i think about it, this is actually some oppressive bullshit. i recently wrote about why it no longer makes sense for modern managers to be higher up in a hierarchy than makers. in that reality, there actually isn’t a reason managers should be paid more.

imo, the role of a manager is to support the forward motion of a team. a good manager can be measured by how well the team they manage works. a great manager will improve the rate of progress of their team over time. but managing, just like different types of making is just one function on a team. managers bring a skillset and experience to the table just like everyone else.

the oppression comes in when it is perceived that the manager should be making more money than the parts of the team. this seems like a really great way to keep powerholders in power. it also entices makers to become managers. the more i think about it, the more parallel this seems to how the “work hard and get rich” dream (which has been proven by many research studies to be false and there are even books on it) allows rich elites to convince poor people to vote for tax policy that actually undermines their own well-being and is against their own interests.

:O

ps - none of this is to say that makers can’t be managers. some people have natural management skill. some people have developed it in other areas of their life and having an opportunity to show it at work is a good thing. i believe most people can learn how to be good managers. the trouble is when makers are promoted to managers with the assumption that because you’re a good maker you will also be a good manager. the hell breaks loose when that assumption goes unchecked and it turns out the person isn’t a good manager.