
The Brain Can Only Take So Much Focus - prostoalex
https://hbr.org/2017/05/your-brain-can-only-take-so-much-focus?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
======
alexpetralia
The science behind "ego depletion" is at very least controversial, namely
because the effect has not been reproduced in subsequent experiments.

* Wikipedia provides a good summary of replication attempts: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion#Reproducibility_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion#Reproducibility_controversy_and_conflicting_meta_analyses)

* Slate covered the topic here: [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2016/03/ego_depletion_an_influential_theory_in_psychology_may_have_just_been_debunked.html)

* And here is a recent, large replication study: [http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/174569161665287...](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691616652873)

As a result, I would hesitate before using "ego depletion" as an excuse for
rationalizing a lack of self-control (eg. giving into "cheat foods" or being
irritable/impulsive). Whether or not "ego depletion" is real, science has not
yet adequately validated the theory.

Moreover, there is a risk to accepting the theory as true: because one
believes in "ego depletion," one can rationalize a lower degree of self-
control, which may have been higher otherwise. This creates a self-fulfilling
prophecy.

I think it is fair to assume that, given the current research, "ego depletion"
is no more than a reasonable hypothesis. It is possible that willpower may not
fit the "finite resource" model at all.

~~~
opportune
I completely agree and I've taken issue with this as well. This is something
that is hugely susceptible to confirmation bias for the exact reason you
stated: mere exposure to the concept will allow people to rationalize
performing the behavior even if they wouldn't before.

Not only that, but think of all the cultures/jobs where it is normal for
people to work much more than the typical 40 hour work week we are accustomed
to. Do 18 year old Vietnamese fishermen working 80 hour weeks suffer from "ego
depletion" the same way 18 year old college students do in the US? Probably
not. It may be an element of our culture / upbringing that we put more
emphasis on leisure, and not some psychological or neurological "need".

~~~
gregatragenet3
I think you bring up a good example. I think a typical contract web developer
in a western country is much more at risk for ego depletion then the
Vietnamese fisherman example.

One of the factors of ego depletion is decision fatigue. If the fisherman does
not fish that day, he and his offspring go hungry, and if that decision is
repeated they will starve to death. So not really a decision, not one that a
rational being would make. If the web developer goofs off on reddit today,
instead of looking for new contracting work he won't go hungy.. He can
probably coast for a little bit.. Actually, he could potentially just go on
welfare, but then he'd have to live in a worse part of town. If he moved in
with friends he could work less hours a week and have more leisure time, etc.
Lots of choices to make.

Novelty is another ego depleter. The fisherman has done it day-in-day-out for
years, probably his father and grandfather as well. It's muscle memory and
he's on autopilot. The web developer is constantly novelty fatigued, learning
new clients' environments and the latest web framework fads which change month
by month. His day has no routine.

As a contractor it is much more difficult for me, and probably I'm the most
lazy and restless after coming off a project, with a decent balance in the
bank. I am much more focused and mentally sure when the bank balance is low
and I'm chasing down business because if I don't find something it'll get
uncomfortable quick.

Contrast that to when I was in the gulf of Papagayo, miles from shore, on a
small sailboat in the middle of a storm. There was no ego depletion. I never
thought 'well, should I continue battling the sea to keep this boat afloat and
going to my destination?' There's no ego there, only survival.

Does the Vietnamese fisherman have the harder life by most metrics?
Absolutely. However there are downsides to the modern western world.

~~~
jdietrich
Despite low pay and poor working conditions, workers in fishing, agriculture
and forestry report exceptionally high levels of job satisfaction.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation)

~~~
beaconstudios
it seems to me that for people in modernised industries, the disconnect is
related to the fact that we work in non-natural environments. We evolved to
live in nature and now we sit in artificially lit offices pressing plastic
buttons to make electronic circuits fire the way we want them to. We have to
be missing quite a few innate requirements that we get from wandering through
fields and forests.

~~~
ekianjo
Im not sure what your point is but if we follow your line of thought then we
live in artificial environments as well. We use toilets too, and we dont
gather food by ourselves for 95 % of us at least. Humans certainly did not
evolve to live in nature but to model it to their liking.

~~~
beaconstudios
we certainly didn't evolve to model nature to our liking - that seems to have
been an emergent property of a number of traits that we evolved such as tool
use, opposable thumbs, higher level reasoning and so on. Our evolutionary
baggage goes back throughout Earth's history and is mostly animal. We don't
live in the environment we evolved for, like a dolphin living in an aquarium.
Now that's fine, we obviously have the capacity to live in modern
environments, but a certain amount of exposure to nature does us a lot of
good.

------
aaimnr
There's so many things wrong in this article... They should just leave the
'take a nap' advice.

If the focusing drains energy from the mind, it's the wrong kind of focus.
Real concentration (buddhists call it samadhi) doesn't come from forcing your
other parts of mind to do what "you" (the small, narrative mind-process) want,
but rather to unify the whole mind around single intention. This state is not
only stable, it's more efficient, because there's just one thing to do rather
than tens of conflicting intentions.

It's more efficient and calm than Default Network Mode, which is basically a
garbage can for the mind.

You don't even have to get into buddhism, there's a lot that science already
knows about eg. the flow state, which is a mini-samadhi. Also, Judson Brewer
discovered that DNM is not fundamentally 'default', as it doesn't activate for
long-term meditation practitioners. Such people (some of them really high
functioning) report that great thoughts just come to them out of nowhere.
Clinging to the thought forcefully only reinforces the illusion that 'we' are
thinking it, which is not true and counterproductive, as it obstructs the
dynamics of the mind. Just let the mind figure the problem out and let you
know when it's done. DMN is an impostor that pretends that everything done by
the various diverse mind processes is done by the narrative fiction centered
around the feeling of 'I'. It's not, it's highly distributed, there's no
driver and no center.

The more we think otherwise, the more force we have to put to make the mind
obedient.

~~~
wruza
(Didn't read tfa)

In my experience, flow state tends to be toxic and socially harmful with time.
After weeks of practicing, once you're in, there is no easy way to exit it
without sleeping (in the morning you're at risk falling in there again). I
discussed this effect elsewhere and it confirmed. Sometimes I forcefully
retain my mind in normal mode with "expensive" focus, because further plans
require to be communicable and alive. It is not "for free" to me in neither
way.

Am I using it wrong? Is meditation and samadhi a better version of the flow in
this regard?

~~~
gurkendoktor
Wow, I think I'm experiencing exactly the same issues. I've never successfully
picked up meditating, but I do optimise for flow (home office, instrumental
music at exactly my pace etc.)

I've decided to roll with the punches and just work all-day, but take more
days off. That way I can just go straight from flow to bed (with a few walks
throughout the day). But I'll try to make sense of the sibling comments as
well. Or maybe I just need to get better at napping again (right after work -
a great reset button).

If you have links to other discussions of this, please share :)

~~~
wruza
These were in .ru and pretty shallow, apart from that it was several years ago
in the middle of other chat-like discussion. Idk how to search, if these
threads still exist today. Guys reported that flow is inescapable for them too
after some time; that it is quite depressing when you _have_ to socialize; and
that it is [arguably] not so productive overall if taken objectively.

------
zitterbewegung
I find that I will lose and gain focus throughout the day when I have a task
when I don't know what to do next. When I do have energy I will try to push
past it. After awhile though I start reading HN. The amount time I will read
HN depends on an ever decreasing amount of energy. After about 3-5 times of
losing focus and not making progress I will spend increasingly longer on the
site.

From the website I am practicing mindfulness throughout the day since I have
my Apple watch (through the breath app). I think mindfulness would be good for
hackers. On physical tasks you could lift weights but on mental tasks your
goal is probably reducing anxiety or frustration. Or preserving flow (Podmoro
supposedly does this but I could never get into it).

On the other hand if I get a good flow going and I am uninterrupted I will
probably forget to check HN and I will continually work until I do get stuck
even if that happens.

~~~
grrowl
I found pomodoros help control the impulse to visit HN (or twitter, news,
etc). If it's non-negotiable that you must chip away at your task, even if
it's a case of "don't know what's next" -> do supporting tasks until it
becomes clear. By the 25-minute mark I'm much more likely to continue into the
next pomodoro, and if not there's no problem taking time out without guilt.

~~~
terminalcommand
The problem I found with sticking to using Pomodoros or longer periods (90
minutes) per work is that they work for a short while. After a couple of days
or max. a few weeks I plunge back into my old self.

Using self-discipline techniques help in the short term, but in the long term
I find them harmful. Because after a while of dedication, I feel exhausted and
kinda burnt-out.

It's true that working for the time you allocated removes guilt. It's true
that setting aside a fixed amount of time for working makes you more
efficient.

If I could only find a way to sustain this kind of movement. One thing I've
seen working is listening to easy-listening music. After quieting down my
brain, I have much more self-discipline and focus.

~~~
thanatropism
I find the Pomodoro technique much too confusing and detailed.

Whenever I'm in an impossible procrastinating mood (and I feel that this is
what is: a mood) I put e.ggtimer.com to the minimum amount of time I really
think I can put together. Usually by the timer is gone I have to reset it and
keep working. If I'm really getting into a good place, I increase the time, if
it seems I'm going to be done soon, I decrease it.

Reasonable expectations.

> Using self-discipline techniques help in the short term, but in the long
> term I find them harmful.

This seems a case of Stockdale's Paradox: [http://ndoherty.com/stockdale-
paradox/](http://ndoherty.com/stockdale-paradox/)

~~~
terminalcommand
Thanks for the insight. Could you please elaborate on the Stockdale's Paradox.

I researched the topic but couldn't understand the connection with me finding
self-discipline techniques harmful.

Should I not lose faith and try to find better ways to get my life in order?

------
zo7
It's interesting to see research suggesting that this might be helpful, since
I feel like I've stumbled on something similar. Lately I've had several
instances where I've been completely stuck on a problem, so I'd stop
everything and take a long hike on a trail or through some mountains. After
taking a day of just literal wandering, I've found I'd be able to finally make
progress on what I was working on once I pick it back up again, where I
otherwise felt like I was hitting a wall. It's felt like my mind does some
unconscious processing when I allow it to take a break, so it's encouraging to
see some evidence to support that.

~~~
RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u
I'm not a (neuro-, or any other) scientist, but I'm suspicious of the common
narrative that sleeping on the problem => unconscious background processing =>
solution to the problem. IMO, when you're "stuck" you're basically in a local
minima that's not good enough. With computers you just restart at a random
point and continue, but people are really bad at being random.

Moreover, there's the: don't think about an elephant right now => you just
thought of an elephant, "problem". That is, the more you've been thinking
about the problem a certain way, trying to force yourself to think differently
only reinforces the original line of thought, leading back to the same local
minima.

Thus, IMO the more likely mechanism that walking away from a problem and
coming back to it later leads to a better solution, is more that you get a
better random restart, and you have time to forget the prior line of thought,
so you're more likely to think differently / explore a different branch of the
search tree.

~~~
stonesixone
> Thus, IMO the more likely mechanism ... is more that you get a better random
> restart

This doesn't explain the many times (at least in my case, for example) where a
solution pops into your head _before_ you "restart." In other words, your mind
seems to be working on the problem even if you're not consciously working on
it / haven't consciously restarted.

~~~
RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u
I think having solutions pop in your head is still compatible with my idea, if
you consider it as a kind of intrusive thought, and also take survivorship
bias into account. Intrusive thoughts usually have environmental triggers,
which I argue is random enough. Moreover, often when the solution pops, you're
not at the same place you were before: besides going to sleep, taking a walk
or jog is also common advise (arguably sleeping usually also entails changing
locale, so it's really a variation). IOW, you're "reseeding" your intrusive
thought RNG.

Secondly, when the solution pops, my next thought is frequently "why didn't I
think of this earlier?", meaning that the solution is quite obvious in
hindsight, meaning had I just approached the problem slightly differently in
the beginning, I wouldn't have to search very deep. So the solution didn't pop
into my conscious thought because I've been mulling it over subconsciously,
but rather the intrusive thought forced the problem back into foreground, but
with a slight twist, and that quickly lead me to come up with the solution on
the spot.

For intrusive thoughts where that didn't happen, I simply don't remember.

TBF, I admit I'm using a lot of weasel words, but I think it's possible to
make my hypothesis more rigorous. Then you can design an experiment to falsify
it, but I'm too lazy, and I'll leave that to real scientists. :-P

------
Imagenuity
Having discovered some of these techniques through trial and error, it is
helpful to see some research backing up and expanding on keeping the
creativity flowing. Positive constructive daydreaming (PCD), exercise, taking
a shower, napping, and more are helpful for getting access to more inspiration
than just your conscious thinking can give you.

Others have studied this, including John Cleese, as detailed in his lecture on
Creativity:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMj_CFPHYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMj_CFPHYc)

------
markpapadakis
"Focus is a matter of deciding what not to do" \--John Carmack

------
appleflaxen
This is basically just an advertisement for pseudoscientific nonsense by a
medical doctor that should know better.

How can the Harvard Business Review publish this kind of hocum without
flagging it as an advert?

------
AznHisoka
I can relate as I always feel very fatigued mentally after a long drive,
especially if it involves a route I am not familiar with, and there is lots of
stop and go traffic.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
This is when I practice PCD (I think?). I'll choose a goal (like letting go of
something, feeling joy, exploring my emotions, creativity, etc), a song or
album I think I can make work for said goal, and then either a specific
context (eg. a conflict or project) or to with the story in the song/album. I
play it on my phone through an FM transmitter with voice nav on in Google
maps. While listening, I'm typically constructing a music video in my head or
forcing/mapping thoughts/memories/feelings onto the lyrics.

This also develops the skill of forcing analogies, which helps with keeping an
open mind.

------
theprop
I'd like the authors to try Vipassana's 10 day retreats -- it's free and for
ten days you meditate, don't speak, and don't use any electronic devices. Not
sure if there's any more focus than that! You'll survive...and afterwards
probably thrive :-D.

~~~
qarioz
Vipassana meditation emphasis is not on focus. Samatha meditation purpose is
solely focus.

~~~
akvadrako
Huh, when I did it there was a strong focus on focus. First focus on the
breath, later on a general part of the body and finally on a pinpoint.

------
marak830
As someone who is on the last day of a 6 day 14 hours per day straight, oh I
can attest to this.

The quality of the meals I'm sending out (plating and decoration wise) is
nowhere near as good as it is on Mondays.

I need more chef's :-p

------
vorotato
Can only take so much focus until what? What happens? Do I go insane? Die?

------
m3kw9
In other words, rest.

------
fyolnish
Is "psychological halloweenism" a thing?

------
cammil
Don't believe a word of this. Test your own mind.

Don't make conclusions. Only ask questions and observe. This stuff cannot be
explained. And it cannot be logically thought about. It must be seen and
experienced.

Don't doubt what i have to say. Go check for yourself.

~~~
cammil
I should have known better.

~~~
Dylan16807
"cannot be explained" just means you're bad at explaining, sorry.

~~~
cammil
Does it though? Has language covered all aspects of the knowable universe?

