好坏拖延症

Paul Graham 2005-12-01

好坏拖延症

2005年12月

我认识的最令人印象深刻的人都是糟糕的拖延症患者。那么拖延症难道不总是坏事吗?

大多数写拖延症的人写的是如何治愈它。但严格来说,这是不可能的。你可以做无限多的事情。无论你在做什么,你都没有在做其他事情。所以问题不是如何避免拖延,而是如何拖延得好。

拖延症有三种变体,取决于你做什么而不是工作:你可以做(a)什么也不做,(b)不太重要的事情,或(c)更重要的事情。我认为最后一种是好的拖延症。

那就是”心不在焉的教授”,他在思考一些有趣问题时忘记刮胡子,忘记吃饭,甚至忘记看自己要去哪里。他的心不在日常世界,因为在另一个世界里努力工作。

这就是为什么我认识的最令人印象深刻的人都是拖延症患者。他们是C型拖延症患者:他们推迟做小事情来做大事情。

什么是”小事情?“大致来说,就是没有任何机会在你讣告中提到的工作。当时很难说什么最终会成为你最好的工作(会是你的关于苏美尔神庙建筑的杰作,还是你用笔名写的侦探小说?),但有一整类任务你可以安全地排除:刮胡子、洗衣服、打扫房子、写感谢信——任何可能被称为杂事的事情。

好的拖延是避免杂事来做真正的工作。

至少在某种意义上是好的。想要你做杂事的人不会认为这是好的。但如果你想做成任何事,你可能必须惹恼他们。看起来最温和的人,如果他们想做真正的工作,在避免杂事方面都有某种程度的无情。

有些杂事,比如回信,如果你忽略它们就会消失(也许连朋友一起消失)。其他的,比如修剪草坪或提交纳税申报单,如果你推迟只会变得更糟。原则上推迟第二种杂事应该不起作用。你最终必须做任何事情。为什么不(如逾期通知总是说的)现在就做?

即使推迟那些杂事也是有回报的,因为真正的工作需要两样杂事不需要的东西:大块的时间和正确的心情。如果你被某个项目所启发,把接下来几天应该做的一切都抛在一边去做它,可能是一个净胜利。是的,当你最终去做那些杂事时,它们可能会花费你更多时间。但如果你在那几天里完成了很多工作,你的净生产力会更高。

事实上,这可能不是程度上的差异,而是种类上的差异。可能有些类型的工作只能在长期不间断的时间段内完成,当灵感来临时,而不是尽职地在安排好的小块时间里完成。经验上似乎是这样。当我想到我认识的做成伟大事情的人时,我不想象他们尽职地在待办事项清单上划掉项目。我想象他们偷偷溜去做一些新想法。

相反,强迫某人同步执行杂事必然会限制他们的生产力。中断的成本不仅仅是它花费的时间,还在于它把两边的时间都切成两半。你可能一天只需要打断某人几次,他们就完全无法处理难题了。

我一直在想为什么创业公司在最开始时最有效率,那时他们只是一对在公寓里的人。主要原因可能是还没有人打断他们。理论上,当创始人最终有足够的钱雇人帮他们做一些工作时是好的。但过度工作可能比被打断更好。一旦你用普通办公室员工稀释了创业公司——用B型拖延症患者——整个公司开始以他们的频率共振。他们是中断驱动的,很快你也是了。

杂事在扼杀伟大项目方面如此有效,以至于很多人为此目的使用它们。例如,决定写小说的人会突然发现房子需要打扫。没能写出小说的人不是整天坐在白纸前什么都不写。他们通过喂猫、出去买公寓需要的东西、见朋友喝咖啡、检查电子邮件来做到这一点。“我没有时间工作,“他们说。他们确实没有;他们确保了这一点。

(还有一种变体是没有人可以工作。解决方法是参观名人工作的地方,看看它们多么不合适。)

我在某个时候或另一个时候都使用过这两个借口。在过去的20年里,我学到了很多让自己工作的技巧,但即使现在我也不能一直赢。有些天我做真正的工作。其他天被杂事吃掉。而且我知道这通常是我的错:我让杂事吃掉了一天,以避免面对一些难题。

最危险的拖延形式是未被承认的B型拖延,因为它感觉不像拖延。你”在把事情做完。“只是错误的事情。

任何关于拖延的建议,如果专注于在待办事项清单上划掉项目,而没有考虑待办事项清单本身可能是B型拖延的一种形式,那么它不仅不完整,而且是 positively 误导的。事实上,可能性这个词太弱了。几乎每个人的都是。除非你在做你能做的最大的事情,否则你就是在B型拖延,无论你完成了多少。

在他著名的论文《你和你的研究》(我推荐给任何有抱负的人,无论他们在做什么)中,Richard Hamming 建议你问自己三个问题:你领域中最重要的问题是什么?你在做其中之一吗?为什么不?Hamming 在贝尔实验室时开始问这样的问题。原则上那里的任何人都应该能够在他们领域中最重要的问题上工作。也许不是每个人都能对世界产生同样显著的影响;我不知道;但无论你的能力如何,都有项目能扩展它们。所以Hamming的练习可以概括为:你能做的最好的事情是什么,你为什么不做?大多数人会回避这个问题。我自己也回避;我看到它在页面上,迅速移到下一句。Hamming 曾经四处真正问人们这个问题,这并没有让他受欢迎。但这是任何有抱负的人都应该面对的问题。

问题是,你最终可能会用这个饵钩上一条非常大的鱼。要做好工作,你需要做的不仅仅是找到好项目。一旦你找到了它们,你必须让自己去工作,这可能很难。问题越大,越难让自己去工作。

当然,人们发现很难在特定问题上工作的主要原因是他们不喜欢它。当你年轻的时候,特别是,你经常发现自己做的工作不是真正喜欢的——例如,因为它看起来令人印象深刻,或者因为你被分配去做它。大多数研究生被卡在他们不喜欢的大问题上工作,因此研究生院与拖延症同义。

但即使你喜欢你所做的工作,让自己在小问题上工作也比在大问题上工作更容易。为什么?为什么在大问题上工作如此困难?一个原因是你在可预见的未来可能得不到任何回报。如果你做一些一两天就能完成的工作,你可以期望很快就有很好的成就感。如果回报在无限远的未来,它似乎不那么真实。

人们不在大项目上工作的另一个原因是,具有讽刺意味的,害怕浪费时间。如果他们失败了怎么办?那么他们花在上面的所有时间都浪费了。(事实上可能不会,因为在困难项目上的工作几乎总会通向某个地方。)

但大问题的麻烦不能只是它们承诺没有立即的回报,可能会让你浪费大量时间。如果只是那样,它们不会比去看姻亲更糟糕。比那更多。大问题是可怕的。面对它们有几乎身体的痛苦。就像把真空吸尘器接到你的想象力上。你所有的初始想法立即被吸走,你不再有更多了,然而真空吸尘器仍然在吸。

你不能太直接地看大问题的眼睛。你必须有点斜向地接近它。但你必须把角度调整得正好:你必须足够直接地面对大问题,捕捉到从它辐射出的一些兴奋,但不能太多以至于它使你瘫痪。一旦你开始,就可以收紧角度,就像帆船一旦开始航行就可以更靠近风航行。

如果你想做大事,你似乎必须欺骗自己去做。你必须做可能长成大事的小事情,或者做越来越大的事情,或者与合作者分担道德负担。依赖这样的技巧不是软弱的标志。最好的工作就是以这种方式完成的。

当我谈到那些设法让自己在大问题上工作的人时,我发现他们都抛开杂事,都为此感到内疚。我不认为他们应该感到内疚。要做的事情比任何人能做的都多。所以做他们能做的最好工作的人必然会留下很多未完成的杂事。为此感到难过似乎是个错误。

我认为”解决”拖延症问题的方法是让快乐拉着你,而不是让待办事项清单推着你。做一个你真正喜欢的有抱负的项目,尽可能靠近风航行,你会留下正确的事情未完成。


感谢 Trevor Blackwell、Jessica Livingston 和 Robert Morris 阅读本文草稿。

罗马尼亚语翻译 | 俄语翻译 | 希伯来语翻译 | 德语翻译 | 葡萄牙语翻译 | 意大利语翻译 | 日语翻译 | 西班牙语翻译

Good and Bad Procrastination

December 2005

The most impressive people I know are all terrible procrastinators. So could it be that procrastination isn’t always bad?

Most people who write about procrastination write about how to cure it. But this is, strictly speaking, impossible. There are an infinite number of things you could be doing. No matter what you work on, you’re not working on everything else. So the question is not how to avoid procrastination, but how to procrastinate well.

There are three variants of procrastination, depending on what you do instead of working on something: you could work on (a) nothing, (b) something less important, or (c) something more important. That last type, I’d argue, is good procrastination.

That’s the “absent-minded professor,” who forgets to shave, or eat, or even perhaps look where he’s going while he’s thinking about some interesting question. His mind is absent from the everyday world because it’s hard at work in another.

That’s the sense in which the most impressive people I know are all procrastinators. They’re type-C procrastinators: they put off working on small stuff to work on big stuff.

What’s “small stuff?” Roughly, work that has zero chance of being mentioned in your obituary. It’s hard to say at the time what will turn out to be your best work (will it be your magnum opus on Sumerian temple architecture, or the detective thriller you wrote under a pseudonym?), but there’s a whole class of tasks you can safely rule out: shaving, doing your laundry, cleaning the house, writing thank-you notes—anything that might be called an errand.

Good procrastination is avoiding errands to do real work.

Good in a sense, at least. The people who want you to do the errands won’t think it’s good. But you probably have to annoy them if you want to get anything done. The mildest seeming people, if they want to do real work, all have a certain degree of ruthlessness when it comes to avoiding errands.

Some errands, like replying to letters, go away if you ignore them (perhaps taking friends with them). Others, like mowing the lawn, or filing tax returns, only get worse if you put them off. In principle it shouldn’t work to put off the second kind of errand. You’re going to have to do whatever it is eventually. Why not (as past-due notices are always saying) do it now?

The reason it pays to put off even those errands is that real work needs two things errands don’t: big chunks of time, and the right mood. If you get inspired by some project, it can be a net win to blow off everything you were supposed to do for the next few days to work on it. Yes, those errands may cost you more time when you finally get around to them. But if you get a lot done during those few days, you will be net more productive.

In fact, it may not be a difference in degree, but a difference in kind. There may be types of work that can only be done in long, uninterrupted stretches, when inspiration hits, rather than dutifully in scheduled little slices. Empirically it seems to be so. When I think of the people I know who’ve done great things, I don’t imagine them dutifully crossing items off to-do lists. I imagine them sneaking off to work on some new idea.

Conversely, forcing someone to perform errands synchronously is bound to limit their productivity. The cost of an interruption is not just the time it takes, but that it breaks the time on either side in half. You probably only have to interrupt someone a couple times a day before they’re unable to work on hard problems at all.

I’ve wondered a lot about why startups are most productive at the very beginning, when they’re just a couple guys in an apartment. The main reason may be that there’s no one to interrupt them yet. In theory it’s good when the founders finally get enough money to hire people to do some of the work for them. But it may be better to be overworked than interrupted. Once you dilute a startup with ordinary office workers—with type-B procrastinators—the whole company starts to resonate at their frequency. They’re interrupt-driven, and soon you are too.

Errands are so effective at killing great projects that a lot of people use them for that purpose. Someone who has decided to write a novel, for example, will suddenly find that the house needs cleaning. People who fail to write novels don’t do it by sitting in front of a blank page for days without writing anything. They do it by feeding the cat, going out to buy something they need for their apartment, meeting a friend for coffee, checking email. “I don’t have time to work,” they say. And they don’t; they’ve made sure of that.

(There’s also a variant where one has no place to work. The cure is to visit the places where famous people worked, and see how unsuitable they were.)

I’ve used both these excuses at one time or another. I’ve learned a lot of tricks for making myself work over the last 20 years, but even now I don’t win consistently. Some days I get real work done. Other days are eaten up by errands. And I know it’s usually my fault: I let errands eat up the day, to avoid facing some hard problem.

The most dangerous form of procrastination is unacknowledged type-B procrastination, because it doesn’t feel like procrastination. You’re “getting things done.” Just the wrong things.

Any advice about procrastination that concentrates on crossing things off your to-do list is not only incomplete, but positively misleading, if it doesn’t consider the possibility that the to-do list is itself a form of type-B procrastination. In fact, possibility is too weak a word. Nearly everyone’s is. Unless you’re working on the biggest things you could be working on, you’re type-B procrastinating, no matter how much you’re getting done.

In his famous essay You and Your Research (which I recommend to anyone ambitious, no matter what they’re working on), Richard Hamming suggests that you ask yourself three questions: What are the most important problems in your field? Are you working on one of them? Why not? Hamming was at Bell Labs when he started asking such questions. In principle anyone there ought to have been able to work on the most important problems in their field. Perhaps not everyone can make an equally dramatic mark on the world; I don’t know; but whatever your capacities, there are projects that stretch them. So Hamming’s exercise can be generalized to: What’s the best thing you could be working on, and why aren’t you? Most people will shy away from this question. I shy away from it myself; I see it there on the page and quickly move on to the next sentence. Hamming used to go around actually asking people this, and it didn’t make him popular. But it’s a question anyone ambitious should face.

The trouble is, you may end up hooking a very big fish with this bait. To do good work, you need to do more than find good projects. Once you’ve found them, you have to get yourself to work on them, and that can be hard. The bigger the problem, the harder it is to get yourself to work on it.

Of course, the main reason people find it difficult to work on a particular problem is that they don’t enjoy it. When you’re young, especially, you often find yourself working on stuff you don’t really like— because it seems impressive, for example, or because you’ve been assigned to work on it. Most grad students are stuck working on big problems they don’t really like, and grad school is thus synonymous with procrastination.

But even when you like what you’re working on, it’s easier to get yourself to work on small problems than big ones. Why? Why is it so hard to work on big problems? One reason is that you may not get any reward in the forseeable future. If you work on something you can finish in a day or two, you can expect to have a nice feeling of accomplishment fairly soon. If the reward is indefinitely far in the future, it seems less real.

Another reason people don’t work on big projects is, ironically, fear of wasting time. What if they fail? Then all the time they spent on it will be wasted. (In fact it probably won’t be, because work on hard projects almost always leads somewhere.)

But the trouble with big problems can’t be just that they promise no immediate reward and might cause you to waste a lot of time. If that were all, they’d be no worse than going to visit your in-laws. There’s more to it than that. Big problems are terrifying. There’s an almost physical pain in facing them. It’s like having a vacuum cleaner hooked up to your imagination. All your initial ideas get sucked out immediately, and you don’t have any more, and yet the vacuum cleaner is still sucking.

You can’t look a big problem too directly in the eye. You have to approach it somewhat obliquely. But you have to adjust the angle just right: you have to be facing the big problem directly enough that you catch some of the excitement radiating from it, but not so much that it paralyzes you. You can tighten the angle once you get going, just as a sailboat can sail closer to the wind once it gets underway.

If you want to work on big things, you seem to have to trick yourself into doing it. You have to work on small things that could grow into big things, or work on successively larger things, or split the moral load with collaborators. It’s not a sign of weakness to depend on such tricks. The very best work has been done this way.

When I talk to people who’ve managed to make themselves work on big things, I find that all blow off errands, and all feel guilty about it. I don’t think they should feel guilty. There’s more to do than anyone could. So someone doing the best work they can is inevitably going to leave a lot of errands undone. It seems a mistake to feel bad about that.

I think the way to “solve” the problem of procrastination is to let delight pull you instead of making a to-do list push you. Work on an ambitious project you really enjoy, and sail as close to the wind as you can, and you’ll leave the right things undone.


Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Jessica Livingston, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.

Romanian Translation | Russian Translation | Hebrew Translation | German Translation | Portuguese Translation | Italian Translation | Japanese Translation | Spanish Translation