Higher Process

beta

The Short Version

Being a weblog on the psychology of time management. More information will appear on the About page.

Please note that this site is currently in Beta. Formatting, features, and content are subject to change without notice.

Previous Posts

Archive

Subscribe

Search

BLOGROLL

BUSINESS
tompeters!

ECONOMICS
Freakonomics
Marginal Revolution
Predictably Irrational

ORGANIZATION/CLUTTER
Unclutterer

PERSONAL PRODUCTIVITY Matt's Idea Blog

PSYCHOLOGY
BPS Research Digest
Deric Bounds' MindBlog
Don't Delay
Full Frontal Psychology
Mind Hacks
PsyBlog
Psychology Today

SOCIAL SCIENCE
Research as a Second Language
Social Science Statistics Blog
The Sociological Imagination

TIME-MANAGEMENT VENDORS
FranklinCovey
FranklinCovey Blog
GetOrganized Community
DayTimer
Productivity, planning & work/life balance
David Allen Company
GTD Times

VARIOUS & SUNDRY
43folders
Daring Fireball
minimal mac
Presentation Zen

Multitasking, Confounds, and the Yeti

How overdoing self-improvement makes success harder to achieve and harder still to explain.


Merlin Mann once said of multitasking, “This is not only a stupid idea, this is a non-existent idea. I have more faith in the idea of the Yeti, and a Dukakis presidency, than I do in the concept of multitasking.” He is not alone-- the media and psychology blogs frequently report on studies about multitasking’s shortcomings.

In The 4 Disciplines of Execution audio program, FranklinCovey consultant Jennifer Colosimo said, “Human beings are wired to do one thing at a time with excellence.” But 4 Disciplines isn’t urging one task at a time--they mean pursuing one goal at a time in your entire work life (or two or three, at most).

In his oddly-named (but compelling) Zen To Done, Leo Babauta espouses a similar one-thing-at-a-time philosophy:
One of the main problems people have with other productivity systems, probably without knowing it, is that they are a series of habit changes that people attempt to undertake all at once.

. . . [Habit change] can be successful, but it takes a lot of energy and focus and motivation, and it’s hard to do that with a bunch of habits all at once.
Two of those “other productivity systems,” GTD and FranklinCovey’s personal planning methodology, each encompass several habit changes. Getting started with either of these methods takes several hours of focus; however, once the system is in place, the habits involved tend to be mutually reinforcing. The same goes for programs in other domains, including Julie Morgenstern’s organizing methodologies, Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace program, or Paul McKenna’s weight-loss program, I Can Make You Thin.

But Babauta’s point is well taken; changing multiple habits simultaneously can be challenging, even when the habits are part of an internally-consistent and mutually-reinforcing system. What about working on several systems of habit change--to put several programs into practice at once, and hope for the best? Or, for that matter, to try many simultaneous approaches to change a single habit or achieve a single goal?

In my days as a self-improvement junkie, I read everything I could find about time-management or career development. Your poison may be different: weight loss, money management, relationships, goal-setting, etc. Trying everything you can think of to reach a goal holds a certain appeal. However, when we do not fully implement and evaluate one program before moving on, it becomes hard to tell what works. In other words, trying to install multiple new habits at once creates confounds.

According to Wikipedia, a confounding factor or confounding variable is “an extraneous variable in a statistical model that correlates (positively or negatively) with both the dependent variable and the independent variable.” The University of New England’s WebStat offers a definition that I like even better:
[Confounds] are nuisance variables that interfere with our attempts to explain a relationship between our variables of interest. A confounding variable is one that provides an alternative explanation for the thing we are trying to explain with our independent variable.
Both of the definitions linked above list good social-science examples, but consider a mundane and micro-level example. The facial cleanser I use changed recently: new package, new name, slightly different ingredients. After three days of use, my skin was noticeably drier. I mentioned this to my fiancé; she pointed out that the week I switched, the weather took a sharp turn for the wintery: dry air, freezing temperatures, and bitter winds. Everybody’s skin is dry. I initially attributed dry skin to my cleanser, but the weather is a competing explanation--a confound. To know for sure that my cleanser is the cause, I would need to take it on vacation in a milder climate.

The same goes for habit changes. If you read six books and apply advice from all towards one goal, even if you succeed, you don’t know which methods, if any, helped. Similarly, if you are using two or more programs and fail, how do you know which was truly defective?

If you start exercising to lose weight the same day that you start using a new day planner, and you find that you suddenly begin accomplishing more each day, can you credit the day planner? Or do you simply have more energy and self-esteem because of the exercise? Or are you simply more strategic with your time because exercise steals hours from your week?

In other words, if you want to see real results in your life--and understand how you achieved them so you can repeat them in the future--learn to be patient and not multitask on your goals. Try FranklinCovey’s advice and tackle fewer goals at once. Try Babauta’s advice and avoid trying to reinvent all of your habits at once. Without such focus, the story you tell about how you achieved success may be no less a fantasy than the yeti.
Monday, December 28, 2009