What helps creative people willing more
Richard Feynman was one of the greatest minds of the XX century, he received the Nobel Prize for his discoveries. But colleagues in Cornell University he seemed lazy. He avoided The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. THE BEST SHORT WORKS OF RICHARD P. Feynman administrative work and other similar duties, did not enter into teaching commissions.
Neil Stevenson, a well-known science fiction writer, may also seem like a lazy. After all, he has no public email to communicate with readers, he asks not to invite him to the conference and not to draw into discussions in social networks. He even warns those who still want to call him with the performance that takes a lot of money and not being prepared.
I have been studying the habits of creative people for 10 years and noticed a lot of similar examples. The style of work of many talented professionals is different from the one who is adopted in their field. A paradox arises: they seem to be labeled, but give a lot of results. And to figure it out in this phenomenon, you need to more accurately determine what work is.
Many are all that will potentially help career. But for this definition, the random number of cases falls, including tedious management of social network or meeting in commissions. And this is too broad understanding of work partly explains the modern employment culture.
We often measure success by how much we exhaled during the labor process. But this is the wrong approach.
It would be more useful to share work into two types depending on the number of efforts accompanying:
- In-depth work. These are tasks requiring mental stress and concentration, as well as unique skills.
- Surface work. These are cases for which special skills are not needed and maximum concentration.
For example, the solution of a complex theorem or writing a new chapter of the novel is an in-depth work, and an email correspondence or tweet about favorite books – superficial. There is nothing bad in surface tasks – they simply do not bring almost no contribution to the end result of labor.
And if you look from such a point of view, Feynman and Stevenson no longer seem lazy. They get rid of superficial work to pay as much attention as possible inlentive classes.
Here’s how Stevenson described it in an essay "Why I am a bad interlocutor of correspondence": "If I have a long one, no interrupted time cuts, I can write books. When these segments are crushed into small parts, my writing productivity drops. Instead of a book that lives for a long time, there will be several emails and speeches at conferences. ".
It is during the in-depth work that we create things that "live for a long time". Surface work, on the contrary, prevents this, and therefore brings more harm than good. If your record is retread, it may be slightly helping your writing career. But in the long run, the habit of sitting in social networks can affect whether you will be the beginning of the author or turn into a successful writer like Stevenson.
If you strive to create something important, spend more time for in-depth work.
Few people can completely abandon superficial activity, and someone does not want at all. Just try to change the way of thinking: more time to devote inlentive classes and cut the superficial as possible.
Less likely come in the mail, do not hurry to try every new application, do not get carried away by memes, do not agree to every invitation to drink coffee and spend all days, working on one idea. It will affect how much really valuable will you do.