That helps creative people to complete more

Cal Newport

Author of the book "The work with the head," and other best-selling self-help.

Richard Feynman was one of the greatest minds of the XX century, for his discovery he won the Nobel Prize. But colleagues at Cornell University, he seemed lazy. he avoidedThe Pleasure of Finding Things Out. The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman administrative work and other similar duties, did not join the teaching commission.

Neal Stephenson, the famous science fiction writer, may seem too lazy. After all, he does not have a public e-mail to communicate with readers, he asked not to invite him to the conference and not be drawn into discussions on social networks. He even warns those who still want to call him with a performance that takes a lot of money and does not qualify.

I have 10 years studying the habits of creative people and saw many such examples. Style of work of many talented professionals differs from that adopted in their field. There is a paradox: they seem to be lazyBut give a lot of results. And in order to understand this phenomenon, it is necessary to define more precisely what work.

Many refer to it all that will potentially career. However, under this definition falls countless affairs, including the management of social networks or tedious meetings of the commissions. And it's too broad understanding of the work partly explains the modern culture of employment.

We often measure success by how exhausted we are in the process of labor. But this is the wrong approach.

It would be useful to divide the work into two types depending on the number of ongoing efforts:

• Deeper work. These are the tasks that require mental effort and concentrationAs well as unique skills.
• Surface work. This case, which do not need special skills and maximum concentration.

For example, the solution of a difficult theorem, or write a new chapter of the novel - a Deeper work and correspondence by e-mail or tweet about their favorite books - surface. At the surface the problems there is nothing wrong - they just do not make almost no contribution to the final result of work.

And if we look from this point of view, Feynman and Stephenson no longer seem lazy. They get rid of the surface of the work to be given as much attention-depth studies.

Here's how Stevenson He described This essay, "Why I am a bad companion Pen": "If I have a long, nothing interrupted by periods of time, I can write a book. When these segments are broken into small pieces, my literary productivity falls. Instead of a book that will live for a long time remain a few emails and presentations at conferences. "

It was during a work of profound, we create things that "will live for a long time." Surface work, by contrast, prevents this and, therefore, do more harm than good. If your entry Retweet, it may slightly help your writing career. But in the long term habit to sit in social networks can affect whether you will be budding author or turn into successful writerAs Stevenson.

If you aspire to create something important, spend more time of profound work.

Few people can completely abandon the surface activity, and someone does not want to. Simply try to change the way of thinking: to spend more time-depth studies and minimize surface.

Less often come in the mail, do not rush to try every new application, not get carried away memes, do not agree on every invitation to a cup of coffee and spend the whole day, working through a idea. This will affect how much really valuable work you do.