I read a very nice article which summarized some relevant concerns of our advancing technology. It dovetails with the idea that there are certain warning words I’ve discovered in myself when I’m about to procrastinate.
Specifically, these are the words “just” and “should“:
- I’m just going to … (check email for a second, give that person a call, etc.)
- I should be doing blah or bleh.
They both deny some aspects of reality.
Just
“Just” suggests that whatever it is I’m doing will not be impacted by a moment’s diversion. However, it is the diversion at all that disrupts the task, not just the time taken.
- The denial here is that attention is not breakable or is stronger than it is.
Should
The latter “should” is trickier. It implies circumstances which do not exist. While perhaps “I should be reading x, y or z” – the reality is that I am not. “Should” then does several things:
- It actively skips over the circumstances of how I got to what I am doing now, and
- it skips over how x, y, and z have been avoided.
Without that information, “should” becomes both:
- a moral judgment (e.g. “I’m lazy” ) as it becomes the only explanation and
- yet another means of avoiding a task as I do not actively map how to get there taking these circumstances into account.
Certainly other warning terms exist, both subtle and those less so, and I’m not about to write a letter asking these words be removed from our vocabulary. But when attention has a tendency to waver, it is good to consider that there may be warning signs.
Interesting bit on the moral judgment. Fascinating how they work in combination too:
“I should just [get it done].”
You show this phrase in the text before the jump, but don’t discuss it further: “should just” is the regret looking back from “I’ll just”, and it implies:
* a recognition that we’re not doing what we intended.
* an estimation (self-placating?) that the task is actually quick or easy, thus we have no good reason for avoiding it.