By far the best article I've read on procrastination was published in the Harvard Business Review a few years ago.
It looked at behaviours like procrastination and perfectionism in terms of the psychology of the relationship of the worker with the person needing the work done. It persuasively argues that the problem lies not in poor time management skills, but in the self-esteem of the person doing the work and how they handle people being unhappy with their work.
The article posted here today is philosophical and thoughtful, whereas the HBR article is immensely practical and evidence-based. The full article is behind a paywall, but I highly recommend it!
A quick search turned up this great quote from a research psychologist: "Procrastination is not waiting and it is more than delaying. It is a decision to not act."
i'm half way through it. it's quite interesting, but i seriously wish it were 25% as long.
i read these articles because i honestly hope to get something life changing out of them, not for the pleasure of illustrative anecdotes.
i suspect authors of such articles have a word count to meet? it's unfortunate that the economics of writing reward filling whitespace - how could we motivate writers to be as succinct as possible?
In case you aren't familiar with the New Yorker, let me bore you. We're talking about an old (1925), well-established and iconic print publication. I don't know if the writers have a word count to meet, but I think pride over the generally very high quality writing is a big part of the New Yorker's culture. I don't think that anyone is being rewarded for filling whitespace in this case. From the New Yorker's reputation and my experience reading it, I imagine the editors have a very different metric for quality.
Personally, I find the depth and breadth of writing in the New Yorker one of the most valuable things about it.
For what it's worth, the New Yorker does have a "Talk of the Town" section which probably DOES use succinctness as a standard - the pieces are very very short. Also, James Surowiecki writes an economics/business column which is only a page long, and usually brilliant and concise.
i'm half way through it. it's quite interesting, but i seriously wish it were 25% as long.
i read these articles because i honestly hope to get something life changing out of them, not for the pleasure of illustrative anecdotes.
I have no idea why you think that this expectation is shared by any of the other readers or writers of the New Yorker. It sounds completely backwards to me. I have zero interest in getting anything life-changing out of a magazine article, and a great deal of interest in anecdotes.
If you don't like it, flag it, but don't tell other people to brainstorm how to make things we like more like the things you like.
Your dissatisfaction may stem from expecting this article to be a self-help piece. But what it really is is a review of a book of scholarly essays.
You may find more satisfaction in the self-help section of your local library or bookstore, or maybe in the pages of Psychology Today rather than in The New Yorker.
It looked at behaviours like procrastination and perfectionism in terms of the psychology of the relationship of the worker with the person needing the work done. It persuasively argues that the problem lies not in poor time management skills, but in the self-esteem of the person doing the work and how they handle people being unhappy with their work.
The article posted here today is philosophical and thoughtful, whereas the HBR article is immensely practical and evidence-based. The full article is behind a paywall, but I highly recommend it!
http://hbr.org/product/chronic-time-abuse/an/R0406F-PDF-ENG