A few weeks ago a co-worker of mine came across this PG’s essay and sent it to the rest of the company.
It sparked a conversation which was great. I was surprised that “the other side” didn’t already know this stuff. Especially useful because everyone seems to “get it now”. Sometimes all it takes is to share information.
Anyway, another co-worker just asked:
- putting together a model airplane falls in the “maker” category, right?
- how do you makers eat since you can’t take breaks.
I responded, and here’s, for the most part, what I said:
> There are other examples/ analogies outside programming – any manufacturing
> process has the same issues – whether you are making high tensile steel or
> putting a model airplane there are the same issues.
You’re absolutely right. PG was careful enough to say maker instead of
programmer for that reason. However, and though it’s true this is not unique
to programmers, I don’t think Paul Graham meant “maker” to be as generic as
to include manual labor, or any other activity you can do while watching TV
and having a conversation with your neighbors. I imagine that’s how one puts
together airplane models :)
The mental concentration necessary to make a program, or to calculate pi in
your head, or to integrate a complex mathematical expression, is not
comparable to the mental concentration necessary to put together a model
airplane, or to make a table out of wood, or, and that’s his point, to be in
a meeting.
Especially in a meeting with more than 2 people in it, it’s common to see
people doing something else. Perhaps chatting with their friends, or
“catching up on email”, or whatever it is that people choose to do during
meetings.
To a naïve observer such as me, that indicates that the act of meeting
though important in so many ways, requires less mental concentration than
what a maker would need.
Programming, unlike other mental activities such as trying to memorize the
first 50 decimals of pi, are even more to PG’s point, because they not only
require periods of intense mental concentration, but these periods tend to
be longer than just 15 minutes.
It’s an accepted fact that it takes 15 to 20 minutes just to get back to a
decent concentration level. Which btw means that when you (you here is the
general you) interrupt a maker “with a quick question”, it will take the
maker 15 to 20 minutes to start being productive again.
> One question springs to mind – eating – always thinking about food – how
> does a maker eat if they can’t take a break?
Important question as well.
Of course makers *can* take breaks. PG’s point was not that makers can’t
take their eyes off the monitor.
Eating works (vs having meetings) because eating, or going to the bathroom,
doesn’t require mental context switch. I can be eating and still be thinking
about the problem I was trying to solve. Same for going to the bathroom. I
can go for a walk around the block, and though it might look like I’m just
goofing off, I’m actually working.
Another reason why these types of break work, is that they’re not time
bound. Unlike a meeting which happens to be scheduled for say 3:00,
eating/peeing is more flexible.
If my lunch alarm goes off (yes, I have one) and I’m in the middle of
something, I know I don’t have to drop everything and go eat right now! I
can start winding things down, take notes so I remember where I was when I
come back, or even skip lunch all together if I really need to.
Compare that to having a meeting at 3 o’clock, where you’re supposed to be
there and perhaps even participate (when you’re not also “catching up on
email”). In that case I cannot just show up 20 minutes late “because I was
in the middle of something”. Or god forbid, not show up at all, which is
actually better, than to show up and only pretend to be there, but that’s
for another day.
If you add all these notions together:
Meetings start at fixed time + takes 15 to 20 minutes to start being
productive + programming requires long periods of sustained concentration,
and you can see how having 2 hours of non-meeting time is as good as having
no time at all.
