The cost of forced obsolescence

Two developments in astronomy have focused my attention on the topic of forced obsolescence, a favorite of the tech industry. This has crept into the astronomical world. The first instance is the slew of 1m telescopes that got retired during my PhD years. Of course there is a lifetime to everything and planning a retirement is a good thing.  

Now we are finding ourselves at the point where IRAF and its wrapper pyraf are relegated to obsolescence as well as the Astrophysics Data Service (ADS). Both are effectively forcing the astronomical community to switch over. I have been in two minds about it. 

The switch to python 3 and therefore all things in python and astropy is motivated simply by the fact the python 2 language is being phased out by the python project itself. With that reality it is inevitable. This is causing quite a number of issues since not every observatory and workhorse instrument has a few FTE lying around to re-code and test all their code again. So I think the compete deprecation of IRAF is bad. The astropy project simply has not kept up with replacing the toolset. But at least what’s in there works. Is reasonably tested and pretty well documented. Where to find the right software tool is still a mess but that’s equally true for IRAF. 

A worse example is happening with ADS. This has been the mainstay tool for astronomers to search the literature. Astronomical libraries are gone at most places and google.scholar does not fill the same niche. So it is critical it works. It has worked so far. So well even that no one even thought about it much. Almost too well one could say. 

Enter “better”. The old interface is clunky, the codebase (whatever the f that is) needs to be better. So a new version has been in the works for years. That’s okay. But not the switch is being made. And I have made an honest to god attempt to stay ahead of this and switch early. 

Short version: I don’t trust it. 

Missing results, variable return, unreliable loading, weird non-astronomy results. Let’s take my ADS results. A lot shows up. And I have a pretty unique name. Not just my dad’s physics papers of years gone by (fine, funny, nice to see) but hydrology?! After I mark “astro only”. 

I sat in a cool talk by a PhD student and I wanted to get both her papers. Nope. One was stubbornly missing from the new ADS results. Not that may have been a fluke but enough of this sort of thing and I stop trusting the service. And we are a few months out till it is our only option, the new ADS we have problems with and not trust in. 

But both follow a common pattern. The change is announced, it is often not followed by a good short reasoning as to why and people who are upset about are dismissed as stick in the mud and not willing to innovate. 

What I think is missing is the realization on behalf of the innovators that they are destroying “career capital” for people used to working on the older version. They spend significant amounts of time learning them and now that knowledge is useless. And to do the same thingagain, they’ll need to relearn how. Often in an environment where encouraging faculty to learn a new thing is not encouraged (because no direct benefit to scientific productivity, narrowly defined as paper production). 

This seemingly callous destruction of your career capital is what annoys people the most I think. That and the fact that the trusted thing is now untrustworthy. 

But we gotta.  If only so we do not teach our students obsolescent skills. I’ve switched over to python 3 completely. And I’ll teach myself how to rotate and add images in it. Again. 2min work in IRAF imcalc and imrot. But I need to teach it to my grad student. And we need it to work 3 years from now. 

The Passion Bane

I have been on a Cal Newport binge read with first his book about Deep Work. He has an earlier book, “So Good That They Can’t Ignore You” a Steve Miller quote he is clearly fond of. There is a central premise in this book that a generation has been told to follow their passion to a fulfilling job and this is deeply flawed. See the evidence of everyone being very unhappy at work. I feel he skates over the whole issue that salaries have not kept up with expenses and despite a tight job market the attitude of many employers is “5year of job experience and right out of college”.

So I think that his whole premise has some obvious and big holes in it. But that does not mean that his identification that “passion” is a bane on today’s knowledge worker is off the mark. In academia the plague of passion has been around for a while. You’re passionate right? So you’ll do this extra thing. The ever present expectation that academics will work 60+ hours a week. Sacrificie family life etc etc. You come across it constantly.

Now combine this with this study that shows that people who are perceived passionate about their job are given more and more demeaning work. No wonder an academic studied this...

And this brings us to the inherent contradiction in academia: passionate enough to do all that work yet disciplined enough to slip into Deep Work immediately. And so administrations figure they can always add “five more minutes of your time” to the load.

Academics defense: be busy. Or give off a constant aura of over work.

I think I’ll cultivate the attitude of Nobby Nobbs: “duty would not find him wanting...it would not find him at all...”

How to focus when tired

Too Much Coffee Man. One of those bright ideas you get when overtired and overcaffienated perhaps.

The Deep Work book has me thinking about work and how I do it. And there are a bunch of great takeaways. There is however a rather big gap in the reasoning: the assumption that everyone is always at 100% performance or at least to get there every day.

Not that social media or other distractions remove some fraction for sure. And it is a bigger chunk than you'd think. Cal Newport is quite right about that. What I mean is that most of us are sick, have migraines, slept badly, kid was up all night or live in a US city with its default REALLY LOUD EVERYTHING.

So how do you focus then? My insight here is to slow down. This is personal and maybe things work differently for your brain. But I have found myself more productive on bad days than on good ones (all rested and ready) simply because I tricked myself on the groggy ones: "ok fine, you're tired, just start with this. Done? Ok cool than just do this one thing to move this project forward." And that often ends up going faster than frantic work that jumps back and forth.

The bit where you present a single thing to do and "it's fine" is critical. I don't know about others but the scheduler part in my brain is the first to be dropped when tired. Everything becomes a giant ball of anxiety and I end up doing nothing it all.

And this is why mis en place is so critical. This automatically presents you with the thing-to-do. Even when groggy and feeling not so great. Deep Work talks about ritual to signal that you are about to enter deep work state (flow! seek the flow! THE SPICE MUST FLOW...wait...what was I talking about again?). But the unclenching of "okay it's not the best day. that's fine" and then just making progress of some description has something to be said for it.

Deep Work

Hiromu Kira, The Thinker, ca. 1930, (photo location: The Hollywood Reservoir Dam, Los Angeles)

I have just finished Deep Work by Cal Newport and I have Thoughts...well maybe thoughts...musings.

The central tenet of the book is that in the current climate of lots and lots of busy scut shallow work, there is a certain economic advantage to deep work in the profession of your choosing. The deep part here centers around deliberate focus.

This is a key concept that I have been sniffing around for a while. After a good night's sleep, the task that eluded me for two hours (with the tv on in the background) the night before takes 5min. If I just clearheadedly (and undistractedly) focus on the thing I have been dreading, it does not take a lot of time. 

Matt Kenworthy put me on the path of how to deal with email and forcing encouraging yourself to work on only one thing: timing yourself with toggl. That is helpful to also show how much time you actually spent on the task that you complained about for...almost as long...

Matt and I also instigated mini retreats to the library to escape the constant barrage of little interruptions that is the bane of office work in general and a busy scientific institute with an "open door policy" in particular. Even the threat of interruption is already enough to lose focus.

So I am on board with blocking off time to Do The Thing. And I think we should be aware we can only really Do The Deep Thing for 4 hours at most. Honest 4 hours seems optimistic.
This is behind me hiding on certain days in a coffee shop aka my Undisclosed Location. 

There are several rules that constitute the second half of the book (like many US and especially self-help-ish books, the book is a little longer than it needs to get the central point across.)

These are The Rules:

1. Work deeply (make deal w self, one thing, focus, set time, mis en place)
2 Embrace boredom (deeper and lateral thinking)
3 Quit social media (does it advance your goals enough?)
4 Drain the shallows (less but better email, set filters)


1. Work deeply

The work deeply is something I can get behind. And especially young faculty should do this. Universities rarely generate an environment where it is possible but the Deep Work part is what you are rewarded for (grants accepted, tenure...)

So get a way to do the deep work. Academia is all about the "oh I just wanted to ask you something" interruption in the office so off to the library or coffee shop it is. This time is for hammering the Thing (paper, grant) out. I am reminded of the story that Julianne Dalcanton, arguably one of the best paper authors in astronomy, would go to a coffee shop before going into the office to write. For 2 hours. There is deep work to be done. Block a chunk of morning (unless you function better at night) and Just Do It. Make a deal with Spouse, block 90min or 3 hours and bash out ONE thing.
Adopting this and making the thing a proposal has allowed me to submit crazy number of Big Proposals (not sure if the is a good strategy but here we are...)

There are a few notes on this. In the book, Dr. Newport points to a personality that can slip into deep work whenever. He calls this the journalistic mode and while I can see that working for some (very rare) people, I think it is very energy intensive. Given the fact I am always some state of tired these days I would suggest some ways to slip into Deep Work:
a) the mis en place. Set the stage the night before to Do The Thing. The best part of this is that you think about how to attack the writing/coding/thing beforehand so you're all set the next day. Mis en place is what chefs call setting the kitchen ready for cooking the next day. Clear those browser tabs, clean the desktop sort of thing.
b) Ritual and place. This comes up in the Deep Work book and I endorse this wholeheartedly. Drop kids at bus, walk to coffee shop, got to My Spot. Brain has all the signals that it's Deep Work is Go time. 
c) Minimize distractions. The emphasize is on digital ones (guilty...) but I would argue that audio and personal distractions are just as bad. In Leiden, one of my office fellows ate noisily. Right behind me. I am still surprised I did not have to hide a body. Noise cancelling headphones are your friend.
d) Make a Deal with Yourself. This is a trick I use especially to get going and to cut to focus. Basically say to yourself: this is the Thing I'm working on and I'm just going to do it for 30 min. You either slip into Flow and Do Much More or after 30min it's time to reset (coffee! walk around the building, something). This works well especially when I am tired. Oh I will work on just this one thing. That'll be enough. And suddenly it's done.
e) Inspiration finds you working. I love this Picasso quote and this is one of the main things about the book that is missing. Your brain may not be ready for deep work. You may be coming down with something. It is the end of the semester and some stuff has just straight up exploded and that is taking up mental bandwidth (or "denkraam" in Dutch). But make a deal with yourself to do Some of the Thing. Another quote I like is "An expert can do some of their best work on their worst day." This is not to advocate ploughing through at all costs or to ignore lowered energy levels. Adjust, promise yourself to stop after one thing, and then do the Deep Work anyway. 

2. Embrace boredom

Admittedly, I have more issues with this. Never been someone for boredom. But the author is right that I do not need to whip out the phone the minute there is a line at the Kroger. It is indeed a sure sign of stress, and fear of missing out. But during the semester, it also quickly becomes a way to ping off another email. 

But some quiet time to not be online is a good idea. Write letters etc. 

What the author appeared to mean was to allow for some lateral thinking. Play with an idea or concept for a bit and allow your brain to run with it. I would therefore rephrase this as "allow for play". This is the kind of low-pressure (no paper needs to come from this, I am just curious...) to happen in the evening. The author states he is Done with Work at the end of the workday but this is what I would do in evenings. Or during running. 

3. Quit social media 

Now THIS is the controversial statement, guaranteed for some book sales. And this was the part I struggled with the most. Quit Twitter?! Facebook?! Well...honestly.
But I think the real point is: use deliberately for a clear purpose. That I can get behind. I noticed that Katie Mack took this advice and drasticallyreduced the twitter/Facebook presence for some Deep Work on Big Important Book. And good for her! 

The thing that was an interesting take is that social media have some return professionally but do they have enough for your specific situation? In the case of Katie Mack, the answer is obviously yes. And the examples of people who should not be on twitter seems out of date. And indeed, the argument that a writer such as Malcolm Gladwell is better served spending his time in deep work rather than blathering on Twitter is countered quite simply: he's on Twitter now...

And this is also why the modern knowledge worker (e.g. professors such as myself) should definitely be on Twitter. Not just self promotion (hey check out my paper), it is critical for making new contacts and encouraging lateral thinking. That creative part and social part of science is crucial. This is why we have meetings, chat to people at coffee and read their tweets, blogs (oh hi!) and perhaps even papers...

And this is the part where the Deep Work manifesto is starting to read a bit...privileged. This is an author that is not lacking for engagement with his peers. He is a big research University in the middle of the capital of the United States. No lack of talks, engagements or just coffee chats with peers. 

What do you do if there are not that many peers around? Other people in your field to bounce ideas off. This is critical use of Twitter for me. And I am very grateful that those at much more central institutions are on it and willing to engage. Example? I cobbled most of my science team for a successful Hubble Proposal together on Twitter. Science Twitter FTW! 

But there is another reason for Science Twitter, and it is just as important as the first reason: BB pellets of encouragement. I like shooting them off and yes, receiving them. Academia is lonely work and most of the Deep Work on display in this book is similar to the solitary master craftsman that is touted as the example. 

There is a mention of a Deep Work in Collaborative Mode but that overemphasizes direct physical collaboration (white board mode) and while that is possible, especially the ability to collaborate in Deep Work Mode remotely is going to be a huge asset for any knowledge worker.


4. Drain the shallows

This is to say. Yes it feels productive to burn constantly through emails but it really isn't. No one is going to die because that email was left for later. If there is a very high demand for your time, install filters (for professors, the IT IS IN THE SYLLABUS comes to mind). And I may just make this rule: I won't answer lazy email. If the answer was 10sec with google or simply in the syllabus, I won't answer it anymore. 

Strangely, this jives with my Inbox 0 approach (again thank you Matt Kenworthy). My take (different from the Deep Work Book) is that the reason shallow work --exemplified by email in the book-- is inherently not worth doing half-assed. And this is why one should block time and focus (oddly making it deeper work) and minimize the shallow work. But this is why Inbox 0 is great. I have some time between work work and home (bus ride) and that is for triage. One system for todo items. One. That I trust. So this stuff is solidly out of my brain for deep work time. This is true for the many many administrative tasks that modern day professorship seems to have to be burdened with. But also with new ideas. Generating new science ideas is an extremely stochastic process for me. Maybe new ideas are

More on the Privileged Part

So the fact that Deep Work is a privileged thing seems to me when the example of the very well performing professor comes up (yes I perked up at that). He "arranged" for all his teaching to be in one of his semester. That's...a neat trick.
It is rare that professors are left with this much freedom in their schedule. And it strongly implied that this person's teaching load is really just two classes a year. And that is a very privileged position to be in, never mind having the freedom to teach both classes in one semester.