Executive Function Theft
hedgehoglibrarian.com
Executive Function Theft
1–10 of 227 posts
Re: Executive Function Theft
#2It's not really theft though, since the 'thief' doesn't gain the thing being 'stolen'.
It's only the 'deny use' half of 'theft', ie it's more like DoS.
Re: Executive Function Theft
#3It's not really theft though, since the 'thief' doesn't gain the thing being 'stolen'. It's only the 'deny use' half of 'theft', ie it's more like DoS.
it is denial of service in every way of the term.
Re: Executive Function Theft
#4It's not really theft though, since the 'thief' doesn't gain the thing being 'stolen'. It's only the 'deny use' half of 'theft', ie it's more like DoS.
There’s power in the word “theft” that doesn’t exist in “denial of service”.
Theft implies taking something that isn’t yours to take, which appropriately shames the perpetrator of their actions.
Re: Executive Function Theft
#5Newport recommends entirely stopping or poorly performing that work; I read this as encouraging readers to commit EFT against others around them.
When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When writing a jeremiad, anything becomes weighty evidence.
Re: Executive Function Theft
#6The definition uses "abdication...to" which I don't think is correct. I think the author means "delegation...to."
Re: Executive Function Theft
#7It's not really theft though, since the 'thief' doesn't gain the thing being 'stolen'. It's only the 'deny use' half of 'theft', ie it's more like DoS.
There’s power in the word “theft” that doesn’t exist in “denial of service”. Theft implies taking something that isn’t yours to take, which appropriately shames the perpetrator of their actions.
Shaming someone is more important than the truth. Why am I not surprised anymore?
Re: Executive Function Theft
#8It's not really theft though, since the 'thief' doesn't gain the thing being 'stolen'. It's only the 'deny use' half of 'theft', ie it's more like DoS.
> the 'thief' doesn't gain the thing being 'stolen'.
IIUC, they do—the thief delegates tedious, finicky work to preserve their own executive function for “important stuff”. They don’t have more executive function than before the task existed, but they do have more than before they delegated it, and the delegation is the theft.
Re: Executive Function Theft
#9The fallacy here is assuming planning something is draining or bad for you. It more has to do with how much you enjoy the thing. I think couples have arguments about the thing neither of them wants to do. But if one
enjoys planning the holiday for example they will just do it and it wont feel like EFT.
I definitely get bank EFT (pun not intended), I deal with this by having recurring todos with all the links and stuff I need to smash it out quickly. The idea is to offload from CPU (executive/conscious) to GPU (habits/unconscious)
When talking about this I thought EFT was going to lead to how Twitter and other dopamine hits stop you from getting important stuff done.
Re: Executive Function Theft
#10It's not really theft though, since the 'thief' doesn't gain the thing being 'stolen'. It's only the 'deny use' half of 'theft', ie it's more like DoS.
It's not only denial of use. The perpetrator gains the output of the delegated effort. The sale goes through. The business continues to operate. Paychecks get signed. The home's functionality is maintained.
When the "non-promotable work" of a firm, community, or family gets done "the rising tide raises all boats" if that work is necessary for the organization's profitability and/or autopoiesis.
I am confused as to how you don't see the profit in delegating.
Edit: for example, if I were to borrow your lawn mower with out asking, mow my lawn, and then--crucially--return your lawnmower wouldn't that be theft? Even though you'd only been "denied service" and not lost an entire mower?