Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Get started with 2-minute rule

hoanhan.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Get started with 2-minute rule

#61

Post by srtjstjsj »

thewebcount wrote: post #30
DoreenMichele wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Click on the timestamp for the comment. It will give you additional options not visible normally, including favorite .

OK, slightly off-topic rant: I have to say that timestamp is the weirdest UI element I've run across in a long time. Nothing about it gives any indication that it does anything useful. Want to link to just the thread started by a given comment? Click the timestamp . What? Why? Oh well. Want to favorite a comment? Click the timestamp . Um, OK. That's weird. I would never think to do that and on mobile have accidentall…

You learn it once and it works forever everywhere.

Re: Get started with 2-minute rule

#62

Post by alan_n »

LeonB wrote: post #41
alan_n wrote: post #34

This method is great. I use it all the time. But one of these does not feel like the others... ( cough "Build a program → Code a function" cough ). All the others could be done in the day, except for the vegetable one which is too abstract. And their solution could be done in 2 minutes. The coding one on the other hand... impossible to do in a day and also writing code is imo almost impossible to write in small chunk…

I used to code on the bus while commuting to work. There were many interruptions that meant it would only be successful if I optimised it such that I could start/stop at a moment’s notice. Through this experience I learned that you definitely can do highly productive programming work in tiny burts. Patterns like these were helpful to getting there: - “do the simplest thing that could possibly work” - yagni - shorten…

Being interrupted (and especially by the type of interruptions on a bus, like what's the worse interruption? getting asked to move?) or working in bursts is not the same as doing 2 minutes of work then stopping.

The reason I'm nitpicking this example is because I've found it helps substantially to know that even if I only do 2 minutes of the thing, I'm making progress. Otherwise it's very hard to trick my brain into doing the thing. I don't like the "wear running shoes" example either. I have found that when I plan habits like that I maybe do them once or twice, then never again. There is no reward for me without the progress and in the case of the coding example would only bring me frustration.

Re: Get started with 2-minute rule

#64

Post by jyounker »

ineedasername wrote: post #27

I'm not sure how well this will work for certain things, like pushups: Each one gets harder as you go. For things like work projects, this is a good approach for me: Sometimes I find myself putting off beginning something because it's a big project and I don't have it all figured out yet. But once I catch myself in that cycle, I start on the preliminary work, get into a groove, and (unlike the pushups) things get eas…

Don't do two minutes of pushups, do 2 pushups.

Re: Get started with 2-minute rule

#66

Post by reificator »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #60
LeonB wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "the 2-minute rule" (originally from Dave Allen of 'Getting Things Done') or the article above frame procrastination as "laziness." It clearly about "Task Initiation" which is a problem related to "Executive Function". None of the related authors would ever frame it as being about "Laziness". That's like... the last thing Dave Allen would do. Also "identifying the next action" (which is what you're sugg…

If you say "inertia" instead of "laziness", the sting is removed. Internia is why it's hard to start working and easy to continue once started.

Sure, that's better wording, but I also don't think this method solves inertia because of the two minute restriction.

What this seems to do is remove inertia stemming from being overwhelmed with options by clarifying what actually needs to be done.

Re: Get started with 2-minute rule

#67

Post by LeonB »

alan_n wrote: post #62
LeonB wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to code on the bus while commuting to work. There were many interruptions that meant it would only be successful if I optimised it such that I could start/stop at a moment’s notice. Through this experience I learned that you definitely can do highly productive programming work in tiny burts. Patterns like these were helpful to getting there: - “do the simplest thing that could possibly work” - yagni - shorten…

Being interrupted (and especially by the type of interruptions on a bus, like what's the worse interruption? getting asked to move?) or working in bursts is not the same as doing 2 minutes of work then stopping. The reason I'm nitpicking this example is because I've found it helps substantially to know that even if I only do 2 minutes of the thing, I'm making progress. Otherwise it's very hard to trick my brain into…

A crowded public bus has far more intense interruptions than those in the workplace. I've never been thrown from my seat at work. (Ok -- once.) At work I've never been surrounded by a group of strangers having a shouting argument. And much more.

And there were many bus trips where I would not get a seat until the very end of the ride, and still manage to get work done. A single burst of work was frustrating, but you'd make the most of it. Honestly - it was a transformative experience. I completely agree with you here:

> it helps substantially to know that even if I only do 2 minutes of the thing, I'm making progress.

...and that was the trick for me. Transforming it from "in 2 minutes I won't even get the IDE loaded" to a situation where "in 2 minutes I'll make small but genuine progress, progress that I can bank. A tiny but solid win." And seeing that happen over and over is what got my brain into a place where I would be kind of "proud" instead of "frustrated".

With this topic in general, when you say:

> I don't like the "wear running shoes" example either

...I think maybe you'd need to go back to the real source of this stuff, which is not the linked article, and not James Clear, but Fogg. Also the book 'the power of habit' by Duhigg is quite in depth.

Because if you only read the 1-minute pop-psychology versions it's very easy to pick holes in it and it looks quite superficial, I get that. They present it as just little "hacks" and how can you get a deep trust in it, if it's just gimmicky little hacks?

Anyway, best wishes.

Re: Get started with 2-minute rule

#68

Post by LeonB »

reificator wrote: post #66
srtjstjsj wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you say "inertia" instead of "laziness", the sting is removed. Internia is why it's hard to start working and easy to continue once started.

Sure, that's better wording, but I also don't think this method solves inertia because of the two minute restriction. What this seems to do is remove inertia stemming from being overwhelmed with options by clarifying what actually needs to be done.

This sent me down a rabbit hole looking for the difference between inertia and momentum. Which showed me, above all, that the people who write dictionaries aren't qualified to write about terms from physics.

I also see that effort it takes to get started on a thing as similar to "excitation energy" in chemistry -- that discrete amount of energy, below which, the system will not change, and above which, bam! it all happens!

By understanding the "next action" you're lowering the "excitation energy" requirement. But that's not a great metaphor to use with the general public. This is why James Clear writes the books, and I just writes the comments.

Re: Get started with 2-minute rule

#70

Post by mellosouls »

LeonB wrote: post #53
mellosouls wrote: post #18

For further reading, this article is based (with credit) on James Clear's original, which uses techniques based on GTD and Fogg's Tiny Habits (which themselves are all probably just formalised folk wisdom), which have been discussed many times here fwiw. 2 Minute Rule https://jamesclear.com/how-to-stop-procrastinating GTD https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Things_Done Tiny Habits https://www.success.com/tiny-habi…

Fogg’s stuff is pretty well researched and rises a few steps up from formalised folk research (though I get what you mean). I don’t think James does enough to credit Fogg. I mean Atomic Habits — based on Tiny Habits... and the name “two minute rule” lifted and shifted from GTD. He’s a good writer and deserves his success on that basis, but I get a bad impression from these few examples I know of.

Yes, I noticed that as well, the lack of credit but I wasn't sure if I just hadn't seen enough of the site.
Post reply on HN