Roughly speaking, in near mode we focus practically on acting in our local situation, while in far mode we talk about how people in general should act in more ideal socially approved ways. So while we should expect near mode to usually be the best mode for practical purposes, we should also expect social discussions of near-far to celebrate far mode. For example, an article on
They're conceptually orthogonal but empirically correlated. The relationship isn't obvious. Whether the relationship is strong enough to warrant strong conclusions about the workplace may be another question. Robin summarizes the findings at http://tinyurl.com/cb936rm; I summarize the research in "Construal-level theory: Matching linguistic register to the case's granularity" - http://tinyurl.com/7yqe7zp
I'm not familiar with the area or terminology, but it still seems to me that psychologically distancing yourself from a task does not imply a lack of the "ability to focus, concentrate, and analyze". The two appear to be orthogonal.
"The big insights like the principle of equivalence are the ones we tend to observe, but interspersed throughout our daily grind are problems which require all manner of degrees of creative insight."
Plus, think of all the time Einstein spent in far mode leading up to formulating the principle of equivalence--his fantasies about the speed of light, while he resisted the demands of the schoolmarms to "be productive."
On the conflict between a regimented life and original thought, see "On the irreversibility of writing: Procrastination and writer's block—Solutions" - http://tinyurl.com/ckwv5m7
The research links the two in validating the concept of abstract-construal level (or "far mode," as Robin prefers).... Except I haven't seen any research showing that inebriation engenders the far mode. (Personal experience: THC is far; alcohol is near.)
[See http://tinyurl.com/88d329b for an interpretation of political ideologies in terms of construal-level preferences.]
I reference Robin in "The Last Word on Procrastination: An integration of ego-depletion theory, construal-level theory, and the irreversibility of writing." (He's "a prolific commentator.") I fancy that my approach is a more balanced view of far and near than Robin's on the one hand or MindHack's on the other. Plus, you get a total picture of procrastination rendered in far mode! - http://tinyurl.com/7d2yh6x
But I think one needs to alternate between creative and grinding moments in a 'scale-free' fashion. The big insights like the principle of equivalence are the ones we tend to observe, but interspersed throughout our daily grind are problems which require all manner of degrees of creative insight.
You ask, "Why do schools tend to drill creativity out of their students?"
Because many teachers don't understand that this is what they are doing. It's a side-effect - not a goal. The teachers' hands are often tied as well, limiting their options to nurture creativity.
You ask "Why don't employers like groggy drunk joking employees with wandering minds?"
Because employers are liable for the actions of their employees while on the job. Not treating an often-drunk employee as a problem condones that behavior and makes the employer culpable in the actions of that employee while on the job. (As a side note: I had one employer where a careful reading of the employee handbook requires employees to have exactly two alcoholic beverages druring their lunch break. Another employer served alcohol at employee gatherings during normal work hours).
There are many companies where employers would be more than happy to let employees drink on the job - in moderation - if it weren't for the liability issues.
I agree that most employers want their staff to focus on the task at hand. Other employers are hampered by liability concerns.
(Disclaimers: I assume that employers would not be happy to allow drinking on the job if there were safety issues. Also, in today's world "drinking on the job" indicates a drinking problem that would best be addressed. It wasn't always this way and I don't advocate encouraging drunkards to drink more. Moderation is the key).
Even the creative types need 'creative moments' only very few times. The vast majority of their work is done when they have to sit down, focus and polish their creative insights.
Take Einstein: he thought of his principle of equivalence in 1907, from which he basically derived the whole of general relativity. But he had to work for about 8 years to figure out the required differential geometry and write down his famous field equations, which he published in 1915. Now, I'm not saying he didn't require creative insights in between, but the vast majority of his 8 years was near-mode work.
Really, caffeine helps you focus and concentrate? For me, it makes me jump from thought to thought, so that I have to exert lots more willpower to stay on task. I always thought that the improved performance comes from greater alertness and creativity (and the mood boost), not the greater focus.
I should have waited a bit longer before posting in the open thread, but there is a construal-level theory researcher who seems to have fabricated data in a number of papers. You might want to go back and check to see which if any posts were based on his now suspect work: http://andrewgelman.com/201...
Flow (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi); that's the Holy Grail for us extollers of far mode. (http://tinyurl.com/6pt9eq5)... is far.
They're conceptually orthogonal but empirically correlated. The relationship isn't obvious. Whether the relationship is strong enough to warrant strong conclusions about the workplace may be another question. Robin summarizes the findings at http://tinyurl.com/cb936rm; I summarize the research in "Construal-level theory: Matching linguistic register to the case's granularity" - http://tinyurl.com/7yqe7zp
I'm not familiar with the area or terminology, but it still seems to me that psychologically distancing yourself from a task does not imply a lack of the "ability to focus, concentrate, and analyze". The two appear to be orthogonal.
"The big insights like the principle of equivalence are the ones we tend to observe, but interspersed throughout our daily grind are problems which require all manner of degrees of creative insight."
Plus, think of all the time Einstein spent in far mode leading up to formulating the principle of equivalence--his fantasies about the speed of light, while he resisted the demands of the schoolmarms to "be productive."
On the conflict between a regimented life and original thought, see "On the irreversibility of writing: Procrastination and writer's block—Solutions" - http://tinyurl.com/ckwv5m7
A Liked Reply
The research links the two in validating the concept of abstract-construal level (or "far mode," as Robin prefers).... Except I haven't seen any research showing that inebriation engenders the far mode. (Personal experience: THC is far; alcohol is near.)
[See http://tinyurl.com/88d329b for an interpretation of political ideologies in terms of construal-level preferences.]
I reference Robin in "The Last Word on Procrastination: An integration of ego-depletion theory, construal-level theory, and the irreversibility of writing." (He's "a prolific commentator.") I fancy that my approach is a more balanced view of far and near than Robin's on the one hand or MindHack's on the other. Plus, you get a total picture of procrastination rendered in far mode! - http://tinyurl.com/7d2yh6x
"1. Make challenging tasks seem easier"Isn't that a disadvantage? You're more likely to waste time and money attempting tasks that you can't complete.
But I think one needs to alternate between creative and grinding moments in a 'scale-free' fashion. The big insights like the principle of equivalence are the ones we tend to observe, but interspersed throughout our daily grind are problems which require all manner of degrees of creative insight.
You ask, "Why do schools tend to drill creativity out of their students?"
Because many teachers don't understand that this is what they are doing. It's a side-effect - not a goal. The teachers' hands are often tied as well, limiting their options to nurture creativity.
You ask "Why don't employers like groggy drunk joking employees with wandering minds?"
Because employers are liable for the actions of their employees while on the job. Not treating an often-drunk employee as a problem condones that behavior and makes the employer culpable in the actions of that employee while on the job. (As a side note: I had one employer where a careful reading of the employee handbook requires employees to have exactly two alcoholic beverages druring their lunch break. Another employer served alcohol at employee gatherings during normal work hours).
There are many companies where employers would be more than happy to let employees drink on the job - in moderation - if it weren't for the liability issues.
I agree that most employers want their staff to focus on the task at hand. Other employers are hampered by liability concerns.
(Disclaimers: I assume that employers would not be happy to allow drinking on the job if there were safety issues. Also, in today's world "drinking on the job" indicates a drinking problem that would best be addressed. It wasn't always this way and I don't advocate encouraging drunkards to drink more. Moderation is the key).
Even the creative types need 'creative moments' only very few times. The vast majority of their work is done when they have to sit down, focus and polish their creative insights.
Take Einstein: he thought of his principle of equivalence in 1907, from which he basically derived the whole of general relativity. But he had to work for about 8 years to figure out the required differential geometry and write down his famous field equations, which he published in 1915. Now, I'm not saying he didn't require creative insights in between, but the vast majority of his 8 years was near-mode work.
Really, caffeine helps you focus and concentrate? For me, it makes me jump from thought to thought, so that I have to exert lots more willpower to stay on task. I always thought that the improved performance comes from greater alertness and creativity (and the mood boost), not the greater focus.
I should have waited a bit longer before posting in the open thread, but there is a construal-level theory researcher who seems to have fabricated data in a number of papers. You might want to go back and check to see which if any posts were based on his now suspect work: http://andrewgelman.com/201...
"Gee, then why do schools tend to drill creativity out of their students"
What makes you assume that the schools care about how their graduates do in the workplace? What is in it for them?
How did you manage to equate an abstract, self-distanced perspective to "groggy drunk joking employees with wandering minds"?