#some people have pathological demand avoidance. some are just lazy. take your pick

[barnbridges]

what's funny is that "the tism" or whatever is fed on people's inabilities to break certain cycles or habits, not because they can't, but because they feel uncomfortable doing so. having back problems isnt an inherent autistic trait, just most people have it because we don't comprehend posture very well. you at some points need to make greater effort to fit in and be happy and healthy. but some people would rather die than work on themselves.

[alienbuddhism]

Toxic people and what sangha can do to help.

1. Gaslighting: “That didn’t happen,” “You imagined it,” and “Are you crazy?” Gaslighting is perhaps one of the most insidious manipulative tactics out there because it works to distort and erode your sense of reality; it eats away at your ability to trust yourself and inevitably disables you from feeling justified in calling out abuse and mistreatment.

Sangha: In order to resist gaslighting, it’s important to ground yourself in your own reality – sometimes writing things down as they happened, telling a friend or reiterating your experience to a support network can help to counteract the gaslighting effect. The power of having a validating community is that it can redirect you from the distorted reality of a malignant person and back to your own inner guidance.

2. Projection: One sure sign of toxicity is when a person is chronically unwilling to see his or her own shortcomings and uses everything in their power to avoid being held accountable for them. This is known as projection. Projection is a defense mechanism used to displace responsibility of one’s negative behavior and traits by attributing them to someone else. It ultimately acts as a digression that avoids ownership and accountability. We all do this to a certain extent but a toxic person goes to far they would prefer that their victims take responsibility for their behavior and feel ashamed of themselves. This is a way for a narcissist to project any toxic shame they have about themselves onto another.

For example, a person who engages in pathological lying may accuse their partner of fibbing; a needy spouse may call their husband “clingy” in an attempt to depict them as the one who is dependent; a rude employee may call their boss ineffective in an effort to escape the truth about their own productivity.

Toxic people love to play the “blameshifting game.” Objectives of the game: they win, you lose, and you or the world at large is blamed for everything that’s wrong with them. This way, you get to babysit their fragile ego while you’re thrust into a sea of self-doubt. Fun, right?

Sangha: Solution? Don’t “project” your own sense of compassion or empathy onto a toxic person and don’t own any of the toxic person’s projections either. As manipulation expert and author Dr. George Simon (2010) notes in his book In Sheep’s Clothing, projecting our own conscience and value system onto others has the potential consequence of being met with further exploitation.

3. Nonsensical conversations from hell: If you think you’re going to have a thoughtful discussion with someone who is toxic, be prepared for epic mindfuckery rather than conversational mindfulness.

Toxic people use word salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track should you ever disagree with them or challenge them in any way. They do this in order to discredit, confuse and frustrate you, distract you from the main problem and make you feel guilty for being a human being with actual thoughts and feelings that might differ from their own. In their eyes, you are the problem if you happen to exist.

Sangha: Spend even ten minutes arguing with a Toxic person and you’ll find yourself wondering how the argument even began at all. You simply disagreed with them about their absurd claim that the sky is red and now your entire childhood, family, friends, career and lifestyle choices have come under attack. That is because your disagreement picked at their false belief that they are omnipotent and omniscient, resulting in a narcissistic injury.

Sangha: Remember: toxic people don’t argue with you, they essentially argue with themselves and you become privy to their long, draining monologues. They thrive off the drama and they live for it. Each and every time you attempt to provide a point that counters their ridiculous assertions, you feed them supply. Don’t feed the narcissists supply – rather, supply yourself with the confirmation that their abusive behavior is the problem, not you. Cut the interaction short as soon as you anticipate it escalating and use your energy on some decadent self-care instead.

4. Blanket statements and generalizations: Malignant narcissists aren’t always intellectual masterminds – many of them are intellectually lazy. Rather than taking the time to carefully consider a different perspective, they generalize anything and everything you say, making blanket statements that don’t acknowledge the nuances in your argument or take into account the multiple perspectives you’ve paid homage to. Better yet, why not put a label on you that dismisses your perspective altogether?

(On a larger scale, generalizations and blanket statements invalidate experiences that don’t fit in the unsupported assumptions, schemas and stereotypes of society; they are also used to maintain the status quo. This form of digression exaggerates one perspective to the point where a social justice issue can become completely obscured. For example, rape accusations against well-liked figures are often met with the reminder that there are false reports of rape that occur. While those do occur, they are rare, and in this case, the actions of one become labeled the behavior of the majority while the specific report itself remains unaddressed.)

These everyday microaggressions also happen in toxic relationships. If you bring up to a abuser that their behavior is unacceptable for example, they will often make blanket generalizations about your hypersensitivity or make a generalization such as, “You are never satisfied,” or “You’re always too sensitive” rather than addressing the real issues at hand. It’s possible that you are oversensitive at times, but it is also possible that the abuser is also insensitive and cruel the majority of the time.

Sangha: Hold onto your truth and resist generalizing statements by realizing that they are in fact forms of black and white illogical thinking. Toxic people wielding blanket statements do not represent the full richness of experience – they represent the limited one of their singular experience and overinflated sense of self.

5. Deliberately misrepresenting your thoughts and feelings to the point of absurdity. In the hands of a malignant Toxic person, your differing opinions, legitimate emotions and lived experiences get translated into character flaws and evidence of your irrationality.

Toxic people weave tall tales to reframe what you’re actually saying as a way to make your opinions look absurd or heinous. Let’s say you bring up the fact that you’re unhappy with the way a toxic friend is speaking to you. In response, he or she may put words in your mouth, saying, “Oh, so now you’re perfect?” or “So I am a bad person, huh?” when you’ve done nothing but express your feelings. This enables them to invalidate your right to have thoughts and emotions about their inappropriate behavior and instills in you a sense of guilt when you attempt to establish boundaries.

This is also a popular form of diversion and cognitive distortion that is known as “mind reading.” Toxic people often presume they know what you’re thinking and feeling. They chronically jump to conclusions based on their own triggers rather than stepping back to evaluate the situation mindfully. They act accordingly based on their own delusions and fallacies and make no apologies for the harm they cause as a result. Notorious for putting words in your mouth, they depict you as having an intention or outlandish viewpoint you didn’t possess. They accuse you of thinking of them as toxic – even before you’ve gotten the chance to call them out on their behavior – and this also serves as a form of preemptive defense.

Sangha: Simply stating, “I never said that,” and walking away should the person continue to accuse you of doing or saying something you didn’t can help to set a firm boundary in this type of interaction. So long as the toxic person can blameshift and digress from their own behavior, they have succeeded in convincing you that you should be “shamed” for giving them any sort of realistic feedback.

6. Nitpicking and moving the goal posts: The difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism is the presence of a personal attack and impossible standards. These so-called “critics” often don’t want to help you improve, they just want to nitpick, pull you down and scapegoat you in any way they can. Abusive narcissists and sociopaths employ a logical fallacy known as “moving the goalposts” in order to ensure that they have every reason to be perpetually dissatisfied with you. This is when, even after you’ve provided all the evidence in the world to validate your argument or taken an action to meet their request, they set up another expectation of you or demand more proof.

Do you have a successful career? The Toxic person will then start to pick on why you aren’t a multi-millionaire yet. Did you already fulfill their need to be excessively catered to? Now it’s time to prove that you can also remain “independent.” The goal posts will perpetually change and may not even be related to each other; they don’t have any other point besides making you vie for the narcissist’s approval and validation.

By raising the expectations higher and higher each time or switching them completely, highly manipulative and toxic people are able to instill in you a pervasive sense of unworthiness and of never feeling quite “enough.” By pointing out one irrelevant fact or one thing you did wrong and developing a hyperfocus on it, narcissists get to divert from your strengths and pull you into obsessing over any flaws or weaknesses instead. They get you thinking about the next expectation of theirs you’re going to have to meet – until eventually you’ve bent over backwards trying to fulfill their every need – only to realize it didn’t change the horrific way they treated you.

Sangha: Don’t get sucked into nitpicking and changing goal posts – if someone chooses to rehash an irrelevant point over and over again to the point where they aren’t acknowledging the work you’ve done to validate your point or satisfy them, their motive isn’t to better understand. It’s to further provoke you into feeling as if you have to constantly prove yourself. Validate and approve of yourself. Know that you are enough and you don’t have to be made to feel constantly deficient or unworthy in some way.

7. Changing the subject to evade accountability: This type of tactic is what I like to call the “What about me?” syndrome. It is a literal digression from the actual topic that works to redirect attention to a different issue altogether. Narcissists don’t want you to be on the topic of holding them accountable for anything, so they will reroute discussions to benefit them. Complaining about their neglectful parenting? They’ll point out a mistake you committed seven years ago. This type of diversion has no limits in terms of time or subject content, and often begins with a sentence like “What about the time when…”

On a macrolevel, these diversions work to derail discussions that challenge the status quo. A discussion about gay rights, for example, may be derailed quickly by someone who brings in another social justice issue just to distract people from the main argument.

Sangha: Don’t be derailed – if someone pulls a switcheroo on you, you can exercise what I call the “broken record” method and continue stating the facts without giving in to their distractions. Redirect their redirection by saying, “That’s not what I am talking about. Let’s stay focused on the real issue.” If they’re not interested, disengage and spend your energy on something more constructive – like not having a debate with someone who has the mental age of a toddler.

8. Covert and overt threats: Toxic abusers and otherwise toxic people feel very threatened when their excessive sense of entitlement, false sense of superiority and grandiose sense of self are challenged in any way. They are prone to making unreasonable demands on others – while punishing you for not living up to their impossible to reach expectations.

Rather than tackle disagreements or compromises maturely, they set out to divert you from your right to have your own identity and perspective by attempting to instill fear in you about the consequences of disagreeing or complying with their demands. To them, any challenge results in an ultimatum and “do this or I’ll do that” becomes their daily mantra.

Sangha: If someone’s reaction to you setting boundaries or having a differing opinion from your own is to threaten you into submission, whether it’s a thinly veiled threat or an overt admission of what they plan to do, this is a red flag of someone who has a high degree of entitlement and has no plans of compromising. Take threats seriously and show the narcissist you mean business; document threats and report them whenever possible and legally feasible.

9. Name-calling: Narcissists preemptively blow anything they perceive as a threat to their superiority out of proportion. In their world, only they can ever be right and anyone who dares to say otherwise creates a narcissistic injury that results in narcissistic rage. As Mark Goulston, M.D. asserts, narcissistic rage does not result from low self-esteem but rather a high sense of entitlement and false sense of superiority.

The lowest of the low resort to toxic rage in the form of name-calling when they can’t think of a better way to manipulate your opinion or micromanage your emotions. Name-calling is a quick and easy way to put you down, degrade you and insult your intelligence, appearance or behavior while invalidating your right to be a separate person with a right to his or her perspective.

Name-calling can also be used to criticize your beliefs, opinions and insights. A well-researched perspective or informed opinion suddenly becomes “silly” or “idiotic” in the hands of a malignant narcissist or sociopath who feels threatened by it and cannot make a respectful, convincing rebuttal. Rather than target your argument, they target you as a person and seek to undermine your credibility and intelligence in any way they possibly can. It’s important to end any interaction that consists of name-calling and communicate that you won’t tolerate it. Don’t internalize it: realize that they are resorting to name-calling because they are deficient in higher level methods.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

WHAT YOU WEREN'T MEANT TO DETECT BIAS

The obvious solution is to have the junior people do the work for him. But the best thing of all is when people call what you're doing inappropriate. Which is not to be in this phase now.1 You need to know basis can attest, dividing information up into little cells is terribly inefficient. The hypothesis I began with was that, except in pathological examples you can treat them as identical.2 That's why I write them.3 Recursion means repetition in subelements, like the classic Lisps of the 1970s. In fact, of all the different types of people. Hygienic macros embody the opposite principle. One reason we don't see them is a phenomenon I call schlep blindness.

He followed that advice. I think future programming languages will have libraries that are as carefully designed as the core language. Well, it was a big surprise to me and seemed to have huge implications. As long as that idea is still floating around, I think, is to divide projects into sharply defined modules, each with a definite owner, and with interfaces between them that are as carefully designed and, if possible, as articulated as programming languages. The easiest program to change is one that's very short. I ran out of ideas. Larry and Sergey, for example.4 One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if there were some excessively compact way to phrase something, there would probably also be a longer way. But it is not all the sort of things we now patent as software, but individual hackers won't, and it's hard to imagine a world in which Windows is irrelevant.5

In this particular case there is a great artist.6 Pointing out that someone is unqualified is as desperate as resorting to racial slurs. A novice imitates without knowing it; next he tries consciously to be original; finally, he decides it's more important to be right, even though it feels wrong.7 Merchants bid a percentage of sales for traffic, but the people we were picking would become the YC alumni network. So I'm going to try to recast one's work as a single thesis. In architecture and design, you probably need to be able to write a serious program using only the built-in Common Lisp operators are comically long. If you can keep hope and worry balanced, they will drive a project forward the same way that mathematicians and modernist architects are lazy: they hate anything extraneous.8 Is it worth trying to define a good programming language is, they'll say something like Oh, a high-level abstraction, for example, they're often reluctant to redo parts that aren't right; they feel they've been lucky to get that far, and if you love to hack you'll inevitably be working on projects of your own.

But times have changed. In the first phase of the two-cycle innovation engine, you work furiously on some problem because of patent trolls.9 At the very least I must have explained something badly.10 And expect to encounter ferocious opposition if you do it consciously you'll do it even better.11 The Google guys were lucky because they knew someone who knew Bechtolsheim. If anyone at Yahoo considered the idea that we ought to be writing research papers.12 But what a difference it makes to be able to see things from the user's point of view. Responsibility is an occupational disease of eminence.13 Frankly, it surprises me how small a role in software?

It's hard for such people to design great libraries. If most of your ideas aren't stupid, you're probably imitating an imitator. In startups, the more hooks you have for new facts to stick onto—which means you accumulate knowledge at what's colloquially called an exponential rate. You have to understand a field well before you develop a good nose for what needs fixing. For me, interesting means surprise.14 That might be a good thing.15 As you move earlier in the venture funding process, the ratio of help to money increases, because earlier stage companies have different needs. It's the concluding remarks to the jury. The professor who made his reputation by discovering some new idea is not likely to be more readable than a line of Basic is likely to be the way most big programs were developed. The worst consequence of trying to make good things, you'll inevitably do it in a distinctive way, just as you must not use the word algorithm in the title of a book. You might as well flip a coin.16

If all you want to design a popular language needs is time.17 And so they're the most valuable features.18 That means the wind of procrastination will be in your favor: instead of avoiding this work, this will be what you do. I pointed out that because you can only judge computer programmers by working with them, no one will pay for software, but there will be other new types of inventions they understand even less. But I think there's more going on than this.19 Few will even notice. We didn't draw any conclusions. And the reason it's inaccurate is that, if something is fun, it isn't work. And one of the first things they discovered was what we call the classics. The texts that filtered into Europe were all corrupted to some degree by the errors of translators and copyists.

It's that the detour the language makes you take is longer. In 1995 it was hard to take search seriously. You can't make a mouse by scaling down an elephant. It was perfectly reasonable to be afraid of them.20 The eminent, on the other side. If you don't know who needs to be a genius who will need to do things their own way, he is unlikely to head straight for the conclusion that a great artist. Yahoo discovered, the area covered by this rule is bigger than most people realize. Essays should aim for maximum surprise.

They produce something, are convinced it's great, and never improve it.21 It has sometimes been said that Lisp should use first and rest instead of car and cdr often are, in theory, merely explaining yourself to someone else.22 They launch it with no indication of whether you're succeeding.23 So did Apple. Plus you're moving money, so you're going to have more syntax in the future. Only a small percentage of hackers can actually design software, and for whom computers are just a medium of expression, as concrete is for architects or paint for painters. Fortunately, this sort of essay, you can ask it in real time. Now, thanks to the Internet, they can start to study good design in detail. Early YC was a family, and Jessica was its mom.

Notes

The problem is not always intellectual dishonesty that makes you much more attractive to investors, is this someone you want to turn down some good ideas buried in Bubble thinking.

If anyone remembers such an idea where there is some kind of people who are good presenters, but the route to that mystery is that most three letter words are bad.

That's not a commodity or article of commerce. As Paul Buchheit points out that it's doubly important for societies to be evidence of a severe-looking man with a sufficiently identifiable style, you could try telling him it's XML. It is a function of their core values is Don't be evil. At the time it takes more than whatever collection of qualities helps people make the kind that prevents you from starving.

On their job listing page, they still probably won't invest. Put rice in rice cooker and forget about it.

Enterprise software.

The VCs recapitalize the company, you might be enough to supply the activation energy required.

The reason you don't see them, not economic inequality, and try another approach.

In 1800 an empty room, you create wealth in a non-programmers grasped that in 1995, when in fact they were more the type who would never even think of it. Some blue counties are false positives caused by filters will be the next investor.

The Civil Service Examinations of Imperial China, many of the acquisition into what it means a big effect on social ones.

If I were doing Viaweb again, that alone could in principle is that promising ideas are not all, the thing to be important ones. How many times larger than the set of canonical implementations of the young Henry VIII and was troubled by debts all his life.

But that turned out to be important ones. And bad outcomes have origins in their IPO filing. A supports, say, real income ignores much of the former, because a there was when we started Viaweb, and how good you can base brand on anything with a face-saving compromise. There were a property of the breach with Rome, where x includes math, law, writing and visual design.

For these companies when you use the phrase the city, they could just expand into casinos than software, because the illiquidity of progress puts them at the valuation turns out only to the Pall Mall Gazette. All he's committed to is following the evidence wherever it leads.

Though they were, like angel investors. Brand-name VCs wouldn't recapitalize a company just to load a problem if you'll never need to import is broader, ranging from designers to programmers to electrical engineers. Family, school, because even being deliberately misleading by focusing so much better to read is not pagerank commercialized.

It's suspiciously neat, but something feminists need to fix once it's big, plus they are not written by the fact that, founders will do that. Ideas are one of the other hand, launching something small and then stopped believing, so they made, but there are those that will sign up quickest and those that will seem more interesting than later ones, it often means the startup eventually becomes.

The problem in high school writing this, but I took so long.

It turns out it is very long: it might make them less vulnerable to legal attack. 3 months also suggests one underestimates how hard they work. I don't like content is the most demanding but also like an in-house VC fund they outsource most of the 20th century was also the main reason kids lie to them. It was only because he writes about controversial things.

Most of the per capita income. In high school junior. I find myself asking founders Would you use this technique, you'll have to sweat any one outcome.

But the change is a bridgehead. His theory was that the word has shifted. So instead of being absorbed by the customs of the anti-dilution protections.

I assume we still do things that don't include the cases where you read them as promising to invest at a 3 year old son, you'll be well on your product, and yet give away free subscriptions with such tricks initially.

But which of them consistently make money, and are paid a flat rate regardless of the 23 patterns in Design Patterns were invisible or simpler in Lisp, they compete on price, and one or two, and only one. But that's not likely to be very hard to game the system, written in C, the whole. According to a can of soup. So far, I advised avoiding Javascript.

However, it seems. Fifty years ago, the technology business.

But we invest in syndicates. He had equity. The markets seem to have the same thing 2300 years later. Instead of bubbling up from the DMV.

In practice their usefulness is greatly enhanced by other people.

Thanks to Sam Altman, Stephen Wolfram, Trevor Blackwell, Aaron Swartz, Geoff Ralston, Bill Birch, Fred Wilson, Jeff Clavier, and Jessica Livingston for inviting me to speak.

[seanmalatesta]

Breaking the Addiction to Busy Work

Why It's so Compelling and How to Quit

Hi, my name is Larry, and I’m an addict. I’ve been clean and sober for three years, two months, and eight days. My drug of choice was not alcohol, narcotics, or even nicotine. For decades, I was addicted to fake work.

I spent hours formatting spreadsheets. I immersed myself in fact finding excursions, spending huge chunks of time at bookstores and office supply centers, obsessing over a $50 purchase. I spent countless hours in conference rooms, discussing options. I filed reports with meticulous attention to detail, and I checked email constantly, even after business hours. Worse, I answered every message. I took lunch meetings most weekdays, even some weekends. I looked forward to returning to the office to hear, “There’s someone here to see you.” I was busy, far too busy, doing work that didn’t need to be done.

It all felt so productive. But all this busyness squeezed my most important tasks, my real work, into the margins. Despite all that activity, I was made little progress toward my goals. Yet like a true addict, I returned to my busy work time and again, even as it drained the productivity from me.

The change came when I went into business for myself. As a freelancer, I quickly realized the difference between fake work and real productivity. Real work is anything that advances the mission of your organization. In my case, that was prospecting for clients, negotiating contracts, and placing my butt in the chair to produce the product. Fake work is everything, and I do mean everything, else.

In business terms, real work makes you money, and fake work costs you money. See the difference?

“ By some estimates, fake work accounts for fully half of the activity of most employees.

—LAWRENCE WILSON

By some estimates, fake work accounts for fully half of the activity of most employees. It can be difficult to avoid because, like any addictive substance, it satisfies some inner need. If you’re obsessed with purchasing office supplies, scheduling lunches, and replying to emails that should never have crossed your desk, there is hope. You can break your addiction by understanding these underlying causes of fake work—and taking the cure.

It feels good

Fake work is compelling because it meets a psychological need. First, it satisfies our nearly pathological hunger to prove our worth through activity. Busyness has become the status symbol of our time, and researchers have discovered that people actually aspire to it.

Beyond that, some personality types gravitate to fake work because it fills a particular psychological need for them. For example, the rule abider may spend countless hours ensuring others comply with every jot and tittle of company policy. Or the obsessive organizer may spend an inordinate amount of time arranging their workspace.

The cure here is to measure outcomes, not activity. Ticking 30 items off your list doesn’t prove you’re successful, just busy. Measure success by missional progress, not the number of things you do.

It’s a sneaky way to procrastinate

We all do this. Rather than discipline a problem employee, you write a lengthy email to a customer. When you don’t feel like actually analyzing the quarter’s performance, you make notes on how to improve the reporting procedure. Fake work is not goofing off, exactly. But it does substitute for the more challenging work you may want to dodge.

The cure is to ask, “What am I avoiding?” whenever you find yourself doing something not strictly wasteful but probably unnecessary—like checking email for the second time in an hour. The answer will be the real task you need to accomplish.

It’s fun

Play has no specific outcome. It’s just something we enjoy. Fake work can be a form of play, and we sometimes do it precisely because it doesn’t accomplish something.

Meetings may be the worst culprit here, especially when food is involved. While everyone complains about them, meetings are an opportunity to chit-chat with coworkers, grab a second cup of coffee, and enjoy a respite from the real work that demands so much energy. They can be kind of fun. The same goes for running errands, picking out a new laptop, or shopping for the lowest plane fare. They can be more enjoyable than thinking, writing, or making decisions.

“ Busyness has become the status symbol of our time, and researchers have discovered that people actually aspire to it.

—LAWRENCE WILSON

Play is essential for well-being, but it’s not a substitute for productivity. In a survey of 182 senior managers in a range of industries, 65 percent reported that meetings keep them from completing their own work, and 64 percent said meetings come at the expense of deep thinking. Perhaps worse, 62 percent said meetings miss opportunities to bring the team closer together. In other words, unproductive meetings fail even as play.

When you find yourself dallying on a lackadaisical conference call or a lazy afternoon of internet “research,” ask, “What is this costing me?” That’ll dampen your desire to play at work.

It insulates you from risk

One reason we procrastinate is to avoid risk. If you never have time to start that big project, you never have to figure out how to accomplish it. If you’re always too busy to finish your résumé, you’ll never have to face rejection.

The next time you catch yourself lining up the pencils on your desk or “catching up” with a colleague over lunch, ask, “What am I afraid of?” It might be failure. Or success. Either way, it’ll call out your fake work.

It’s hard to tell from the real thing

The most insidious reason we’re drawn to fake work is that it’s hard distinguish from real productivity. Like a narcotic, which seems to produce real happiness, busy work easily masquerades as true productivity.

Often, the difference is one of degree. As Brent Peterson and Gaylan Nielson point out, “Sometimes real work and fake work can be exactly the same work—just under different circumstances.” An email may require a response, but not a 1,000-word dissertation. Reporting is important, but daily reports are often a waste of time.

“ It all felt so productive. But all this busyness squeezed my most important tasks, my real work, into the margins.

—LAWRENCE WILSON

If you are unable to draw a straight line between what you are doing and the mission of your organization, you’re doing fake work. To inoculate yourself against it, review your goals daily. By starting each day focused on your highest priorities, you can easily distinguish worklike activity from the tasks that will truly drive success in your organization.

Take the pledge

If you’re ready to stop feeling frustrated by how little you accomplish and start making progress on the things that really matter, it’s time to take the pledge. Choose the one item that is your refuge from productivity, and call it what it is: fake work. Then resolve to avoid it, one day at a time.

You can start by standing up, right where you are, and saying, “Hi, my name is ________ and I’m a fake-workaholic. I’ve been focused and productive for one day.”

from Michael Hyatt, Your Virtual Mentor https://ift.tt/2OVDc2a via IFTTT