Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Slobs Found To Be More Productive Than Neatniks

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the but-i-like-right-angles-and-straight-rows dept.

writertype writes "Are you a slob? Do you pile papers on top of folders on top of game boxes? Here's the thing that those anal neat people can't even conceive of: you're more productive than they are. That's the conclusion of "A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder," by Eric Abrahamson and David Freedman, a new book that argues neatness is overrated, costs money, wastes time and quashes creativity."

16 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. Indeed? by wframe9109 · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news: People with Anorexia found to be more productive than normal eaters.

    "It's quite ingenious!" exclaimed one researcher, "it seems that because Anorexics do not need to take time to eat, they are far more productive!"

    When asked whether health implications or possible mortality ensuing from Anorexia could negatively affect productivity, the researcher seemed angered, and left the interview.

    On a serious note. One can get a lot done when they don't have to deal with cleaning shit up. But there is a certain point at which the stench, impossibility of finding important items, and spousal/co-worker nagging will counter any increased productivity.

    1. Re:Indeed? by hoshino · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you are missing the point. Messy people aren't more productive because they save time on not clearing things up. The theory is that our brains are not organized in the same orderly manner as books on a library shelf. Our minds are actually quite messy and random, which allows us to be flexible and creative by linking seemingly unrelated things together in an instance. A messy desk may just be a physical manifestation of our thought process which is why we are more comfortable with it than with an unnatural sorting system.

    2. Re:Indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've noticed this before. A colleague of mine tidies twice every day, at least 15 minutes in total. Everything must be neat and tidy and filed when he leaves his desk, even at lunchtime. He belives this makes him more productive and has said so to me.

      I tidy once per month. It may take me 2 hours to do. He's spent 7.5 hours tidying. I've spent 2... I guess that the extra 5.5 hours I get to put in are somehow ignored.
      As long as no one else starts interfering with my desk then I can find everything I need as a messy desk automatically sorts itself by usefulness order. If I use something a lot then it's towards the front of my desk. The less I use something the more it migrates to the back.

      Much of the time I end up working more slowly just after a tidy as I have to start fetching things back from files. The tidying processes main purpose is as a filter. If an item no longer needs to be on my desk (older paperwork ect) it will not return unlike the regular files which will have reappeared on my desk by the end of the week.

    3. Re:Indeed? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But there is a certain point at which the stench, impossibility of finding important items, and spousal/co-worker nagging will counter any increased productivity.

      Woah there. Messy!=dirty. My place might look like a hurricane hit it, but I keep it clean.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:Indeed? by AndyG314 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The secretary at a small doctors office I use to go to had a simple, disorginized and ingenously effective method of ordering her files on pacients. She kept all the pacient's files in a singe file. Whenever a paicent came in, she would search through the file for that pacient's chart, find it and give it to the doctor. When she recieved it back from the doctor she put it in the front. If you think of the worst case search time (the "Big O"), it was terrible(O(n) ), she might have to search through every single file to get to the one she wanted. But the avrage search time was very fast. Why? Because chances were very good that the file she was looking for was at the front of the file. Most of the time the same pacients came in over and over again, and their files stayed at the fron, making them easy to find. I only came in once a year, and my file was at the back, it took her a long time to find mine, but had to do it very infrequently, and she didn't have to search past mine to get to the files of her frequent visitors. This is a simple method of storing data, that requires a minimum of effort to maintain but is effective if certin critera are met: 1) Some things are used more frequently than others, and 2) the total number of things is not too large.
      Now consider the stack of papers on a slobs desk. Whenever he needs something in it, he searches through his pile. When he finds and finishes with it, what does he do? He's lazy so he just throws it on the top of the pile.
      Just something to think about...

      --
      If it's dead, you killed it.
    5. Re:Indeed? by ranton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In other words, and say it slowly with me, "Correlation does NOT equal causation."

      While I am glad that more people seam to understand this concept, most people take it to an extreme. While a correlation does not equal causation, correlations are not useless. Almost everything we as humans know about anything started with a correlation. Finding correlations is what leads us to causational relationships.

      Finding a correlation in research is the first important step. They should not be ignored, or denounced simply because they are "only" correlations. These correlations should be used to warrant further research to find out what the cause of the correlations are.

      --

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    6. Re:Indeed? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, 20 years ago they figured out highly intelligent "anal retentive" people (i.e. intelligent perfectionists) were frequently slobs precisely because they could look at a huge mess and instantly understand everything that needed to be done, and be all at once overwhelmed by the magnitude of it, and just not bother.

      Whereas, presumably, stupider people, perfectionist or otherwise, would just get started and take a break or give up for a few days after awhile.

      This is why video games are so insideuos -- it lets people of normal behavior ape that of intelligent perfectionists -- getting all the positive, "you're special" strokes of accomplishment while not actually accomplishing anything of value.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  2. Attention Slashdotters by timias1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The article is about clutter not hygiene.

  3. Motivation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My guess -- this article was written by a slob.

  4. I knew it! by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Which is the perfect excuse to ask for a raise!

    "But, boss, you really have to admit that MY desk is much more messier than everyone else in this company! I demand more money! See here? We are talking about a freaking 3 DAYS OLD PIZZA, buried under papers and backup tapes for chrissake!!"

    I hasten to say that I already got a raise. I am just rehearsing for the end of the year review... ;-)

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  5. I would reply to this but... by macurmudgeon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm just to busy being productive and I can't remember which stack of papers my keyboard is under.

    1. Re:I would reply to this but... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 5, Funny

      You call yourself a geek? I'm looking for my paper under a stack of keyboards!

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  6. Flawed refutation: neatness != organization by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTFA: "When you're disorganized, it's an expense you have no control over, the cost in lost productivity," Izsak said. "You're losing money if you're not organized."

    As a veteran "messy" person I see the deep flaw in quotes about productivity losses due to disorganization. Neatness does not imply productive ease of access and mess does not imply disorganization. I know where things are on my mess of a desk. And every single time I waste time "organizing" it, I then waste time trying to find stuff.

    For me, and for other messy-deskers, neatness is the antithetical to productivity.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  7. Chaos by JoeRandomHacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    True personal clutter amounts to a chaotic system based on the mental patterns of the clutterer. There is a pattern in the chaos, but the initial state and the chaos function are in the mind of the creator, so while to any outside observer it just looks like a mess, to the creator it makes perfect sense.

  8. It's not a cluttered mess. by Canthros · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's just an efficient hashing algorithm.

    --
    Canthros
  9. Most Recently Used policy by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds sorta like a caching algorithm. As items are used, they are left on top. Temporal locality says that all the important items will be on top of the other items.

    But then we get a garbage collection algorithm, too. Every so often, the short-lived objects which are no longer important are removed in your tidying process.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };: