Comment by thaumasiotes
5 years ago
> I have the feeling that in between bursts things are still computing in the background so it looks like you're not doing anything but the brain is still churning.
This is something that's bothered me since my university put out a survey asking about time spent on homework.
Suppose the following things happen:
1. A math class assigns a proof.
2. I look at the problem, fiddle around with it for 20 minutes, and get nowhere.
3. I play Final Fantasy for 6 days.
4. I go back to the problem. In 40 minutes, I have the proof worked out.
How long did I spend on the proof? What if the counterfactual was
1. Proof gets assigned.
2. Look at it, do nothing.
3. The day after, sit down and spend 3 hours proving it.
How long did I spend then? Are the two scenarios... different?
I think about this in terms of how much clock time has elapsed versus how much working time I spend on something - i.e. I am very often able to trade an increase in clock time elapsed (taking more breaks) for a decrease in working time, and vice versa.
As with most things, this comes with diminishing returns as you push toward minimizing one over the other.
Sometimes, even negative returns, e.g. because of increased context switching costs, or confusion and general malaise caused by staring at something for too long.
> I am very often able to trade an increase in clock time elapsed (taking more breaks) for a decrease in working time, and vice versa.
But this is the problem with a survey of "how long does the homework take?". The question isn't well defined. The answer doesn't exist.