Cal Newport

I mean, basically his idea is makers like computer programmers need long stretches of uninterrupted time.

Managers, however, want to jump into a lot of meanings and catch up with what's going on with things.

And these two scheduling philosophies are in conflict.

And when the makers are forced to try to interface with manager schedules, the makers get miserable and can't produce stuff.

All right.

So I guess he's saying the maker schedule seems to be something that the importance of a maker schedule is maybe contrasting to Laura's idea that like you have enough time, you just have to make better use of it, right?

You don't need to drastically simplify things.

Laura's not talking about, so to respond to this first point, Laura's not talking about

She's not saying you should be very frenetic at work and just jumping back and forth between meetings and email and you don't need long stretches of deep work.

If your work requires depth, I produce complicated computer code.

I have to write complicated reports.

I'm a professor looking on research.

Then that's part of the activities that you will be scheduling.

So I don't think she's giving a referendum on the importance or lack of importance of depth.

But I like the second point is also worth talking about where Tyler says, are knowledge workers in general over-romanticizing this idea of a maker schedule, of having long stretches of time that isn't interrupted?

Well, here's what I think is relevant here.

If you're not used to depth, if you're not used to deep work and you just clear out a schedule, right?

then yeah, you might find that you have over-romanticized it and you don't really know what to do with all this time and it doesn't necessarily make your professional life better.

What I recommend people do is they start with specificity.

When it comes to deep work, schedule, like a meeting or appointment, deep work on your calendar for specific deep objectives, not just I've protected all day.