Question ALL "Science" You Learn in the Media

Be VERY Skeptical About ALL "Science" You Learn from the Media...

INCLUDING this article!

Yet another pseudoscientific myth that's been circulating around since pre-internet is the "right" or "scientific" way of scheduling work / rest cycles to maximize productivity and / or worker wellbeing.

One of the more popular recent versions is that the ideal is 52 minutes of work followed by 17 minutes of rest. I decided to check into it. It took a few hours at most to expose the " scientific research " behind it. It just happens to have been conducted by the SAME company that sells the software promoting that paradigm:-?

From Wikipedia under "Original Study" it says : " the top 10% of most productive people using the DeskTime app were isolated based on having the highest ratio of using “productive” applications for their line of work.[2]

Then the app analyzed their computer-use behavior during ONE WORKDAY. "

In no universe, where ANY scientist over the age of THREE would consider a one workday experimental sample, "scientific" or valid. I can't help but wonder how many people were in the experimental 10% of 1, 3, 17, 953 subjects?

Did they have a control group to compare it to?

Did they establish causation, or just correlation between work / rest cycles and productivity?

SOOOO many unanswered questions and yet, according to the same Wikipedia page it said :

1 ) The Muse

2 )? Inc. ,[3] ?

3 ) Lifehacker ,[4]

4 ) The Atlantic ,[5] ?

5 ) Fast Company [6] and?

6 ) The Washington Post .

covered this as "scientific" insight about said "research":-?

Another popular "scientific" truth is about the 8 second attention span of people, on social media, and goldfish. Everyone online now THINKS it's scientific, when in fact, according to the BBC, couldn't find any record of the original study. Of "the US National Library of Medicine, and the Associated Press - neither can find any record of research that backs up the stats." Further, neither goldfish, nor humans have the hyperbolically short eight second attention span several supposedly reputable media sources claimed was "science".

Both stories are instructive, and a bit disturbing. It teaches us what we already know, sensational, even non-existent research need only be repeated a few times by "reliable sources" before the rest of the internet, media and most of the world take it as unquestioned scientific fact, when it just isn't:-?

I admit, it's a great social media tactic to get publicity for your app, though I'd discourage you from doing so. Some " jerk, science geek, trouble maker " or truth seeker like myself might have the audacity to spend minutes to hours fact checking, and find the truth behind your claim:-?

I've reached out to DeskTime, the makers of the app, and source of the one workday "research" on November 15th, 2021 and asked for details about the study. I have yet to hear back from them, and don't expect to. I will update this article IFF, and when they respond to my inquiry.

Now for some REAL science about work rest cycles...Pomodoro appears to have even less proof than 52/17 as a work rest cycle. Combine Pomodoro with the " 23 minutes to get back into FLOW " floating around, and that gives you two minutes in FLOW. Then a five minute interruption / break, to restart that cycle it's...DUMB, just DUMB. Believe it at your own risk, or just verify the damn thing and share what you learn in the comments;-)

I FINALLY found something based on verified science, work/rest opTimization of productivity using ultradian rhythms from BlueZones.com. The cycle should be 90 minutes focused on ONE task, followed by a 20 minute rest.

But here's the catch UNLESS:

1 ) We are able to influence or adjust our ultradian rhythms to MATCH our chosen timing, we may be working and resting at the WRONG time:-?

or

2 ) We can objectively measure our natural ultradian cycle:

a ) cost effectively

b ) during work,

c ) each individual can take breaks according to THEIR own cycle,

d ) regardless of whether they match other team members,

e ) without interfering with co-work productivity

It may be impossible to implement effectively in a work environment.

Unless we can meet the conditions of 1 or 2 above, it may or may not be a meaningless crap shoot, so the best we can do for now is:

90 Minutes Work / 20 Minutes Rest...

on any schedule that's convenient for your work. Then measure the results to see if there's a positive impact for employees and productivity;-) Just remember, for it to be REAL science, you need a baseline before the experiment and / or a control group who use the pre-experimental work / rest cycles to compare the experimental group to. Anything less, and it's just more pseudoscience polluting the media:-?

The ONLY comparable paradigm is the work and break periods of air traffic controllers, but even then you won't know UNTIL you or your company tests it.

Be EXTREMELY Skeptical About ALL "Science" in the Media

tim #bgreen??

P.S. Which Work / Rest Cycles Work Best for You?

Please reply in the comments.