I was just thinking about the fact that much of my work requires me to pause for a short time -- while building my project, or running a query, or launching the huge honkin' java webapp and waiting for 10 billion classes to initialize -- but the pause is too short to make a useful context switch, and too long to simply wait through without getting bored. So typically, I often check e-mail, HN, or whatever, but then end up getting sidetracked. Being able to simply wait through these would be great. Unfortunately, developing this sort of mental discipline, along with exercising, making my bed, and eating out less often, falls on my "Things That Are Good For Me That I'll Probably Never Do" list.
Actually, that's one of my biggest problems when it comes to productivity. The REPL (read-eval-print loop) takes too long because the unit tests take too long to run, or the environment takes too long to load.
Recently, I took a day to tackle this problem for myself, and I've found that I'm just much more productive when I'm stuck in a quicker REPL loop, rather than when I need to wait and stare out the window--and then I get distracted.
My day job involves running simulations that take days to run. This has, unfortunately, made me into an epic multitasker, and keeping track of all the things I'm doing at any given time taxes my brain.
I don't think the "when forced to wait, wait" strategy would work well for me.
Rather than hating GCC, I do wrist stretches. (search Aikido + wrist stretch; dojos call them different things) I'm an Emacs lover, though. Vimmers have a leg up, there.
Working with languages that destroy flow probably grounds more programming juju than most other major factors put together. Context switches kill. (PS, is your timesheet ready?)
yeah, I have that problem too. Those short pauses kill productivity. I think mediation may help. I've taken to sitting for 20min a day doing nothing. 2 minutes isn't that bad at all. I don't think it [mediation] requires much mental discipline to start; I still can't be bothered to exercise, make my bed, et cetera.
I had a basket ball coach as a kid who would always ask us if we left our beds unmade after a day of doing horribly, or not better than we should be. Nearly every time, without fail, when I was asked that question, the truth was that I had left it unmade. I also never liked the game, and still don't view the sport favorably, but every day since then I make sure to take the time to make my bed in the morning.
The fact of the matter is making the bed is entirely unimportant. It's symbolic of the state of always playing catch-up because you are behind from the moment you wake up. Nothing is more important than taking a few minutes to organize yourself and your living quarters, as well as everything else in your life, both physically and mentally. Hell, you could stand there and admire the wrinkles and folds of your unmade bed, if that is how you prefer it to be kept, just as long as you stand there and give yourself a minute (or two).
There's a false equivalency here though. Clearing away in my kitchen or keeping papers on my desk tidy both have clear benefits to them; by ensuring the items are in known locations they are quicker to find, by ensuring they aren't spread over other things they provide space to work and reduce the risk of accidental damage or loss.
None of this is true with my bedding. I won't lose my duvet because it's not sitting straight on my bed. I suppose I could conceivably damage nightwear in putting it on but that risk is unconnected with its storage location. Yet, because tidiness has practical benefits in other contexts, it has become a generalised virtue. Which is nonsense.
Did anyone else catch Sam Harris' response to Edge's 2011 question, "What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?"? I found it quite interesting. http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_12.html#harriss
"I invite you to pay attention to anything — the sight of this text, the sensation of breathing, the feeling of your body resting against your chair — for a mere sixty seconds without getting distracted by discursive thought. It sounds simple enough: Just pay attention. The truth, however, is that you will find the task impossible. If the lives of your children depended on it, you could not focus on anything — even the feeling of a knife at your throat — for more than a few seconds, before your awareness would be submerged again by the flow of thought. This forced plunge into unreality is a problem. In fact, it is the problem from which every other problem in human life appears to be made."
I haven't logged in to comment for 37 days and this little essay is such utter garbage. The fact that it takes him just 7 paragraphs to completely dismiss all potential religious truth as "clearly false" should set off anyone's dogma-alert flag.
Being focused in the present is awesome, but the fact that we have the ability to pay attention on things other than reality is not a problem, but in fact essential to the health of the mind (our "spirit" if you will). Imagine if all your circumstances sucked and all your mind could focus on was reality...
Secondly, this essay sounds like he's much more inner-focused, as I know that I rarely have these "flow of thought" and self-conscious moments that he calls being "submerged again by the flow of thought"... If you asked me at any moment what I was thinking, I would tell you "nothing"... Obviously I'm thinking something behind the scenes, but my focus is just not on my thoughts when I'm doing. So my own personal thought-life does not confirm this silliness.
Then again, I'm very extroverted and rarely focused on my own thoughts -- maybe it's my "clearly false" Christian religion, or the fact that I've been a runner for 20+ years which is essentially meditating on present experience (pain), but I just have a strong natural tendency to focus on the present experience rather than my own thoughts.
Even if you're looking at this under the domain of science, I would still argue that the ability of humans to cope with present circumstances is directly correlated to their capability to focus upon that which is not the present. (i.e. thinking joyful thoughts, etc.).
That little essay is pitiful, talk to "robg" here on YC if you want to hear from a Neuroscientist who has a better respect for this domain of mind and spirit. The way this guy just starts with a bunch of assumptions and blasts away at all potential truth in less than 1,000 words gives me no respect for his method of thinking.
Let's be careful not to start an atheist / non-atheist flame war (boring...) but to say Harris just took 7 paragraphs to dismiss religion isn't fair. He's written several best-selling books on the subject and has partaken in several debates with religious leaders. For him to answer this Edge question with a rehash of his arguments on atheism would have been redundant and boring. I'm sure he expected most of the readers on Edge to understand his point of view on the subject and to kick off from there.
I don't want to get into a flamewar, but potential 'religious truth' generally lacks falsifiability. Certainly there could definitely be true things that the religious say but it doesn't really promote a method of thinking that leads us to knowing things that aren't false about the world.
In the method of 'religious truths' everyone is right and everyone is wrong, there is no way to sort out the true from the false.
Saying something is "clearly false" doesn't mean you claim to know everything - you just see there is no evidence for their conclusion. Is Scientology clearly false or should we say they have some good points? If the latter, we might as well explore every fairy tale that comes by - or we could follow real evidence to where it leads us.
Where I come from, if you say "A is clearly false" means there is evidence to support it. I have never heard of any evidence regarding spiritual or religious beliefs; maybe the OP has some. Until he presents some, I'll dismiss his claims as 'clearly false'.
Where I come from, we consider all hypotheses null until significant proof has been shown to back it up. I've seen none of this proof - let alone the scientific method being used. Therefore, it's clearly false - not "100% I can prove it's a duck-false", but it walks, talks and acts like one.
No anger at all - I'm merely stating what I'm sure you follow every day: If we're going to be pragmatic about exploring the truth (i.e. not wasting our limited time) we should explore claims with more proof than "I believe this to be true".
When someone says, "clearly false", it should be (and in this case is) referencing the absence of any proof at all for the extraordinary claims. In this case, people who defend religion have a burden of proof here. Perhaps more precise wording would be: "arbitrary and totally unverified".
This is why I brought up fairy tales. They are just as arbitrary and unprovable. Do you think we should seriously explore them as well? If not, why does religion get a pass - because so many believe it? Let's not have science by vote of the masses. After all, the scientific consensus is that religion is false ;-)
> Do you think we should seriously explore them as well?
Why not? I find it quite astonishing how often starting with verifiably false assumptions leads to worthwhile results. Your tower of reason is a decent construction. I find it a nice place to visit, but sometimes I prefer the woods. A mind too well-ordered misses the faults in its own assumptions.
"Why not?" - because we only have so much time to make use of. If you'd prefer to live as ignorance is bliss ("the woods") - that's a valid choice, but valid doesn't mean it's consistent with the truth (a.k.a. what science is trying to get close to). To find fault with the mind - one must constantly question their assumptions - in this article: religion.
You're making several assumptions and leaps in your reasoning here, though. If one were to accept that aesthetics is objective (which you seems to be implying?) then it may just be that we haven't found the epistemological framework to quantify it.
Now then, I don't see how this (meaning, your example of aesthetics) is similar to religion. Religion is just assumed to be relative by most people I think; at least the religious people I talk to seem to say so and use it explicitly as an argument (you do, too, I think) to parry demands for falsifiability. So then your comparison goes out of the window.
No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.
First, it depends on what god you speak of. If you speak of the typical monotheist God (Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omni-benevolent, Has created our universe, Sentient, Listens to prayers, and sometimes Answers), then the question "Is there a God" is both falsifiable and false. (By "false", I mean of negligible probability given current evidence.)
Religious claims are typically falsifiable, and repeatedly disproved (creationism is a good example). Every time that happens, religions eventually back off, keeping only their claims that are not yet disproved.
Second, while some topics (like choosing a morality) are definitely outside the scope of science, the accurate description of our world is definitely inside. If something we could reasonably call "God" exist in our world, it's got to have consequences. I expect science to find out, or at least try. "Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.
Here again I disagree (with, I admit, a minute part of your point and one that was probably thrown in as an afterthought), in the same way I disagreed with loewenskind when he made an analogy with aesthetics. Morality and religion are dissimilar - maybe we will one day fully understand morality, but religion is (by religious people) in my understanding defined in terms that make it explicitly exempt from reasoning. Morality, we 'just don't understand' (maybe, depends on your position on the nature of morality, really); whereas religion is by its very nature we are said to be incapable of understanding.
I agree with your real point, though; what I'm saying is that religion in a class of its own, because the religious make it (or should I say 'make it up') to be that way.
(Related to this point, I do think that one day religion will be explained: when we fully understand the brain, how thoughts develop etc.; at that point, religion will be shown to be just a figment of our (rather, 'their') imagination. Maybe it served an evolutionary role once, who knows. Of course it won't give us insight in the nature of 'god', it will merely show that 'god' is a fabrication of our unconsciousness).
Err… I agree. I said that choosing a morality is outside the scope of science. But I agree that science can (and probably should) study morality. See Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is trying to build a Friendly AI. He will probably need a complete theory of Intelligence and Morality to do that.
I think this is exactly the kind of nonsensical flame war type post everyone wanted to avoid. Since you seem intent to go down that route I'll just leave you to it.
EDIT In response to your edit:
>"Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.
Yes, that's my projection. Sorry for the ad hominem argument. It just smelled like a rhetorical trick, so I got carried away. I also admit my post was a bit trolley (I expected down-votes and no reply, actually). But I don't think it was nonsense. I merely stated my (strong) beliefs without the usual "I believe" disclaimer. There's a reason why:
Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact. As you know, I don't believe in God. If I were polite, I would stop there. Same thing for a deist. We could have a conversation, say "I (don't) believe in God", and it would still look like we "respect" the other's beliefs, and therefore we respect the other, period.
Trouble starts when I say "God doesn't exist" (it really doesn't). It's offensive. It makes too obvious that I think deists are wrong (they really are). Such a direct attack to their belief is of course not polite at all (yes, I am not polite). Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be).
On the other hand, a deist that really believes in God, should tell me that it exists, that I'm wrong. Being polite is again secondary. Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake! I certainly wouldn't want to Burn in Hell for, say, wanting to be immortal.
Another point. You said earlier:
> […] "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. […]
This is weird to my ears. I assume that for any thing that have observable effect, science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing. God is no exception. So, if you're right, then the existence of God doesn't have any observable effect (by contraposition). Then, belief in God, an observable effect, isn't linked in any way to the actual existence of God. Meaning, belief in God has no valid justification.
Plus, the way that typical monotheists religions depict it, not only God is observable, it has actually been observed. For instance, any miracle God have performed should have a hope of being detected by archaeologists. (Unless God cleverly erased the evidence but I don't recall anything like that on the Bible. To my knowledge, it isn't written that God evades science.)
Plus, God is almost always depicted as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent (let's live aside sentience etc.). Well, those three characteristics combined should be sufficient to have a pretty big observable effect: living in the best possible world. If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off.
So, saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God. Weaker that plainly stating that God exists because three famous, old, Holy books say so (authority can be a valid argument).
>Yes, that's my projection. Sorry for the ad hominem argument. It just smelled like a rhetorical trick, so I got carried away.
Fair enough. There are so many dishonest people arguing on both sides that one begins to expect the worst.
>Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact.
Agreed. But one can never prove a negative. We can never prove that there is no plane of existence where another being might exist. That's not to say science shouldn't try. Science should, of course, explore every aspect of existence that it can test and observe.
>Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be).
Of course. I don't see why a theist should have a problem with trying to cure death. For a Christian (for example), the story of the tower of babel should be enough to feel comfortable that man wont be allowed to do "go to far". If it happens, then it was obviously allowed.
>Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake!
Honestly, it is this very urgency from both sides that causes the problems I think. If the climate change situation has demonstrated anything, it has demonstrated that my urgency can not inspire you to action.
>science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing
We can't even detect the things we think we know about (e.g. dark matter). We can't expect to be able to detect things we don't even know about yet.
>not only God is observable
Not God, but actions of God. And I agree, some occurrences in a holy book should be able to be discovered.
>If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off.
You seem to be assuming God would be in the same plane of existence as us. If I build a house I am not confined to that house, why would God be constrained by his own creation.
>saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God
It wasn't my intention to justify belief in anything, but rather defuse the absolute certainty of a position that can never be absolutely certain. My hope is that if people realize that no one has or can have all the answers that they'll stop trying to convince everyone all the time.
From what I've seen, the people who preach their message to strangers the loudest tend to be the worst representatives said message, regardless of faith (or lack thereof).
Guilty as charged. I was trying to throw in a sound byte to illustrate how some things can't be illuminated by science (e.g. "I have good taste", "No, you have bad taste, I have good taste", "Well that's obviously in poor taste", "Taste doesn't exist, it's something that has evolved from...", etc.) but I wasn't really happy with it either.
As far as I remember Sam Harris does know quite a lot about Neuroscience in fact he is a PhD in that very area.
With regards to potential religious truths then the problem of course is that you can't verify religious claims thus the very idea of talking about truth in this context seems rather misguided.
Doesn't science appear to do this as well? It models what it observes, but it certainly doesn't nail everything down. And I wouldn't consider this approach misguided.
Scientific claims are verifiable. That doesn't mean that they are true.
Religious claims are by definition and practical circumstances not verifiable since they are claims about things outside what we can observe.
But they are also claims that there is a metaphysical reality which we cannot access through science but contain truths about the world we can access. And that is where it falls apart IMHO.
His major point is this: "There is no discrete self".
He isn't making an argument to discredit any potential religious 'truth' (in fact, he is using the existence of certain religious 'truths' as evidence for his argument). His comment about 'clearly false' religion was not his main point (although for some of us, extreme lack of evidence and verifiability is enough).
The annihilation of the self is an idea/concept/experience that occurs in many religious traditions, and also when exposed to certain drugs (hallucinogenics, I think). It is also a common theme in literature dating back to antiquity. The Bacchus is an example. Enlightenment in Buddhism is about annihilation of the self. Not that I am an expert on either.
By annihilation of the self, I mean the elimination of the concept of the self, not suicide. The thought being that the concept of the self is actually an absurdity. "Can a man step in the same river twice." This is what he is referring to when he talks about the flow of thoughts.
The concept of self leads to a lot of problems, selfishness, fear of death, things like that.
Imagine if all your circumstances sucked and all your mind could focus on was reality...
You'd probably do something to improve your reality rather than try and replace a miserable life with some form of escapism (not picking only on religion here, even World of Warcraft fits the bill).
i don't know about the religion stuff, but the focus thing does sound very silly. it reminds me of a certain philosopher - Kant maybe - who described "the self" in a way that was obviously characteristic of his specific personality, but couldn't be applied in my case, nevermind all humans'
> I invite you to pay attention to anything -- the sight of this text, the sensation of breathing, the feeling of your body resting against your chair -- for a mere sixty seconds without getting distracted by discursive thought.
That's actually quite simple. Mushrooms, LSD, or any number of other psychedelics should do the job. For the more industrious, meditation will do it too.
This reminds me of wordings from Osho (I will paraphrase from memory here): when we go to see a movie we immedesimate in the story and we laugh, cry, feel happy or sad based on what we see. Then the screen go dark and we remember who we are and go back to our real life. Our mind is like a movie screen and we laugh, cry, feel happy or sad based on the thoughts we "see" and immedesimate in. If we could turn the mind off we could remember who we are and go back to our real life
This used to be impossible for me too. Even on adderall this would have been fairly challenging at times. Recently however my stress level was getting so bad that I started looking for ways to remain calm, even under extreme pressure. Long story short, I came across a book on Amazon called "Zen Meditation and Wisdom for a Better Life: A Gift to Busy People, Regardless of Religion".
I'm a skeptic when it comes to "Religion" type stuff, but meditation is one of those practices that has survived so long that I wondered if there was something practical to it. The main point in that book is that meditation has nothing to do with religion, it's a personal productivity technique. It's fundamentally about training your mind to focus on one thing for a period of time. It seemed interesting and I didn't have to buy anything other than the book I'd already purchased to try it. So I started doing it ten minutes a day, and let me tell you, the results have been impressive for me. It's nothing more mystical than the ability to really intensely focus on something, one thing, without letting your mind wander. If you think that's easy - give it a try, for just ten minutes. It's surprising just how hard it is to contain your mind for that long.
Give it a try, before long, sitting still for two minutes is so easy you won't believe it. As a side benefit you may learn how to relax at an unbelievable rate during those two minutes.
Most forms of meditation originated from religious practices, which is why many people still see them as connected.
Of course yoga also originated out of religious practices, but very few people have trouble seeing yoga as an activity that can be done completely separate from any kind of religious or spiritual practice. I would assume that over time, as meditation practice becomes more common that people will have an easier time accepting that it can be practiced in a completely as a completely secular activity.
Nonetheless, most forms of meditation, and most practitioners of meditation, and most folks that will teach you about meditation, come with religious baggage.
And that's because the only ones considered to master Meditation are those told in historical religious documents.
The Buddha was the only one to provide a direct roadmap on how to do it, with prior textural help from the Hindu Vedas. The Vedas were closely guarded by the Brahmins (Hindu Priest class) and therefore hard for the 'average man' to get a hold of.
So yes, there is a great deal of 'religious detrius' to remove, but I believe the benefits are still there for the here and now, not some future afterlife/reincarnation. Clear and quiet thoughts have no monetary worth, but I'd trade no physical objects for them.
Along with the viewpoint of being skeptic about religious stuff, I can most certainly understand. But of all these religions that exist, there must be some sort of truth between them all, considering the many congruencies. One document I have been treading through is this one: http://hermetic.com/crowley/book-4/aba1.html
The premise that is argued is a very strong one, being "Is there any truth at all in the claims of various religions?" It is as academic as one can be, with appropriate cites and books to read and refer to. However, it is a "Howto" manual that does require quite a bit of work.
As an aside, I bet you (and others) have had the problem of itching and scratching and burning and freezing and biting and everything else that could go wrong when you try to meditate. I had it when I first started to practise, and the general feelings of discomfort only seem to multiply. Asana is the Hindu technique used in order to quiet the mind and body. It's in the same document.
The similarities between religions may relate to the forces that shape them aka people/society/war/physics/or even god(s). However, many of the world’s religions are fairly closely related. If you ignore those that were influenced by Mesopotamia or India you find there is a lot more variety out there than you much suspect.
Meditation, for those that could actually pass the 2:00 timer, is directly relevant as it is all the books referred to by the Amazon link. And I posted an interesting critique and comparison of techniques to possibly use in doing meditation.
Perhaps "But of all these religions that exist, there must be some sort of truth between them all, considering the many congruencies." doesn't strike people as a valuable addition to the discussion?
Me too. After about 5 seconds all I could think about was whether it was gonna be a shark jumping out of the water at me, a big fat seagull coming for me, or just some random screaming crazy jumping in from the side of the screen.
Even worse than rickrolling: it's facebook whoring (Like it! 2755 likes! Register to see what your friends like! Spread the calm! [twitter logo] [facebook logo]) which I find quite jarring.
I had a lot of fun writing this, and it's great to see it taking off. Waiting 2 minutes was impossible for me, I had to set the counter to 2 seconds while testing it! :)
Yup, and especially how it correlates against Referrer.
Though the author would probably need to add <START> button, to minimize the unintentional fails. Also failing could be adjusted for accidental mouse movements, perhaps by ignoring distances of just couple of pixels.
Out of determination I succeeded, even though by my calculations doing nothing for two minutes cost me $1.60 that I could have made writing code. Of course, I stopped the clock anyway when I clicked on the HN popup notification.
Edit: Just looked at the code. The programmer missed a great chance to gather some data. I would have tracked the fail events using Google Analytics so I could see how many fails on average per user from different traffic sources:
Average time on site won't be accurate in your case because GA calculates it by subtracting time duration between two successive visits. In your case, it will usually be just single pageview so average time will be misleading.
May I suggest using getclicky.com which calculates time based on actual time spent.
Great! One more thought I had: also track whether the failure was due to the mouse or keyboard. When you have gathered a decent number of results I will be very interested to see a blog post with some nice graphs.
I passed, but it was very hard because I got no waves and so was immediately tempted to view source and find out why not, and also because I kept looking at the horizon of the photo and wondering if it was just me or if it was very slightly tilted down to the right.
For extra difficulty, you should throw in more and more things like the above to make ocd people squirm ;)
Failed for unknown reasons three times in a row. Thinking it was noise on my mouse scrollwheel, I took the batteries out of it. I'm gratified to learn this was unintentional.
This said, the site is really, really making me think about moving back to Puerto Rico.
Nice idea; made me realise how few "do nothing" breaks I take in a day...0. I'd probably like to use it throughout the day if the problems in Chrome were ironed out.
Failed for me every time before I even did anything (Chrome, Vista). When I changed tab, and then came back without mousing into the viewport, the FAIL message didn't appear...but neither did the clock count down.
This was easy, because right after it started I remembered that I needed to go check my pot roast in the slow cooker.
I'm all for adding more peace and quiet reflection to my life, but watching a javascript timer count down for two minutes on a website with a picture of the ocean doesn't count.
I mean, why does it matter that it's a javascript timer? And that it's a website? Or what the picture is? Why should any of these things affect how seriously you take what it's trying to do?
I sit in front of my computer to get shit done. When I want to take a break and do nothing, I hang out with friends, take the dog for a walk, go to the park with my wife. I don't sit motionless at my computer and listen to waves. But that's just me.
Workrave[1] and antirsi[2] have helped me take breaks like this regularly. Beyond the wrist relief it's nice to take a short break and refresh my mind before continuing work.
Humans have evolved to pay close attention to, and be keenly aware of, their environment. Of course you can't just sit still for two minutes: there may be a snake crawling by. Pay attention or suffer the consequences.
As the Zen enthusiasts already implicitly acknowledged, the ability to concentrate on a single thing may well be valuable, but concentrating on a single thing, especially on a single thing of your own choosing at the time of your choosing, is vastly different from doing nothing, on a moment chosen by someone else, while actually concentrating on something you don't consider interesting.
I probably could pass this easily, because I used to frequent a Buddhist group, and could easily meditate for 50 minutes or more. Unfortunately I'm also a parent, and kiddo came over and read the screen, and moved the mouse to amuse us both. Fail.
After a long day of studying and answering e-mails, coming home to this was amazing. I knew that I needed to take a break: That's why I logged on my computer and checked Hacker News.
But relaxing like this was much more soothing than reading about programming languages or hacker-essays. I've heard a lot of times that taking a break for 10-15 minutes where you just close your eyes and relax is good for you, but I've never really tried it. Maybe I will do this more often after this.
Also, would it be possible to make one for 10 or 15 minutes as well? Sometimes, 2 minutes isn't enough.
I of course left the page before long, but if you put an advert on there to appear after the countdown, I guarantee it will get much higher click through than normal. Why? Because when people have invested time in something, they're strangely more positive about things and more willing to go along with the program (perhaps to get the payoff that's been missing so far, but even if there's none they will rationalise that it was still a good use of time). Might help if you make the advert slightly more interesting/mysterious than usual though.
I made it the full two minutes, it was easy. I just loaded the page, listened to a podcast on my iPhone and read a couple HN articles on my iPad while I was waiting.
I closed my eyes and focused intently on the sound of the waves. I imagined myself on a beach, waves rolling in and out. I wondered what kind of material the beach was constructed from. Sand and a few larger rocks, it sounded like. There's a distinctive wash, but it seems just as clear there's a break in the rhythm of the crashing wave.
I then started to wonder just what shapes of wave was giving rise to the really bad compression artifacting in the wave sound on that page. Some of the sounds are remarkably clear for all the artifacts in other portions.
Unfortunately, I didn't really get anywhere with that lien of thought before my CFO interrupted me. At which point I saw the site had determined that I 'succeeded'.
I'm not entirely convinced I failed though. Sure, I thought about sand, rocks and compression -- but I was concentrating on the sounds of the waves that whole time.
What meaning could there be in "do nothing but listen to this" if truly listening to the sounds and internalizing them and analyzing them was ruled out as being "something"?
If staring like a zombie with your mind empty was the goal, surely there wouldn't be an audio track and full-window image on that page.
This would be a lot more difficult if it weren't for the sound and image - it occupied parts of my mind that would go crazy without any stimulation for that long.
Passed it on my first try. In fact, I didn't realize it was a pass/fail kind of thing until I came here, I just assumed it was a self test.
I found that the time seemed to pass more slowly when I closed me eyes. I had my eyes closed for the first minute, and I opened them when I thought it should have been about two minutes, only to discover that I still had a minute left.
Studies show simple meditation (focus on nothing, or one thing - doesn't really matter - just train your mind on a single, simple thing) for something like just a minute or two a day in the morning can have an almost immediate and lasting (if you keep it up) effect on your ability to concentrate.
Concentration is a skill that requires practice, like anything else.
Timer also doesn't restart counting down if my mouse isn't on the page. (In other words, it will only start counting down if my mouse cursor is on top of the page - focus doesn't seem to matter). It's also failing immediately, probably because I have a ton of windows already open and two IM clients.
Ticking the clock every single f'ing second is a bit much. I sat it out, but "2 minutes...1...0" would be better than an update every second along the way (or fifteen-second intervals). When I sit zazen, I just set a timer for 20 minutes and stick it out of view. The timer itself is a distraction.
Mine does the same (Chrome+WinXP). Makes it incredibly hard to sit through when it's yelling Fail at me every time the counter gets to 1:57 regardless of me not actually doing anything. I only think I could sit through about 30 seconds of it flashing Fail until I left (tempted to debug, but too busy with work). I also briefly wondered if that was the test -- to sit through the buggy countdown clock without trying to troubleshoot why it's broken, if that's the test, I failed.
FYI, if I open the page in Chrome with cursor outside of the screen it counts down to 0, if my mouse is within the screen, it says Fail at about 1:57 continuously.
I've hooked up the resetCounter function to quite a few events, including "blur". Have you got another window that's stealing the focus regularly, such as an IM client or something?
I was half expecting this website to rick-roll me. But I can see how it would be viral. Of course, that would mean that a total of 2933894 hours every day will be spent as this website commands. And THEN you can unleash a rickroll!
Whenever I see these kind of things I always expect it to be some prank. Watch this nice sunset, listen to the calming sounds, and then just as it gets to calm down, have something jump out to scare the crap out of you.
I lasted two seconds. Opened the page while eating breakfast. It said do nothing for two minutes. I instantly thought "Great, I can eat breakfast while I wait" and picked up the bowl at the 1:58 mark.
Depends on the context. When I am sitting in front of a computer with lots of stuff to read or do, I'm not going to stare at waves for two minutes. If I'm on the bus, though, then I can easily do it.
Well that was easy - since I happened along this thread while sitting in my daughter's darkened room, surfing iPad just to pass time, making sure she doesn't get out of bed for the 6th time.
That was fun. My screen dimmed after 30sec and shut off right at the 2min mark. I even resisted clicking the FlashBlock icon so I had no sound.
Would this work with the <audio> tag?
I starred at the page for like 5 minutes and was wondering why it wouldn't start to count down - not realizing that I was always moving the mouse around a bit. Damn you base-nervousness.
I decided to let the ocean sounds run in the back ground cause I really couldn't get myself to spend 2 minutes idle. 2 minutes later, I found it to be annoying the heck out of me.
What I'd suggest would be to remove the timer (or make it very difficult to read). Most people don't realize just how long 2 minutes can be, so it would be a reality check.
In my current situation (alone with no one to physically force me), it's impossible for me to "relax" for 2 minutes, because I am actively willing myself to not do so.
For added difficulty, try thinking nothing for two minutes. For experienced meditators, this shouldn't be hard, but for the rest of us it's a real challenge.
I'll sit on this page.. while I write code in 3 different SSH terms, run wireshark, listen to DI.fm, use firebug, while talking to a person in a neighboring cube.
in two secs I sent it off (enhhhh, you have failed this test!) to my committed lover (sometimes can be taken as meaning the manicomio committed, but we'll leave it at that..The King of Hearts was a favourite movie after all...)
THEN i took the 2 minutes.
May he take his...
and left the sounds on my computer all day in the background.
The sea is far behind me, the c however is all before me..
pretty cool idea, though I don't think I could have passed just listening to the waves, without my music collection I don't think I'd be able to muster the patience for this, well. maybe.
I closed the tab with 4 seconds. I got stuff to read, homework to do and code to write. Plus I'd like a nap this afternoon. Roll my two minutes into nap time, then we can discuss it.
