#askbox still closed for now but i'm working my way through the backlog!

[copperbadge]

ADHD and (Communications) Productivity

Recently @goodnightmoonvale hit me up by email to ask about some of my processes for keeping myself from getting snowed under when it comes to digital communication. The main question was about finding ways to ensure that you stay in touch with people and, at work, give updates in a timely manner.

I sent back a long email about the systems I use, then asked if I could post up my response publicly as well, since a couple of other people both online and in brickspace have asked me similar questions. I've cleaned it up a little and included it below -- although I feel just slightly weird about posting it since admittedly outside of work I am still not fantastic about prompt responses to email.

Still, I feel like it's good to share this stuff -- I think people take away what they can from this kind of post, and it's nice when something works. So here's what I wrote, tidied up a bit for posting.

SHORT VERSION

When I have a backlog in email or asks or similar -- as I often do -- I set aside a time, between 15 minutes and an hour depending on how I'm feeling, to do "communication rotation". I open up every inbox I need to respond to in a separate tab, and crucially these are the ONLY tabs open -- I set up a new browser window if I have to.

So I have a browser open and I have tabs within the browser -- Gmail, Tumblr Askbox, AO3 Inbox, etcetera. If you have Discord you might open the DMs in Discord to see if you have ones to respond to there. If it helps, you can create a bookmark file of "inboxes" so you can open them all at once every time. Sometimes I have multiple browsers open so that I can have multiple Gmail inboxes (personal, fandom, work) open at once.

Then I cycle through them, answering messages in one inbox until I feel like I can't anymore, and I move on to the next one. I try to set a goal -- say, five messages from each platform, or one "difficult" message that I've been putting off per platform. Or trying to get every inbox down to under 20 messages that need response, or similar.

The goal is not to answer every single message, but to attack the mountain. If you find you're skipping one inbox because only the really hard-to-respond-to messages are left, close out the other inboxes and just focus on replying to ONE hard-to-respond-to message, then get up and walk away and give yourself a treat. Maybe come back and start again in ten minutes, maybe you're done for the day. The point is to reduce the backlog little by little while still retaining enough energy to respond to new things as they come in, so they don't add to the backlog.

There may be a better way for some people -- maybe some people would do better to pick one platform each time and just deep focus on that one, for example. I always say that people need to find what works for them, but the attitude in this case is what's important -- not "Gotta do it all now" but "Little bit now helps me later". 

NOW, for the long version that's more work focused! 

LONG VERSION

Responding to people and keeping them updated are two different things, and I think there's an implicit third thing, which is "making sure I make time to respond to messages". So in sequence what you need to figure out how to do is: 

1. Set up your workflow so that you are consistently reminded to read and respond to email.

2. Respond in a timely and appropriate manner to email. 

3. Set up your workflow so that you are reminded to provide update emails as you progress in various projects. 

So for 1, only you know what will trigger you to consistently read and answer email. For me, I just constantly have my work email open on one monitor (I have two) and whenever a new email comes in I see it. Sometimes I need to use both monitors for other things, and for that reason the only email notifications I get on my phone are work email notifications*. So if I'm working on something and my phone nearby dings, I know it's probably important, and I see what it is fairly quickly.

* Reader, if you have ADHD and have not tried turning off all but the most necessary phone notifications, I do recommend trying it. For some it might be difficult or even counterproductive, but for me, it helps enormously with brain fog and executive function. The only notifications I get on my phone are text messages, work emails, and alarms. Nothing from social media, nothing from retail or game or banking apps. Zippo.

Once I'm aware I have a new email, before I read it, I decide: do I want to read and reply to this now? If not, if I'm in the groove of something else, I leave the email unread, so that it's there nagging at me when I'm done with whatever I'm doing. If I'm in a good place to break, I open the email -- but only if I have concluded that I will respond to it immediately if response is needed. 

This is a difficult habit to form. It may not work for some people. The key is to figure out what will a) draw your attention to new email, b) allow you to decide whether to read it, and c) respond if you do read it. 

2 ("respond in a timely and appropriate manner") is actually the easiest of the three steps in my opinion because you don't always have to have all the answers at once. I sometimes fall into the pit of "I can't respond unless I have a full answer or a finished assignment" and have to pull myself back out. It helps that I have become master of the "acknowledgement email" -- basically if you open an email and you can't answer the questions in it immediately, or if you can't work on the assignment that moment, you fire off a quick email just to let them know you've received the message and are working on it.

For this, I have several stock phrases such as "Thanks for the email! Let me look into this a little further and I'll get back to you" or "Sure, I can get that done in [timeframe]." Importantly, if they have not given you a deadline, it's SUPER helpful to say, "I'll have this to you by [reasonable date in your opinion] -- if you need it sooner please let me know ASAP so I can prioritize it." (or "If you need it sooner let's discuss the scope of the project, since I have a lot on my plate.") 

You then need to make sure that you do the task in the allotted time, but that's a different ballgame -- we're focusing here on responding and updating.

People, truly, just want to know that you've seen their request and are working on it, and just sending that email goes a long way towards giving the impression that you are a prompt responder and strong communicator. Also if you have any questions ("before I proceed, can I ask") now is the time to ask them since that puts responsibility back on them to provide information before you go further and possibly waste your time.

3 ("Set up your workflow so that you are reminded to provide update emails") is where I struggle, because it's not just about remembering to Do The Thing, you have to also remember to update the person on the thing. The way I do this is to use my inbox not as a temporary repository for new emails but as a to-do list. Until a task is complete, the email regarding it does not leave my inbox (see next paragraph for exceptions). If it's important I might even mark it unread (despite having replied to it) so that it "bugs" me when I look at my inbox. 

If I have replied and can't go further until I get a response, I might file the email in a folder. I make a new folder for work every month, so for example any requests from February are in the 2025-02 folder, and for big projects with multiple emails I make a folder like "2025 Holiday Cards" or "2025 Database Audit". Since there's nothing I can do until the person hits me back, it doesn't need to stay in my "to do" inbox -- when they email back it'll get moved there anyway. However, if I have replied and need a response but can work on other aspects of the task, even if I'm not going to immediately, I leave it in my inbox. That way, whenever I'm concerned I've forgotten something, I can check my inbox and see all the stuff I need to either reply to or update people on.

I also use Google Tasks to run my life, and have it open in a sidebar next to my email, so any task I should be working on is generally noted there as well, but that goes back to the "make sure you do the tasks promptly" which again is a different issue. 

CASE STUDY

So, say someone asks me for a spreadsheet on Monday. I reply "Thanks, I'll have this for you by end of day Friday, let me know if you need it sooner." They don't respond so I assume Friday is fine for my purposes. I leave the request email in my inbox and start work on the task OR I put the task in my Google Tasks with "Due Friday EOD" on it. (Sometimes I do both.)

I work on the project all week and by Wednesday I've made reasonable progress but haven't heard back from the person who asked for it. Around the end of day Wednesday, I might open the thread again and send a quick email saying "Hey, I'm making good headway on this, still on track to have it to you EOD Friday." Or I might have a question, and shoot that off. For some people, you get a feel of whether or not they need that kind of update. I don't do this for, say, my super laid-back boss, but I do for the head of Data who definitely wants status updates. 

On Friday, I open that same email thread as the original request (for consistency) and send them the finished product. At that point I know I'm done with the task so I can shift the email into my 2025-02 archive for good. All the communication is in one place, and it's neatly filed away, so I no longer have to worry about it. 

CONCLUSION

The ultimate point is that you want to develop a system for your own personal use that reminds you to check email frequently, helps you respond immediately when you read an email, and reminds you to send updates as they're needed. Maybe that's alarms instead of Google Tasks, or a calendar app, or a handwritten to-do list in place of keeping stuff in your inbox. The point is to know what will cue you to do things you wouldn't do naturally, then implement those -- and change them if they stop working. What I wrote above is my system, but it's mostly demonstrating the framework I used to build it, which is what I hope other people will also find useful.

[impalementation]

if you're interested, i'd love to hear your thoughts on That scene in empty places, bc the way that i've seen most people talk about it doesn't always feel very nuanced and like... i get being frustrated and i for sure think some extremely unfair things to/about buffy were said, but i don't think it's as cut and dry as buffy being totally blameless (even though i love her) and everyone else (particularly the main scoobies, who don't have her responsibilities but have fought alongside her and earned the right to disagree w her imo) being terrible. Like it may have gone too far?? But idk, I have trouble articulating why, but I think there's more nuance to the situation than people want to say, so I'm curious about your thoughts

Anonymous asked:

whats your take on empty places and the scoobs kicking buffy out of her house?

Anonymous asked:

Why did Buffy allowed Dawn to kick her out in Empty Places?

Wow, so many questions about “Empty Places”! Sorry, as ever, that these took me a while to get to.

I actually agree, I think there’s more nuance there than it’s given credit for. I talked about that a bit in this post a while back. I wouldn’t say that the character build-up to that scene is as well-executed as it could have been, but it hardly comes out of nowhere, and it’s not some random thing. Or, as I’ve seen people suggest, simply there to make Spike look good and push him and Buffy together. I’m sure their romantic arc was a factor in the storytelling, but to call that the only motivation seems to me a vast oversimplification and dismissal of ideas that were built over the course of the season.

Season seven is, as I’ve discussed before, about how the Slayer system is broken. It’s a system that isolates Buffy and puts all of the decision-making in her hands. Meaning that it’s a system that is neither good for her, nor good for anyone around her, no matter how strong and brave Buffy is. All season long, we see Buffy struggle with both the limits of her power, and the demands of her authority. She wants to be able to save every girl, and fight every ubervamp, but she simply can’t be everywhere and stronger than everything. She wants to be a caring friend, but when she’s the one who has to make decisions about whether people should live or die, she can’t always be. When she’s the one who has to make all the hard choices, that means the blame always falls on her shoulders. When she fucks up, there’s nothing for her to fall back on. The fact that Buffy is forced to be this kind of sole authority means that the people around her are right to feel that they aren’t being listened to, or fully considered. Because often they aren’t. They see the people around them getting maimed and killed and suddenly realize that maybe it isn’t right that all their eggs should be in Buffy’s basket. But at the same time, they’re wrong, because they’re the ones who put their eggs there. They’re the ones who kept looking the other way as Buffy made hard choice after hard choice on their behalf. They’re as complicit in (and victimized by) the broken system as Buffy is.

Keep in mind the season’s perception themes. Everyone gets mad at Buffy, and Buffy gets mad at herself, because they’re all too close to the situation to see that the problem isn’t really Buffy, it’s what being the Slayer has forced Buffy to be. The dynamic it’s forced between her and the people around her. Notice how in the very next episode, Faith finds herself dealing with the exact same problems that Buffy was. The same hard decisions, and the same ambient resentments. It’s actually very important that Faith has to be a leader for a bit, in order to show this--the fact that the problem is being the Slayer, not Buffy. I’d even argue that it’s the much more thematically relevant motivation for the scene than getting Buffy and Spike alone.

As far as thematic motivations go, I also think it’s crucial that Buffy is thrown out of her house. That is some powerful symbolism for a season that leans so hard into the symbolism of Buffy’s house in general, and it’s disappointing to see people ignore it in their eagerness to be mad at everyone. The house is a lot of things—the familiar, the stable, the normative, the safe—but most importantly it’s also Buffy’s self. Notice how Spike and Faith, both Buffy’s shadow at different times, hang out in Buffy’s basement: the realm of the id and subconscious. Notice how as the house breaks down, Buffy gets injured as well.

So for Buffy to be thrown out of her house, it’s the climax of the season’s isolation themes not just in terms of story, but also metaphor. She has literally been cast out of herself. She’s been banished from her identity and role. But at the same time, once she’s on the outside of that myopic, claustrophobic system, she is able to connect with her shadow (Spike) and see the situation with new eyes. The reason that Spike is the one who can talk Buffy back is that firstly, unlike the Scoobies, his later seasons arc is all about learning to not ask Buffy for things that aren’t appropriate--romantic reciprocation, moral structure. Secondly, he was once the tool and symbol of her isolation, the icon of her shame and guilt and belief that she needed to isolate herself. For her to make peace with Spike is about her rejecting that isolation and shame, and transforming it.

Of course, I can talk about symbolism all I want and it doesn’t necessarily matter if the writers didn’t make it believable on the object level too—the level of character and plot and all of that. It’s a regular problem on Buffy, the writing caring more about symbolism than sense. While I think that most of the characters have adequate motivation for the scene—really, it’s been building from the beginning; remember the confrontation between Buffy and Xander as early as “Selfless”? or Buffy fighting with Giles and Wood two episodes earlier? or the way she argued with everyone in “Get It Done”? or the Potentials doubting her from basically their first episodes?—the one character that seems truly undeveloped is Dawn. She got that warning from the First in “Conversations With Dead People”, but the season doesn’t follow up on it well enough to draw a clear line between that seed of doubt and her attitude in “Empty Places.” Given that Dawn is Buffy’s “humanity” or “youth” or what have you, it’s symbolically significant that she would be the final one to cast Buffy out. But that seems like a clear case of the story not earning its metaphor, unfortunately.

To answer the third ask: as far as why Buffy let Dawn kick her out, on a character level I think she was pretty defeated by that point. But symbolically, I think the part about Buffy’s human self rejecting her is important for that. Buffy has a tenuous relationship to her belief in her humanity at the best of times, so it’s pretty easy for me to believe that she would feel lost and numbed enough by being rejected by that part of herself, that she wouldn’t fight it.

(Controversial opinion, but I actually kind of like that “Empty Places” isn’t due to the First sowing obvious discord. I’ve seen lots of people suggest that that would have been the stronger and more believable choice, and I get the instinct. But if the point of the season is to show that the villain is the Slayer system, then it makes more sense for that to be the thing that drives the conflict, and not an external force influencing them. There might have been a way to use the First that was compatible with that, but it wouldn’t have worked if the problem was just The First. Imo, of course.)

All of which is to say, that if you see the season as being about faulty perception, broken systems, and the dangers of isolation, then “Empty Places” actually makes perfect sense as a climax of the season. The problem really comes down to whether you think it was earned enough (which in some cases I think it was, and in others it wasn’t), or generally handled well, and whether you think those ideas are interesting in the first place.