kung fu grippe

Way Wrong Zero

Since Sitepoint’s being poky about posting my comment on this ill-conceived corn bolus on the “myth” of Inbox Zero, I’m pasting my response here.

For posterity and whatnot.

<!–– quote ––>

It’s a funny thing, Alyssa. Even though I’m the guy who wrote the Inbox Zero articles, and although I’ve now spent almost a year re-reading, editing, and expanding those articles into a book of the same name, I’m having a terrible time finding the place where I demanded everybody maintain a permanently empty inbox at all times and at all costs.

In fact, if you read anything I’ve written about this topic since 2006 (and especially since 2008), I’m amazed that you ended up presenting something so close to the opposite of what I’ve actually said.

Because, what I have proposed—the thing that’s helped thousands of people around the world get their work and life straightened out—is simply to accept that finding the time to check for new mail (or new anything, for that matter) should also mean finding the time to make a simple, one-time decision about what each new item means to you. That’s it. Then you get back to your life. Done. Boom.

At the highest level, this just boils down to an easy decision: either 1) you DO something about the message, or 2) you transform it into future verb that goes somewhere other than the inbox, or 3) you just get rid of it.

The notion is that by doing this once (and, yes, all the way to zero) at any time we collect new stuff, we are acknowledging scarcity and accepting that the only responsible way to deal with any future stuff is to first dispense with the old stuff as soon as we can. Otherwise we’re just pushing bits. Old bits. And that’s not only not Inbox Zero, that’s not even work.

And, the idea that one would want to, in my own words, “empty your email inbox — and then keep it that way” just refers to what I call “the processing habit.” Meaning, regardless of how often you choose to check for new mail—whether that’s once a minute or once a decade—you still benefit from doing the processing once and only once. If you’re not done making decisions, you’re not done processing (that’s usually when I just start hitting “delete”).

But. This absolutely does NOT mean you should sit in your inbox all day, playing with Facebook updates and Viagra ads. Jesus, no.

So, with respect, if you simply meant to say you find it too difficult, annoying, or time-consuming to regularly decide what to do about your email, then I wish you would have said that. While I would disagree with that (admittedly notional) observation, at least it would have been a fair presentation of your disagreeing with something I’ve actually written or said. Rather than trying to explode a non-existent “myth” about headline-grabbing “hype.”

Now, as to this “zero” part that people seem to get so fixated on. As I’ve emphatically drilled in to people for years now, this “zero” should absolutely NOT be seen as an anal-retentive and non-negotiable finish line that MUST be crossed constantly, in real time, always, at all costs and under all conditions. Far from it. That particular zero is a desirable result, not an animating reason.

It’s just that for most people, treating their email with the same emotionless efficiency that they bring to their mailbox at home ends up working orders of magnitude better than “Meh, whatever.”

I don’t dispute that some people choose to obsess over the emptiness of their inbox to the exclusion of everything else. But that’s a personal tic, and it’s not Inbox Zero—no more than renting a crane and calling it a bicep gives you a better free-weight workout.

Here’s the nut: the true IBZ ninjas have internalized that, at the heart of it, the real zero in Inbox Zero means having no residual anxiety or distraction about either the unknown unknowns or the known knowns or anything in-between. They figure out how to build a tolerance for all the unknown AND ambiguous AND incomplete stuff that they know is lurking behind every corner and underneath each click of the mouse.

In so doing, they also learn to find a mix of the information and courage they need to feel great about staying OUT of the inbox and focused on their real work for as long as they can stand. Which they can do with a clear conscience solely because, in the time they’ve set aside to treat their inbox like an adult, they have total confidence that nothing will get lost, dropped, mangled, or forgotten.

THAT, Alyssa, is Inbox Zero. Not spending hours dicking around with email.

While I’m honored that people find that little phrase of mine fun and enjoyable to use (often as not to refer to things that are unrelated to anything I’ve ever said), I think that anyone who put my actual material alongside your article might be left scratching their head. Given that your article contains no quotes and sparse external citations beyond a Twitter search, your readers might find themselves asking the same question I have: “Did she even read the Inbox Zero articles?”

If you did read what I’ve written and have heard what I’ve said—especially in the last two years or so—then I regret having given you the wrong impression about what this stuff is about. My bad.

But if, as it strikes me, your piece is based mostly on “stuff you’ve heard people say on the Internet,” then that, my friend, is some thin gruel. Even as a linkbait pretense for promoting your tips article.

Regardless of the mixup, I do appreciate the chance to respond here. And special thanks to the many commenters who were kind enough to point out some of these same issues.

<!–– /quote ––>

In summary. Three (3) suggestions:

Never misquote Wilde to Morrissey.
Never feint a hook at Foreman.
Unless you’re drunk, heavily armed, and think your ass would look splendid as a fancy bonnet, never misrepresent what I think about for fucking 12 hours a day.

Because that’s a paddlin’.

Update 2010-03-19_19-33-22: Just for the record, the comment that I submitted over six hours ago is still “in moderation.” Classy.