On Flow

[rduplain]

In whydothey.md:

Discovered in the 1950's [fact check] by [guy who did] when he was observing artists, especially painters, who woudl get so lost int heir work they could forget to eat, drink and lose track of time to the point of forgetting what day it is.

It was 1975, and the research is still active today. The psychologist is Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. A good summary video of the history of Flow is here (also a chance to see the guy if you are visual):

http://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow.html

I have several of Csikszentmihalyi's books if you need more references, but I'm sure you can find everything you need online with the details provided here. His books are accessible to non-psychologists, so instead of saying "you think I'm crazy and are talking complete nonsense", you can validate your argument with the research (in addition to the reader thinking you are crazy).

Flow deserves a more discussion in this book, in that you are providing programmer-specific notes on Csikszentmihalyi's flow for everyone to understand why programmers should not be interrupted. He clearly outlines the components and conditions of flow, which you can use instead of the generalities in the current section on flow. The wikipedia article is more or less accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

In general, I like to see well-cited writing connecting to the wider body of knowledge. :-) Please consider this issue "closed" when you conclude that Flow is well represented in your book.

-Ron

PS: On the wider topic of happiness and work, a couple other interesting talks:

http://www.ted.com/talks/shawn_achor_the_happy_secret_to_better_work.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_killingsworth_want_to_be_happier_stay_in_the_moment.html

I put myself at risk of looking like a TED fanatic. It just happens to be a good venue for work happiness discussion, which really is the root of your book.

[Swizec]

Thanks!

That whole chapter actually leans heavily on Csikszentmihalyi's work, although my main resource so far has been wikipedia. (shame on me). When I was writing that particular paragraph the details slipped my mind and I didn't notice the bracketed commentary on a later edit :)

Will definitely look at the research in more detail before deeming the chapter finished.

[rduplain]

Oh, there's no shame in that. I think the chapter has all the right ideas, and it's because I saw your bracketed commentary that I posted the detail here.