Whenever I want go deep, I am distracted by things “I need to do”. And that’s true: If I do not adress them, my work will suffer.

And whenever do I block out everything that is not related to the deeper task at hand, I am constantly on the lookout for fast decisions that require little understanding, but help me feel productive. In effect, that work dampens real progress.

But when I do succeed at working slow and coming up with a feasible solution to a deeper problem, I manage to reach decisions on other questions much faster.

Is there an interplay between working fast and slow? Can the two processes interact in a meaningful way?

You could refer to these distinct processes as ‘closed’ and ‘open’ – akin to the double diamond where you seek to ask and frame questions before you try to answer them in a separate phase. You will need both modes to arrive at a good solution.

Oftentimes, the surface problems are related to the deeper set of problems – they appear at the surface because of deeper issues. So in a sense they provide feedback that push me toward working on the underlying problems.

Is there a silver lining to switching between slow and fast? I believe there is one. By solving the deeper problems, I tackle the surface problems much easier. And surface problems help inform the deeper problem-solving.

But it requires discipline. Because we can’t do both at the same time.