[Cl4rity]

This actually isn't extremist or crazy, it's common sense. Multitasking is a myth and you really can only focus on one thing at a time. By adopting this philosophy, you'll probably get a lot more done, quickly. Once your one task or goal is accomplished with that hyper focus, you move onto the next one. It's really the best, and arguably the only way, to work. Again, our brains don't do more than one task at once with any efficiency.

[calinet6]

I think you're correct at a low-level, but reducing an entire person's thought process on the long term to a single focus? That is extremist. In any sufficiently complex system or company, you will have multiple inputs driving multiple results. You will be dealing with multiple people. Your work will touch the work of others. This may work in an extremely rigid, top-down authoritative structure, but personally I don't believe extremely rigid top-down authoritative structures are effective. Your opinions may differ from mine, but I think autonomy, mastery, and common purpose are far, far more powerful tools.

[stephengillie]

Absolutely refusing to handle anything but that #1 priority is also its own cage. What if the #4 priority suddenly catches fire? If you change your focus to #4, isn't that just multitasking?

Multitasking is a myth on one level, but so is this hyperfocus. There must be room for task switching, for thoughts, for interrupts, and for breathing.

[chimeracoder]

> What if the #4 priority suddenly catches fire?

Then it may (or may not) become your #1 priority!

> If you change your focus to #4, isn't that just multitasking?

No, because you have to question which should be the new #1 priority: the old #4 or the old #1? You can still only do one thing at a time; we only have one body and one brain[1].

[1] As of 2012, that is!

[stephengillie]

So how is this different than just doing things?