Jump to content

Talk:Procrastination/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sections needing work

There are 14 subheadings which need a paragraph. They have been clearly marked in the article.

Or we can focus on the areas where you need the most help...

What would you like to see covered in the article?

Honestly I think the article would be better served if it were shorter, and much of this nonsense was removed. Just look at the table of contents, it just keeps scrolling forever. --T-rex 06:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I am very tempted to revert the article to something like this revision, before the expansion. I commented on this in Talk:Procrastination/Talk archive 11/2002 to 12/2005 #Recent changes, but I got no response. The article was short and sweet then, and said all that needed to be said about the topic. Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold!, and actually do that now. The old article just summarised the topic quite succinctly. Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
in case someone is reading disabled or blind, it takes i think much more time to read (listen), skip and skim useless information. i understand this. i think the article should be split or a useful and good comprehension set on the top first.
maybe the article should be split, please dont trash traces which could serve other people well. Some years ago i did research on procrastination and i liked this external http://geocities.com/writethethesis article most.
see the headline there: "dont get distracted, keep starting"
i suggest to use a headline like this.

More on revert

The major thing I objected to about the sections in the previous version of the article was that it sounded like an advertisement for a particular method for overcoming procrastination. Wikipedia is not an advertisement service, and the version of the article to which I reverted was neutral in content and did not advocate any method for dealing with procrastination; it just said that chronic procrastinators are likely to suffer from an underlying condition, which is all that is needed. The previous revision referred to the subject as "you" throughout the article, which is against the manual of style. Also see the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 32 for more information on this.

If I am reverted on this change, I won't revert back without further discussion on this page, in order not to start an edit war. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa!!!!!! Making a reversion of that magnitude without first discussing it for a few days to reach consensus crosses the line, and would be considered by some to be vandalism. You should have discussed it here first, and allowed some time for responses to be made. Go for it! 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My comment to add to this is a solely informational article should never use a second person pronoun; that practice weakens writing and removes its academic appeal.

I'm glad you are willing to discuss this matter

Thank you for calling a truce at the outset and opening this discussion. I shall deal with each of your objections under separate subheadings below. Go for it! 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your "no advertising" objection

Wikipedia's no advertising policy refers to articles about companies and products. This article does not cover companies nor products of any kind. Nor does it endorse particular methods. On the contrary, we have attempted to bring as many methods as possible together into the article. Like most articles about complex subjects on Wikepedia, this one is a compilation drawn inspired by many diverse sources.

That the material may appear vaguely similar to material published in books, hence your advertising concern, is because it is well written, and that is not a valid argument for reversion. (Though I take it as a complement that the material is of high enough quality that you may have mistaken it for a commercial source of such information. Thank you.).

The Wikipedia strives for professional quality. All the articles featured on the home page must follow rigorous instructions of development and even go through a peer review process and a final nomination/vote to attain feature status. All this so that the articles look as good as those professionally published.

If you fear that this material was copied or plagiarized from a book, please find the book, and present it as evidence here. Go for it! 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your do "not advocate any method" argument

What this article covers are practices, which are totally allowed within the Wikipedia. For an explicitly extreme example, see the List of sexual positions, which is considered of such high quality that it is a Wikipedia featured list. That article illustrates and describes the various sexual maneuvers, which are basically methods of having sex. Notice that the article does not advocate any particular method of having sex, as they present a wide variety of available methods.

In a similar fashion, this article provides a wide variety of practices for eliminating procrastination. And just as "having sex" as covered in the List of sexual positions can't be considered a single method, neither can "eliminating procrastination", as the practices reported came from all over the place.

As mentioned before, this article, like most of the articles about complex subjects on Wikipedia, is a compilation. Go for it! 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If there are any practices left out that you think should be included, please add them in. Go for it! 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Your second person argument

You cited the manual of style concerning the use of the word "you" throughout the article.

According to the manual of style:

  • "Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity."
  • "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required."

So, the tense in which an article is written is not substantial grounds for reversion. It is, however a good enough reason to go in and fix the grammar to the proper style, if you so desire. Just make sure that it remains clear and informative.

I hope I have addressed your concerns to your satisfaction. Please understand that the article was written with the best of intentions by all concerned, and the practices presented are typical of methods found in the real world. Note that many colleges and universities have web-pages dedicated to overcoming procrastination, and that the word procrastination comes up on a Google search 3,670,000 times. The subject is a fairly well-known and well-reported one.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Go for it! 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment on Article

I really enjoyed this article - probably on of the higher-quality ones on Wiki.

Thanks for the encouragement. Go for it! 10:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My response

OK, my reversion yesterday was probably a very extreme thing to do under the circumstances, and I'll appologise for that from the outset.

Thank you. Go for it! 10:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

However, the article needs to be trimmed. There are no other articles in wikipedia which discuss how to overcome something as much as this one does. The article on clinical depression discusses the possible methods as well as their advantages and disadvantages, without actually going into detail about them. The article addiction presents some mainstream views about how addicts are treated, and then offers criticism of these methods and the idea of addiction. This is all that the article procrastination should do, without being a "how to" guide. How to guides, like "how to overcome procrastination", belong in wikibooks, not wikipedia, which is supposed to summarise current knowledge. See the last point of this section of "What Wikipedia is not" for more info.

Reply: This article actually gets compliments. Why don't you wait awhile and watch reader's responses to this article. Go for it! 10:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
But many of those complimenting are new to wikipedia, and don't know what it is about. I am still convinced that much of the information in the article needs to be trimmed, and taken somewhere else. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Therefore, a lot of what is in the article should be removed. A few pointers:

  • Consequences of procrastination, with examples: This section, and the entire article in general, is biased towards the practices of white American heterosexual males. For example, "like when your wife leaves you for another man because you put off getting a better paying job." This sounds like it could have come from a self-help book designed for adult males. Wikipedia is read and edited by many people of diverse backgrounds, and not just by white adult heterosexual males. See countering systemic bias for a good reason why articles should not be biassed.
Reply: That's not a very good reason to remove the section. If you don't like the examples, replace them or add some more that you do like. Besides, they've been converted to the third-person. Some are "he" and some are "she". However, you were way off in your estimation of bias. Only white people miss airplanes? Only white males have basements that flood? Only Americans go to school? Give me a break.
  • Another sample: "At the core of procrastination is a decision, either the decision is made not to do something, or the decision is made to do something else." That is, frankly, complete nonsense to me. Decisions are at the core of everything we do. The entire article is riddled with statements like this, and strange mathematical formulae like in the "expectancy value theory", which have no relevance to the article.
Reply: I was talking about a specific type of decision, and forgot to include the adjectival qualifier. I'll fix it. Thanks for pointing that out. Go for it! 10:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Reply: I agree with you concerning the "expectancy value theory", and it has been removed more than once. But the guy who contributed it keeps returning to put it back in. So, what are you going to do, tell him he can't contribute? Some compromise is needed here. Just because you and I don't agree with another editor, is no reason to censor his contribution. Maybe someday we'll actually understand and appreciate that section. Go for it! 10:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll remove it then. Wikipedia works by consensus and not established policies: we do not keep this page at "procrastination on wheels!" just because Willy on Wheels wants to move it there. That is one thing we can both agree on, so I'll remove that content, and if the person who adds the information really wants it here, they can take their case to the talk page. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(comment withdrawn at 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC), see #Appology below)

Reply: This again goes toward tense. I agree, the article is a little too prescriptive where it should be descriptive. But that can be fixed, just as the second person tense can be converted to third person. So rather than hack it off, let's fix it. Go for it! 10:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to list this page in wikipedia:third opinion, so some more experienced editors can talk about the issues here. It appears that we are both in a deadlock, and need a fresh look at the arguments.

Regards, Graham/pianoman87 talk 08:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Third opinion

I came here to give a third opinion, but when I saw how long the article was (and it seems to be incredibly long, to me), I figured I didn't have time to read it right now. So I guess I'll give you a third opinion on it when I get around to it, unless someone else does it first. Aumakua 10:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikification has begun!

Pianoman, I've converted the "Consequences of procrastination, with examples" and "Characteristics of procrastination" sections to the 3rd-person. They've been Wikified!!! Let me know what you think. Go for it! 10:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thankyou. That's a good start. Now, I would still like the article to read more like an encyclopedia article than a how-to guide. For example:

"In essence, procrastination is a form of incompetence. To cure it is to eliminate it. Since incompetence is the opposite or lack of competence, the only way to eliminate it is to replace it with competence."
This sounds quite airy fairy, and sounds like a self-help book. It doesn't help me at all: I can easily ask questions like "what is the difference between my compitent and incompitent actions?" And "What would this do for me?" Passages like this need to be removed or largely trimmed. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And lol at the notice you put on the top of the article. I'll keep it there for now just because I think it's funny, but it may be removed. Someone joked about the idea recently ... Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Distraction - request for linking and expansion of article there

Distraction is one of the main causes for Procrastination,

the Distraction entry should be expanded, the words "Distraction" in the procrastination article should be internal linked

one commented just link the first occurance of "distraction", but this procrastination article is stunning long, so for this reason i suggest to link the first occurence in every mayor section.

(in case my contribution in "distraction" is again deleted there, use parts of the history-version of Dez 09 2005

the TV-show listed in Distraction does NOT interest me one bit, it just distracts and started me editing WP, procrastinating other tasks)

i am sure no one here procrastinates reading or editing "procrastination"

Splitting the article

Would it be easier to transwiki much of this to wikibooks, and leave an external link to that in the article? I don't think much of it is necessary here. Graham/pianoman87 talk 04:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Appology

I need to give an appology for indirectly comparing User:Keimzelle to user:Willy on Wheels above. (See struck out comment in reply in the response section , you may have to use edit this page for it to be visible; I'm not familiar with how things look for sighted people.) Anyway, Keimzelle, you are free to discuss the merits of the "expectancy value theory" section, or any other one for that matter, at this talk page, and I see Go for it! has already offered such an invitation. Btw, user:go for it!, is there another name by which you would prefer to be called? I just don't feel comfortable addressing someone using a pseudonym like this. I'd prefer to be known as Graham, which is my real name as stated on my user page.

By coincidence, there is an Australian radio program on ABC Local Radio on Monday dealing with procrastination and how to beat it, which I will listen to tomorrow. It is part of a program called Nightlife hosted by Tony Delroy (I hope!), and the segment will air from about 11:30 to 12:00 UTC on Monday. It can be heard live here. If I find anything that comes to light, I will note it in this discussion page.

Regards, Graham/pianoman87 talk 15:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Readability" ?

Hi,

Thank you all and I hope we can build a truly excellent article from what we already have. About my contribs, the "theories" section: Someone has added a {{Section edit request}} tag to two of the sections; and after removing the comment tags I saw that this means "This section needs to be edited for readability." Well, I ask myself what parts of these sections should be unreadable. Should I rewrite these sections in French or German? Or should I put these in the words of a scientist? (I'm a 2nd year college student in biology...) --Keimzelle 18:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My take

I'm inclined to agree with Graham, in that this article is on the whole too long and often unencyclopedic. A lot of the material could be successfully transwikied, and I think that'd be a great solution. I don't think the information and work that Go for it! has put in should be removed, it just doesn't fit here. Another possibility is that of a split to something like Techniques for dealing with procrastination or some such list. Arturus 23:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What are the processes for transwikiing text to wikibooks and producing a well-designed book in the process? I'm not familiar with wikibooks, and I would try to make sure the articles in wikipedia and wikibooks compliment each other. I think all the section on "how to's" should be transwikied there. However, reputable sources will have to be cited. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks is Wikipedia's grave yard. There is much less traffic, and therefore, much less collaboration. Sending an article there is almost as bad as deleting it. Go for it! 14:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, I really should leave the home and go off to the university where I have to meet the chemistry guy, but I'll use my little spare time right now to tell you what I think. I only found a small quantity of good books at the wikibooks projects (mostly, I'm missing the "Manual of Crime"), and if users have to go there, they're disappointed. They ask themselves what a "book" is - a wikibook should certainly be a book, with an introduction, with chapters, with this and that and so on. And most importantly books are uniform, their style of writing is the same on every page. They form an unity, and this is why I can't call the Procrastination article (or even parts of it!) a "book". Procrastination is still not a book; and the amateurish style and the personal, informal phrasing like in "Perhaps you just can't begin your work" makes the article something like a gem in this "scientific", fact-oriented and dry encyclopedia. A wikipedia article has, in my eyes, only one role: that of collecting knowledge - and presenting it in a civilized manner. If there is enough knowledge to form a comprehensive and consistent book, let's do it. A "book" is much more than a "article", and when our article about Procrastination got its "excellent" rating, only then it is comprehensive enough. Regards, --Keimzelle 14:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


It does read like shit, as you all say. Just like this comment, of course. 69.34.209.67 15:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


It reads like a self-help book. The "eliminationg procrastination" section is wholly unencyclopedic

--130.126.67.39 12:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This article holds knowledge about procrastination; and that's exactly the meaning of an encyclopedia. Yes, even telling somebody to get professional aid (like in the cancer article) is advice to self-help, because organizing a meeting with a doctor requires an effort from the patient. --Keimzelle 12:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thought-provoking

I'll spare you all the usual jokes about procrastinating instead of reading the article. I thought the core article was interesting and brought out some ideas on the nature of procrastination that I hadn't generally considered before. I suspect the expectancy-value theory is only rarely used in that precise fashion - that is to say, I don't think most people model the equation out - but the conjecture therein seems like a worthy object of study for someone at some point.

The article is a worthy piece and inspires interesting thought - it's no surprise that the bulk of it is about overcoming procrastination, as volumes have been written on such topics (and it seems like one of the natural reasons to research procrastination). Though it might be amusing to write a Wiki article on the best ways to procrastinate, I suspect that would endear me to very few indeed. I do agree with the sentiment that it's rather conversational, but that can be brushed into shape easily enough.

In short: I like the article, I'm not sure what I'd cut (other than tightening a few sentences) and I don't think it's long enough/detailed enough to be a book. I'd say run with it. Hallerlake 07:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent article!

...in terms of business and R&D, subject can be avoided with Extreme Programming or "fragile" development model...

Trimming the article

So I think I have a good solution for how we can clean this mess up: Move "Eliminating procrastination" from a subsection of the article to its own subpage or article. Rationale:

  1. Advice on how to eliminate procrastination doesn't tell us anything about procrastination, so it doesn't really belong in an article about procrastination.
  2. This section easily takes up at least half of the article if not more.
  3. Most of the advice looks significantly biased towards neurolinguistic/behavioral programming. I believe this constitutes a NPOV issue, and it would be much more easily addressed if we gave the section its own article.
  4. Furthermore, We could present solutions to procrastination in a more organized format, perhaps sorted by background-theory. We could have sections on psychoanalysis, behavior correction, NLP, goal-setting....whatever.

Sound promising? Please throw down some comments. If I don't see any responses over the next week or so, I'm just going to make the move.Shaggorama 20:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am worried by what I am reading in this section. This article has been VERY IMPORTANT to me personally in fighting procrastination - please please please don't lose any of its content during the changes. I agree in principle that the article would benefit from being re-organised - but you should also understand that there are people like me out here who are using it to add more value to our lives than I think you could possibly imagine. I therefore implore you to make any changes with great care - whether you know it or not, this is a valuable toy you're playing with! --New Thought 23:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. I have no objections. And New Thought, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not give medical advice. If you have a procrastination problem that you want to solve, ask a professional, or use some of the more reliable external links. Wikipedia does not exist to give medical advice. Graham/pianoman87 talk 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's no problem - procrastination does not appear in the list of medical topics linked from the medical disclaimer. An encyclopedia is a a collection of opinions about what the most important things to know about a subject are - and please be assured that the information about controlling procrastination is regarded as important by many of us out here. --New Thought 07:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia far longer than this. The beauty of electronic documents is that they can be as long as is necessary to get the ideas across, however many there might be. The TOC can be used to skip to the most relevant section, bypassing the need to scroll through the document to get to the section desired. I am not in favor of chopping the article up, because that would disrupt the flow from problem to solution. Keep it as a whole. --Go for it! 12:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

More stuff to add

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=63klkx6drw34y6cqfktwkfd7c3ns9t6j is the best article I've ever read about procrastination...

One distinction it makes, which the wikipedia article is missing (I think) is between arousal and avoidant procrastinators:

"'Arousal procrastinators' believe they work best under pressure and tend to delay tasks for the thrill. 'Avoidant procrastinators' are self-doubters who tend to postpone tasks because they worry about performing inadequately, or because they fear their success may raise others' expectations of them."

There's plenty of other useful information in the article that I think should be included as well... somebody check it out... (anon)

I once had written something like that in the "Theories" section but it got deleted by other users. I think it is true that there two types of procrastinators, the "arousal" and "avoidance" sorts.--Keimzelle 13:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Word meaning

I was a little surprised that the meaning of the word wann't mentioned in passing in the first sentence. From the latin Pro = in favour of, Cras = tomorrow. Too trival to add, or not? MartinRe 15:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you should, it makes the meaning of the word much more clearer. Redmess 15:29, 29 january 2006 (UTC)


Ironic

Does any one find ironic that there are requests for people to get work done in an article on procrastanation? (Please improve this section according to the posted request for expansion.) JedG 06:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be worse. -- NeilFraser 06:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It could be raining. --Go for it!

Maybe it was just writer's block.

P.S., it was. --Go for it!

No it is not ironic, and the fact that it is not ironic is one of the glaring weaknesses in this article. Let's suppose there is motivated person M out there who practices some variety of executive time management skills as espoused by this article, which means that most of time available to M is directed to important life tasks and goals which does *not* include making free contributions to the Wikipedia. However, M also practices appropriate recreation and this *does* include making contributions where possible to community efforts such as the Wikipedia. If the meager time available to M toward this purpose (which certainly can't surpass the necessary recovery interval before returning to rational / non-procrastinatory activities) permits M to point out a void, but not to fill the void, or even if M just feels they could fill a different void to more effect for the same time investment, then there is nothing ironic about it.

There is a great deal of uncertainty and conflict about expectations and results in life and a lot of procrastination takes place where people secretly have less faith in the outcomes than they would like to pretend (for their own benefit, or the benefit of others). One would like to think that sitting down and powering through a nasty yet necessary task for the benefit of the team would earn you a slap on the back or a well-done, but all too often it just earns you ownership over a nasty and thankless task where no one else was foolish enough to get involved. Look at the reaction to the person M who made the effort to point out a void. This discussion page asks "why did person M stop there, why didn't person M *finish* the job?" Is that thanks, or emotional sabotage? It doesn't take much of that before procrastination is viewed as the better part of valour.

A story I've seen first hand is the talented teenager who tells everyone and their dog that he wants to be an NHL hockey player, but somewhere along the way realizes it was really his Dad who wanted him to become an NHL hockey player, and he really has other aspirations, and even if he loves playing hockey, he doesn't love it enough to take a puck off the ankle week after week for the next ten years.

Another situation I've seen often enough is a work crisis created by a bad management team and then foisted on rank and file who are exhorted to go over and above for the sake of all and sundry and we'll all live happily ever after if we survive this looming crisis, and rewards will be handed out more freely than dog biscuits on the set of 101 Dalmations. Reality: rewards after the fact rarely fully compensate for the sacrifice, life continues but not all that happily, and the crisis mentally repeats at the first good opportunity.

There are also plenty of stories in the business literature about executives who develop Day-Timer-itis in the service of an anti-procrastination work ethic who succumb to a exhausting work life firmly planted in the dreaded Urgent-yet-Unimportant management quadrant. Some of the people one might least accuse of procrastination instead end up on the psychologist's couch answering questions about whether workaholism constitutes emotional avoidance of an unpleasant home life.

Another story I've seen is the talented young person who sets out on an aggressive career track to become VP of a major Canadian bank (they each seem to have thousands, so this is more achievable than it sounds), after so many years in the trenches the long hours have taken their toll, the energy level is not what is used to be, prospects of making VP remain uncertain, but is it really worth maintaining the sacrifice to get there? It's a great thing when your dreams and your means remain in alignment. When they don't, it's only human not to invest your best energy at the drop of a pin, however "executive" it might feel.

It also interests me that much so-called procrastination is burned on high energy tasks. Consider the novelist who can't decide quite how to start, so he buries himself in diversionary reading, and when he finally comes back up for air, he's burned through twenty difficult tomes in high literature. Was that a necessary component of the creative act? For a young novelist, this is hard to know. I've read some autobiographical content by aging novelists who have more or less said that figuring out the difference was the better portion of what needed to be accomplished in their younger days. They pretty much all say that discipline is fundamental to a successful writing career, but they also say that discipline needs to protect the creative act and not impede it, and the exact balance is different for every person.

We've all heard the expression "money can't buy you love". Yet many of the tasks we assign ourselves are towards a monetary reward. One would like to think that money serves for most people as a proxy for the other rewards money can bring (attractive mate, stable relationship, good health, family). Some of the most executive-enabled people I know seem to have forgotten that money is a proxy for obtaining other values. You have to wonder if these people have ever heard the phrase "you can't take it with you". In some sense, the love of money is the ultimate procrastination, it frees from having to decide what you want out of life, in the belief than whenever it comes along, you'll have the means to afford it (if not necessarily the means to recognize it).

I found this guide to avoiding procrastination to serve best as a doubt-haters guide. In real life, dealing with real people, and typical group dysfunction (e.g. real workers vs the credit-takers), it's less common than we would like to believe that life presents such a doubt-free path moving forward to any substantive goal. Even where you have very clear-cut goals (supermodel, Olympic gold medal, president of the university, etc.) there are far fewer of these plums available than the number of people looking for something to do. There is a big chunk of the educated population in G8-ish countries who are caught somewhere halfway between subsistence and fast-track ability towards a plum career that this article does not well serve. (Unsigned comment by 24.66.171.224).


"Like students, many workers do not complete assignments early, but wait until the last minute before starting, often having to rush to submit their assignment minutes before the deadline" - They wait 'til the last minute to have only minutes to spare, now that's ironic Other than that, on the note presented above, it's always useful to 'invest' in building up more 'basic' ability, rather than working to build, and working to further understand, something which would be more 'sub-ordinate', like money. Basic ability - i.e. physical, emotional, mental capacity Spur 14:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion

The following is just my opinion of the article, but I would be surprised if I were the only one to hold it. I would prefer there were more discussion of the genetic and neurochemical aspects. What part and how influential is heredity, have any studies been done in this area? What part does early parenting, training and education play in forming habits of procrastination? More detail about what part volition and will play in procrastination.

I may have made the correct judgment and decision to act in some way or do something, but am unable to carry it out due to a lack of volition or willpower. I am unable to will that I do something because I am unable to tolerate or overcome some emotional pain. I sometimes know what the right thing to do is and have a very strong desire to do it, but am unable to begin or complete the task due to some other factor. I am unable to push myself through or past that factor to begin the task. The satisfaction of potentially completing the task is not as great as the satisfaction gained from putting it off and doing something else instead. Or perhaps the consequences of not doing a task I know I should do are not as immediate and strong as the emotional pain I feel when I try and force myself to do an unpleasant task or abstain/forgo doing a more pleasant activity.

In my opinion this article has too much 'self help' advice and 'pop psychology', Motherly advice, speculation and too many cliches.

But I could be wrong. --Jim 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think much is known about the genetic and neurochemical aspects. Though there is quite a bit out there on the formation of procrastination habits. As for volition and will, scientists don't even know what those are, in neurochemical/neuroelectrical terms. Those are as evasive as consciousness itself. --Go for it! 12:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaargh, I knew that somebody out there would point his finger on these details. I once wrote that during the last several thousand years of human evolution there weren't paper submission deadlines and the like, and the effect was that we were forced to fulfil only those jobs that would a) feed us and b) give us a shelter for the night. Although I'm no specialist in biochemistry or genetics I believe that the human biochemistry doesn't fight procrastination; or that it even furthers this habit. Told bluntly: there are pain transmitters that signal you "I'm starving!" when you put off to hunt your mammoth; but there is no pathway signalling "Oh, I should do my school homework!". If bad school marks would hurt physically (or even select) and if schools would have existed for a time span long enough, there surely would be neurochemical systems that prevent procrastination. A failure of the "Do your work now"-hormon would then produce the clinical symptoms of procrastination. --Keimzelle 13:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


I think your comment is prity useless and I suggest to delete it. For an encyclopedia, it is not important what you think. It counts what are (scientifically) prooven facts. Appart of this it is not right. There is a correlation between seratonin and the will power to do certain things. My knowledge unfortunattly does not allow me to write an appropriate article.


I suggest to delete the " Structured Procrastination " - link, because it is on the one hand pritty nonsensical and on the other more a "glosse" that real information


Poorly written article

I believe most of my concerns have already been captured by other wikipedians, but here's what I think are the key problems with this article.

1) Too much of a focus on Pop Psychology, Self Helf and Counselling. (For example, the eliminating procrastination portion is huge and looks like it was summarized from a self help book.)

2) The language is too fluffy and not encyclopedia like (For example, "One would think that the solution to procrastination (not doing it) is its exact opposite: doing it!" Ugh.

3) Too much irrelevent material here that adds very little value. (For example, do we really need a huge list of all the causes of procrastination?)

Possible Fixes: Like what many have said before... an injection of a more scientific/experimental approach in place of the some of the pop psychology... specifically, the addition of information from credible scholarly articles on the topic.

--P-Chan 08:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is wishful thinking, P-Chan. Nobody can write a "scholarly" article which will quickly clarify all the issues surrounding procrastination. The basic problem is that while it's only a 15 letter word, it is actually a complex issue with multiple causes - and different people will respond differently to various remedies. I'm sorry that the article doesn't meet your apparent need for crisp, clear, "scholarly" answers. The material in this article is, however, absolutely excellent ("pop psychology" may not be perfect - but it is a big step forward on "nothing" - which is what we'd otherwise have). There is no short leap from the article as it is today to a fine example of encyclopedic excellence - the answer is to improve it incrementally - step by step. If only a small number of people are willing to do this, then we could well end up with an absolute masterpiece, of quite inestimable value to sufferers of this non-medical condition.--New Thought 09:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to New Thought:

There's a substantial amount of scientific research being done on this topic.

(http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpychyl/prg/research/research_complete_biblio.html)

--P-Chan 10:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

if there is any good (and useable) information in these books/article, then it should be added to the article - otherwise, it's still "pop-psych" or nothing--New Thought 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. This is not just a pop-psychology topic. A lot of time and research has been spent on this topic, whether it be in the Industrial/organizational, clinical, counselling or experimental branches of psychology. --P-Chan 12:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Thus, the premise that this can only be a pop-psych/self-help focused entry or "nothing" is false.

I agree with you that this is a complex topic with multiple causes, but so is depression, yet the articles on depression are not self-help manuals.

Based on your earlier statements, I understand that this article was VERY VERY helpful in allowing you to overcome procrastination. I am happy for you, however, the main focus of wikipedia is not to help people deal with their psychological problems. If you notice the articles on depression, OCD, anxiety and perfectionism, they give but a token gesture to creating workable therapies or remedies. Instead, they focus on defining and providing encyclopedia level information on their respective topics.

I agree with you in saying that there is no short leap from the current state to excellence. However, my concerns lie in the very real risk that this article will stagenate or regress. The history of this article does show some evidence of that.

There may be another way for you to retain the theraputic portions of this article, perhaps in a new seperate entry "remedies for procrastination" or something in a Wikipedia sister project.

I have no objection to remedies being moved to a new article, as long as whoever does the move doesn't edit out any useful content in the process!--New Thought 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents. --P-Chan 10:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the remedies should not be moved to another article. Maybe it's better to keep it all in one place. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole, and subsections may not stand as strongly on their own -- I'd hate to see part of the article get AfD'd, leaving a crippled treatment of the topic. Also, it's easier to track if it's in one piece. After the previous thoughts on the matter, I strongly suggest we keep this article together.

I agree with New Thought that the article should be allowed to incrementally advance. This should not happen by simply hacking pieces off, but by replacing them, one-by-one by more effective (i.e., scientifically proven) yet equally relevant solutions. --Go for it!

Maybe the remedies should be divided into 2 categories, "Scientifically Researched" and "Other Methods"? --New Thought 09:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys may be missing the point.

The article is simply not in the right format and is out of scope. It's a good article, but it's just not the right type of article. As well, it is moving further away from that right type.

I think you will agree with me, when I say that this article has slowly mutated into a self-help book in it's tone, content and intention. As well, I think I can safely say that this article is overly subjective, filled with original research, weasel words and is in the wrong tense. Transforming it to wikistandards would require a ton of work and may require deleting/modifying almost the entire thing. Agreed?

Incremental advancement (in my opinion) would NOT be an effective method based on what the discussion history has shown so far. There is a slight blogginess feel to this discussion topic that makes be believe that a few users are becoming personally attached to the content.

Some would argue that this is article should be deleted. I disagree. It is an important topic studied by the areas of psychology that I mentioned above. I know you two have put a lot of work and heart into this article, so I understand how you feel. Also, I agree with you completely when you say that this is a useful tool to help people with their problems.

So, here's what I propose...


Step 1: Move the current form over to Wikibooks.

Step 2: Revert the article back to the last time that this article was in wiki standards. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Procrastination&oldid=25776154

Step 3: Cut and past back the old bits from the new Wikibook and put a "This article needs help flag on it", so we can get back on track.

END.

--P-Chan 12:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted below, the fork's pre-existence at wikibooks is stalled in an unterminating AfD. Metarhyme 05:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not a junkyard for Wikipedia articles

#1 You may be making some misassumptions about WikiBooks. It is not a junkyard for Wikipedia articles, and while Wikipedians casually toss the notion of transwiki'ing articles over there, WikiBookians aren't casual about it at all, and resent our attitude towards their site. They routinely delete encyclopedia articles, because the are encyclopedia articles. So, in essence, WikiBooks has become a graveyard for Wikipedia articles. In fact, this article was already placed there, and they are trying to delete it right now. Their reasons are:

#1 It's not a wikibook, it's a wikipedia article.
#2 There isn't a dedicated author for transforming and expanding it into a WikiBook
#3 There is no vigorous plan nor schedule for transforming the article to the proper format

#2 The article has been up for deletion on WikiBooks since January 3rd, long past their official interval for deletion discussion, and has been hanging in the balance ever since. As soon as the discussion recieves enough votes on either side for it to be considered a concensus, only then will the issue be decided. It could be deleted at any time.

#3 Wikibooks gets a small fraction of the traffic Wikipedia gets. This article was there for weeks and received hardly any edits at all. Another sense in which Wikibooks is a graveyard for Wikipedia articles.

#4Wikipedia's "no self-references" policy would prevent us from being able to inform readers that the previous article was still available, and that any particular link was to the previous version of the article.

--Go for it!
would there be a link from the article to the new wikibook? Would everyone be able to update the wikibook? --New Thought 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, using {{wikibooks}} at the end of the article. [wikibooks]] is also editable like wikipedia. Graham/pianoman87 talk 05:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you guys think? This is just one option, but I think everyone here would win in that scenario, in that the content is retained in wiki, and we can clean-up the current article.

I think this a nice article and is genuinely helpful. However, it can't remain here in it's current form. Massive changes need to be made. --P-Chan 12:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by step 3? Do you mean cutting and pasting incrementally from wikibooks, and getting help from other users that way? The article has already been transwikied and is undergoing a vote for deletion there. As is said on that vote for deletion, it needs major cleanup - it needs major cleanup wherever it is. I certainly agree with the reversion you propose. I'm sorry for not responding earlier - I thought I said everything I think about the article on this talk page before, and wanted to wait for a concrete proposal before responding. Graham/pianoman87 talk 14:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Pchan, a reversion of that magnitude would have nearly the same effect as deletion. It is easy to get rid of something. What we haven't seen from you is any constructive improvement nor additions to the article. Where are these scientific alternatives you've been talking about? Why don't you add them in? --Go for it! 06:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Pchan, you speak like a seasoned verteran of Wikipedia. Yet you only have 3 days of contributions on your account. Care to comment? --Go for it! 06:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Stagnation issue

One reason why the article isn't progressing, is because I've been reluctant to work on it, because its fate hangs in the balance in this discussion. Why work on an article that may be deleted or crippled at any moment? --Go for it! 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If on the other hand, if you supported the article, serious work could commence upon it, and it would mature over time. --Go for it! 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's time to find out

Let's see what the reaction of the community is. I'm going to go with you guys for now, and revert the article, to see what happens. If the community agrees with the reversion, they'll keep it that way. --Go for it! 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks entry

Go_for_it, that's mighty big of you for doing that! Since the situation has changed in Wikipedia, I suggest we support the retention of some kind of "Overcoming Procrastination" entry in Wikibooks by voting to "Keep it".

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Votes_for_deletion#Overcoming_Procrastination

Also to Pianoman: you may want to reconsider how you voted at Wikibooks, since the original environment surrounding why you support deletion has changed.

--P-Chan 08:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou

As the person who initially brought up this issue, I'm now satisfied with how it has worked out. All the howto content has been moved to wikibooks:overcoming procrastination, where it can be edited, improved and maybe turned into a fully-fledged wikibook. The wikipedia article now contains relevant and encyclopedic information. Thankyou, Go for it!, for reverting the article on your own accord. And thankyou, PChan, for providing a fresh perspective. Just one more thing though: I'm going to remove your header from the talk page. There is no precedent for such a header on a wikipedia talk page; even talk:suicide does not have a header encouraging people to seek help about suicide. I'm in half a mind to just put back the old comments about procrastination as they were so typical; however, I don't want to because the page histories of the talk pages are now fragmented, although they are quite easy to follow IMO. Good work all round! Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem dude, I'm glad we all got through this and kept it so that all the information was retained in some shape or form. Just so you know... the header that was placed at the top of the talk page encouraging people to chat was made by Go_to_it and not myself. (Just a clarification). --P-Chan 12:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes ... the header was just an incidental thing, I didn't clarify who wrote it in my message. Glad we have it all sorted out though. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Did Some Major Editing

  • Rewrote and rearranged most of the article.
  • Removed the weasel words, lack of sources and factual errors.
  • Added Attention and Source Verificatin Tags
  • Set-up the article so that it has a more logical flow

Possible additional work:

  • Expand the mental health section
  • Expand the academic procrastination section

--P-Chan 12:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That list for overcoming procrastination is cut and pasted verbatim from the PRG web-site, which sports a copyright notice. Is this a violation of their copyrights, and is this against Wikipedia policy? --Go for it! 14:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The list of causes of procrastination was also cut and pasted from another website: http://www.couns.uiuc.edu/Brochures/procras.htm. Is this acceptable? --Go for it! 14:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think procrastination has something to do with laziness. Pasting in others work without bothering to paraphrase anything shows too little effort to be legal, unless quotes get wrapped around everything, which is honest but unacceptable. Do you wish to fix it? Metarhyme 03:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
No. I've already written over 60K for this article. The article was in pretty good shape, before several months of edits were reverted. I reverted it due to the opposition, to see if anyone would even notice or mind. So far, nobody has. I'm not sure if that means they prefer this version over the version prior to the revert, or that they are simply unaware that the previous version even exists. --Go for it! 10:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the 63 kilobytes long version?

Due to a few users who objected to it (despite the many people who contributed to the article), I reverted it all the way back to Oct 13th, 2006, before the objected-to expansion took place. Neither the contributors nor enough supporters spoke up here in defense of the article. Here is the permanent link to the abandonned version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Procrastination&oldid=42842587

If someone was bold enough to restore this version and enough users came forward to support it, I would be happy to begin working on it again. Until then, or otherwise, I'll be off somewhere else on Wikipedia, typing away. --Go for it! 11:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And here is the 63KB fork at wiki books which may survive its AfD - it needs work. Metarhyme 12:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not ashamed to say I'm part of the people who found this article's long version quite helpful, so I'd like to thank Go for it! and other editors for all your work. Following the debate here and the move of the self-help section to wikibooks (where it survived an AfD), I took the liberty to create links to the book (which was mentioned but not linked), on the rationale that some people may visit Wikipedia's procrastination page as a first step in looking for practical answers. Links to other sources of practical advice are naturally welcome. -- JFG 13:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've standardised that link with the {{wikibooks}} template. Graham talk 12:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes 6 April

As one of the original authors/editors of the article (Oct 2005) I think it looks great and I am glad the help section has been moved to wikibooks -- it looks very useful. I am making some changes and removing the "verify" tag. The section I am removing the tag from I wrote and it is based on my personal experience as well as many books I have read on Procrastination and ADD. I am also removing the reference to monotropism because I never understood why it got added in the first place and I was always a bit sceptical of it. laurap414 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Laura. In regards to the verify tag, it would be great if you could put a reference to which books you read this from. That would be most awesome.--P-Chan 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait. Nevermind.--P-Chan 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Another (almost) synonymous word

There is another word which is also of Latin origin, which is, to my mind, underused: "cunctation". It has not _quite_ the sense of "temporary" delay implied by "pro" + "cras".

And if you think it looks rude: think "mind of the beholder"!

Hair Commodore 20:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Edit of 15:50, 13 November 2006

I apologise for my recent edit which caused some of the information in the article to be removed. This was purely a technical glitch on my part and has since been rectified. Thank you for dealing with the matter so swiftly. 195.195.13.98 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Formula for Procrastination

Read an article on a formula for procrastination. Thought someone with more knowledge of the subject might find it interesting enough to include a sentence or two. See it on MSN at http://tech.msn.com/news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2524378&GT1=9013. --Zuejay 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on author David Allen

I wrote this section after listening to a podcast from Merlin Mann, which is a compilation of eight podcasts that ran on 43folders.com and davidco.com in 2006.

Author David Allen brings up two major psychological causes of procrastination which are related to anxiety, not laziness. The first category is things too small to worry about, the second category is things too big to control

This section is not a direct quote, but a paraphrase. It is the single most helpful thing I have ever heard on procrastination. It is important to note that although my legal name is also David Allen, I am not related (that I know of) to this David Allen; simply the similarity of names interested me in the podcast in the first place. There is no conflict of interest. --BlueNight 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we should consider David Allen nor Merlin Mann credible sources on this issue. All they have and employ is anecdotal evidence and personal opinions. --99.246.30.120 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Too Negative

My reaction on reading this article for the first time is that it is too negative.

For instance, let me quote from an article by Paul Graham (author of 'Hackers and Painters'): 

The most impressive people I know are all terrible procrastinators. 
So could it be that procrastination isn't always bad?

http://www.paulgraham.com/procrastination.html

I think the topic needs a more even-handed approach to the benefits as well as problems of procrastination.

Pemboid 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To a certain extent, I agree that this article could be considered as being negatively baised towards procrastination. Though I cannot link a source, there is an interesting peer-reviewed article within the Journal of Social Psychology (specifically, June 2005, Volume 145 Issue 3, pages 245-264) that suggests that there can be a healthy form of procrastination--which the article calls "Active Procrastination"--and it contrasts this healthy form of procrastination with the commonly depicted negative, or "passive" procrastination through the study that it presents.
I do feel that this article, especially in the section "Types of procrastination" is taking an unfairly negative stance against procrastination (noting also the article's statement on the impeding of normal functioning being the sole issue with procrastination). Beyond the two types presented within the current version of the article, I would suggest the addition of the above stated study on procrastination's suggested "active" and "passive" forms of procrastination. I think this would help to create the more even-handed approach that was asked for above. --Ye Olde Twit 05:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
My impression is that Ye Olde Twit is right, although I don't personally have the wherewithal to support that claim. (I'll get around to finding it later....) Job L 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Isn't there a division of wikipedia that's a dictionary that this would fit under better than the encyclopedia? (just a suggestion)205.250.117.181 02:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the article and then ask yourself if you would find something of that length and detail in a dictionary. SilentC 03:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition

I think the intro is perhaps a bit long, and I think the definition should be paraphrased into the paragraph instead of actually quoted. Abcdefghayden 09:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Genius" Procrastinator

In keeping about Ye Olde Twit's earlier comment that this article was too negative, I felt that, in the types of procrastination, someone needed to clarify that not all "relaxed procrastinators" are people who don't care about whatever they are delaying and/or are "slackers." There are a lot of "relaxed procrastinators" who honestly don't need to work very hard at a task to do well and for whom, therefore, not procrastinating would be a waste of time and effort. The title of "genius" procrastinator isn't technical per se, but as my only other idea was "bullshitter" (a title that makes it sound like a joke, and which consequently got this section deleted the last time I added it) I figured "genius" procrastinator was good enough. After all, it describes someone who is so good at something that they can put in minimal effort and still get top marks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beggarsbanquet (talk • contribs) 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems like the description of the "genius" procrastinator is in conflict with the introduction at the top of the page which states that is a postponement of action where there is an anxiety associated with the action or task. Relaxed procrastinators are also worried about their delayed task. Simply delaying something where there is no negative feelings involved is not procrastination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.106.42 (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Genius procrastinator don't exist, and are not reflected in the literature. OptimistBen (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
To be more specific in my recollection of the source I used that apparently inspired the above thought, the article defines "Passive" procrastination as a type that is commonly talked about where people fail to do anything in their delay and "active" procrastination as a type where the procrastinor--who waited on doing whatever it is that it was going to-- is motivated eventually to complete what it is that they were delaying doing. However, my paraphrasing does not do the article justice.
On what I believe Beggarsbanquet talks about: it would seem to me to fall back into the same pattern already mentioned by this article on the root cause being perfectionism. Perhaps a need to be perfectly efficient, in this case. I do not think the situation being special, or different enough to merit a special mention. In spirit, it easily falls back into the previously written and suggested types.Ye Olde Twit (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Procratinators who are are perfectionists are still procrastinators, and their performance suffers the same. Take it from me. A student, but I leave things till the last minute and suffer terribly inside and at that last-minute. I'm going to be taking down this "Genius" type unless someone can source it and convince me that it makes sense. OptimistBen 15:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It still seems to be here. I agree with OptimistBen and co.; I don't think it belongs. Are there any references to this? To me, putting off things that you can easily finish at the last minute with no ill consequences is by definition not procrastination, and it doesn't seem to fit the description given in the article. Is there a reason people still think it belongs? Are there sources for this I'm missing? 18.241.6.3 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Genius procrastinator has no citation and is likely a COMPLETELY different matter than typical procrastination. It's usually the "genius" having different priorities. Just because they do it at the last second doesn't necessarily mean that they have been putting it off. It's not an encyclopedia's job to write down generalized personal observations of geniuses and their habits. Don't have a citation? Don't bother. --71.248.72.237 (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

procrastinators of the world unite... later

how many people do you suppose came to this article thinking: 'man.. i really need to stop procrastinating right now.. hey.. I wonder what the wikipedia article on procrastination is like..' maybe that's just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.172 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.136.148 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

what's the cure ?

hi, this article list all the cause of the procrastination, but propose no solution !? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.246.191.200 (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone check the PowerPoint link added in this edit to confirm this isn't virus-infected? As I'm on dialup, I cannot comment on the video content. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Too inaccurate redirect of "avoidance behavior"?

The redirect of avoidance behavior currently goes directly to the personality disorder avoidant personality disorder. I don't think this is what the person setting up the wikilink intended. I'm not sure if it can be corrected to point to a more accurate site (for example one dealing with social behaviors). I also wonder if the redirect should remain in the first place as long as there's no disambiguation page set up. — Northgrove 08:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Temporal Discounting

Note I added back the Temporal Discounting link since it's no longer dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanH (talk • contribs) 07:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

High or low Conscientiousness!?

As mentioned on the talk page for Conscientiousness, this and that page contradict each other. In this page it says Procrastinators have a high conscientiousness, while on the other page it says they are low on conscientiousness. - SuperMidget (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Moved the paragraph on this to a separate section, as in a lot of other articles; Leaving a note here since I'm not sure if I should (is the paragraph to short to warrant a section?)... being bold. Ahluka (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Eliminated the reference to Edward Hall's historical text. Unless the exact page number that this word supposedly appears on can be cited, then its veracity is unverifiable, therefore dubious. I scoured the internet to find any of the original text (I do not own a copy of Hall's book and haven't the patience to read the entire thing just to find one word) and it seems that 90% of all websites with a definition for "procrastination" uses this Wiki page's text as its definition, which is a testament to how wreckless people can become by accepting wiki information as valid and inherently accurate.

No credible online dictionary source that I found (Merriam-Webster's, Oxford online, dictionary.com, etc.) cites Hall's work (or even the year his work was published (1548 1st edition; 1550 3rd edition)) as the original source of the term. Each of those credible online dictionary sources cite the word's advent as being in the late 16th century, specifically 1588 to 1590. Therefore, it is highly intellectually questionable to cite Hall as the source of the modern term without a specific, easily verifiable source, such as the specific page number and paragraph where the term appears. Also, Hall's work is not a book of "sermons;" it is a historical account of England from the reigns of King Henry V to Henry VIII, so the fact that the Wiki article mentioned some ambiguous "sermon" (before I deleted it) seems rather odd. PsychGuy27 07:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Addiction angle

There is a different angle to the reasons behind procrastination. The theory is, and this is the reason for my procrastination - I feel, is that procrastination is an addiction to the high one gets from succeeding at the last minute as a result of the procrastination. This (very long) blog post [1] discusses this in great detail.

I've never bought into the "fear of success, failure, or aversion to authority" theory. The person who came up with it probably wasn't a procrastinator.

Further, this really ties in well with the ADD/ADHD angle. People with Attention Deficit Disorder usually have 3 traits that are relevant here.

  • Tendency towards addictions
  • Tendency towards procrastination
  • Thrill seeking activities. Procrastination - or the rush at the end, is the thrill

The angle that procrastination is an addiction to the high just works, and it also is the only explanation that has struck a cord with me. For the record, I am procrastinating right now. I'm supposed to be working on a report for work. --Championtim (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove link: getting things done, GTD

That article is a false hope, and reads like a slide-show-printout.

How to get things done, as a comprehensive advice 'self-help' section may gather therapeutic information and then if necessary, divert to new age cults, corporatism and consumerism -see "gtd's" edit-. 67.86.58.205 (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)wikici

You should discuss this on Talk:Getting Things Done. --McGeddon (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Protect this page?

This page seems to be a particular favorite of vandals. Perhaps something should be done? Szfski (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

bring the focus more towards procrastination research

I think this article could benefit greatly if people's sources were actual research articles. I propose deleting the types of procrastinators section and the six styles completely. The sources are more self-help and the data doesn't come from rigorous scientific study.Adventure202 (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem with getting the actual articles is.... I have severe procrastination too haha. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have done a lot of formal scientific procrastination research over the years and I've added a few elements to give a little more balance towards the viewpoint that procrastination is more likely due to impulsiveness then perfectionism. The crux of this is my meta-analysis "The Nature of Procrastination" which formally reviews all the scientific research on this point, at least up to this time. Tried to be as balanced as possible, but would appreciate if others coudl makeg sure that I achieved this and that the tone is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrastinus (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have seen no support anywhere for Yuen's typology of procrastinators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrastinus (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing section: Treatment and self-treatment

Why do we read this article? Beacuase we want to know what to do about the problem. All of you who have contributed here, please prioritise writing a treatment and self-treatment section.

Suggestions for content?

  • Medication
  • Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) methods
  • Self-treatment methods

Of courses research results are more interesting than the content of self-help books, but self-help books that are commonly used and are recommended by CBT professionals are also of interest, as long as that it is clear from the text that this is not research. Some of these books are also written by researchers (which?). 79.136.45.134 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This page was an interesting read. I'm going to go and read as much of wikipedia as I can before getting on with my life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.238.219 (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I submit that the external link to chronicprocrastination.org is a landing page intended to deliver traffic on to the fearlessproductivity .com website and convert the traffic into paypal sales of the book, 'fearless procrastination' which has no independant medical or peer recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.219.18 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's not the only such link. I'm going to remove them. Destynova (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - that link should be kept off the page. Does appear to be just a front. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The chronicprocrastination .org external link has been put up again. I will delete it but is there any way to avoid this page being used to feed traffic to this site in future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.219.18 (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A very persistent IP editor keeps adding it, and their IP keeps changing. They do absolutely nothing else on WP it seems - at least judging by their most recent edits. This makes them difficult to block. Ultimately can only be met with persistence. Just to reiterate, as procrastination is a serious psychological problem, only serious academic or medical links should be on here. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Only real sanction would be to protect/semi-protect page. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You may use Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist as a last resort. Mange01 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
After digging through the page history and finding at least seven attempts to add this URL (including two with a misleading edit summary of "removing spam link"), I've requested it be blacklisted. --McGeddon (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I needed a backgrounder on procrastination with an emphasis on pragmatic solutions. I definitely found that in this entry and so, I'm pretty pleased; however, I don't know why I was obliged to wade through approving references to Freudian psychology. As a layman, it was my understanding that Freud has been thoroughly discredited. I might add that the practical approaches to the problem, given in the links, don't owe a smidgin of debt to Freud. Please clean up this piece by dropping Freudian pseudoscience. Chairease (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Headings and Organization

This is a bit of a jumble even at the heading level, which is too bad as it is a topic worth a lot more effort. The incidence of procrastination is rising as well as its severity and it is connected to a wide swath of topics (e.g., environmental degredation, national debt)

• Introduction • History and Etymology • Modern Definitions (note. the book The Thief of Time has a great section) • Individual Level Procrastination (e.g., stats on how common, economic impact, psychological health impact) • Societal Level Procrastination (e.g., national debt, retirement cruchy, climate change) • Theories about the Origins of Procrastination (e.g., impulsiveness versus perfectionism; physiology; environment) • Resolutions and Remedies: Treating or Correcting Procrastination

I want throw out that typology junk. There isn't a lick of scientific study or support for it. I will leave this up for a few weeks for further suggestions or refinements. Procrastinus (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So... Uh...

Where do I upload my picture? I'm fairly sure that I would fit the description (being here at 1 a.m. proves my point). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.162.119.14 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Art?

since when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.211.139 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of all information about historical perspectives on procrastination

I noticed that an entire section of this article (several paragraphs long) was removed from this article. The article once contained a lot of relevant information about historical perspectives on procrastination in various cultures, but that section is gone now. Is this really an improvement over the article's previous state? I suggest that this deleted section be re-inserted to the article, while preserving the subsequent additions that have been made. Jarble (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Jarble sounds good to me, why dont you give it a try?--Wuerzele (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Academic procrastination: Cal Newport 's blog reference

I think the sentence with reference 20 should be deleted due to primary research WP:ownwork. I looked at the reference/naked url of blog post of computer scientist Cal Newport and see rambling about procrastination, no third party sources, except a BBC article that didnt mention procrastination. this isnt helpful for a wikipedia article.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of all information about historical perspectives on procrastination (II)

This article seriously needs historical perspectives on procrastination. Otherwise, procastination is naturalized. Naturalization should be always avoided. 186.19.98.10 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)amantedelacomida

Famous procrastinators?

I agree with Jeraphine Gryphon: this section is unsourced and doesn't seem to me to be encyclopedic, as it's a collection of anecdotes. There is also potentially original research and synthesis in the comments about Coleridge. I removed this section but my edits have been undone, so I will remove the content again based on this rationale. Other users are welcome to discuss here! /wia /tlk /cntrb 14:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not a fan of the recent edits since most of it doesn't seem to be an improvement ("Identified criteria's"??), but I'm hoping someone other than me can fix this. The famous procrastinators section definitely needs to be sourced, not so much because it's "negative" content about these specific people but more because it seems like something from a Buzzfeed article rather than an encyclopedia. It's just not appropriate. Given how it's unsourced right now then it's better to just remove it entirely. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There seems no original research as mentioned the link is cited in comments as "http://procrastinus.com/procrastination/famous-procrastinators/". The only fact that could be inferred is difference in opinion on a published and existing article(anyhow people cant just make-up stuff from thin air). Then again I don't see the quote as irrelevant either, because it shows a perspective that was held in a certain period of time and its relevance that everyone is susceptible to procrastination low and high in socioeconomic class' and power. Coleridge was a good example to it. Bill Clinton was also good in showing how much has changed through a period of time. His activity in social service areas. Above all procrastination isn't a negative or slanderous matter. it is the stigma that is behind this defensiveness. Then again it seems you are pros. Add material though than censuring, it would help a lot of people.
That link raises another issue: the added content seems to have been directly copied from it. Take a look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more information; in general, we can't add content to Wikipedia articles that's been copied from another source without proper licensing and/or attribution. /wia /tlk /cntrb 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Read and Add

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.21.10 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Procrastination needs editing

(From Anonymous) I don't want to personally edit the page for procrastination, but I do want to bring to the community's attention that the article may not quite be up to Wikipedia's standards, particularly the first paragraph.

Does anyone know how to mark that or report a problem on the page? I could not figure out how to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.169.216.27 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I will get around to that, soon, I promise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.219.230.45 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Conviction of powerlessness

Self made observations removed, do add if verifiable articles or academic texts elaborate on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.20.138 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Procrastination/Archive_2&oldid=863470032"