Get the Email Monkey Off Your Back Today

For many of us, our fiercest opponent in the battle to reclaim our attention span is email. It’s the first thing we check in the morning and the last at night. It sidetracks us throughout our day, thwarting our intentions to complete the task at hand–writing a blog post, for example.

Escaping the email trap can be hard. Many of us have trained our family, friends and co-workers to expect instantaneous responses. If we typically respond lightning quick to emails, not doing so is often grounds for them to call an ambulance.

Many of us will use the excuse that our jobs depend on email. For a very small percentage of people like customer service representatives and EMT’s, this may be true (though I would sooner call an EMT). For most of us though, this is an excuse. Realistically, lag of a few hours on our email response will is not a make-or-break thing. And the benefit of fully paying attention to our tasks will more than outweigh the delay.

Another possible reason we check is neurochemical. Psychology professor Christopher Chabris said this in a NY Times article about the affect of email on our brains:

What the Internet does is stimulate our reward systems over and over with tiny bursts of information (tweets, status updates, e-mails) that act like primary rewards but can be delivered in more varied and less predictable sequences. These are experiences our brains did not evolve to prefer, but like drugs of abuse, they happen to be even better suited than the primary reinforcers to activating the reward system. So if you find yourself stopping every 30 seconds to check your Twitter feed, your brain has no more been rewired than if you find yourself taking a break for ice cream rather than celery. Picking the more rewarding stimulus is something our brains can do perfectly well with the wiring they start out with.

In other words, checking email usually excites our reward systems more than the task at hand. So our environments and our brains push us to be slaves to our inbox.

There are ways out.

Author and LifeEdited judge Tim Ferriss gives some valuable advice for shaking the email monkey. He promotes using an autoresponder to train yourself and others to not constantly check email and rather “batch” it, which means  handling email at an appointed time rather that having it as something peppered throughout the day, pulling at our attention.

Here is a sample transcript he posted on his blog 5 years ago. His message is as, or more, relevant today when smartphone saturation is nearing 100%:

Hi all…

In an effort to increase productivity and efficiency I am beginning a new personal email policy. I’ve recently realized I spend more time shuffling through my inbox and less time focused on the task at hand. It has become an unnecessary distraction that ultimately creates longer lead times on my ever-growing ‘to do’ list.

Going forward I will only be checking/responding to email at 11a and 4p on weekdays. I will try and respond to email in a timely manner without neglecting the needs of our clients and brand identity.

If you need an immediate time-sensitive response… please don’t hesitate to call me. Phones are more fun anyways.

Hopefully this new approach to email management will result in shorter lead times with more focused & creative work on my part. Cheers & here’s to life outside of my inbox!

Tim claims the response from his clients was cheery. This may or may not be the case for many of us. Like anything, it might take some time to train ourselves and others to not constantly send and receive. Anecdotally, a friend of mine regularly uses an autoresponder and I definitely think hard before emailing him.

What is hopeful, as Chabris suggests, is that our need to constantly check email is no more fixed than picking “ice cream rather than celery.” It has been conditioned through practice. It can be unconditioned through practice.

How do you keep the email monkey off your back? Let us know your tips and tools in our comment section.

What Do You Do with All Your Digital Photos?

Assuming you took our suggestions for digitizing your old photos, the question becomes what do you do with them? Digital photos easily scarf up multiple gigs of storage while remaining indefinitely un-viewed and un-printed.

Few of us have trouble taking digital photos, but we have few ways of viewing them aside from occasional glances on photo-sharing sites like Facebook, Picassa and Flickr.

A new site called Familiar offers one way to get your photos off your hard-drive and into your line of vision, as well as providing a social forum forum for photo sharing.

What you do is sign up with a number of friends and family (guess you could do it with strangers, Chat Roulette-style). Familiar’s software allows you to share your photo albums or Facebook, Picassa, SmugMug and Flickr photostreams with people in your Familiar circle. The combined photos are then displayed as your screensaver of your computer monitor, iPad or Kindle Fire. You can even send photos instantly from your iPhone or Android.

While most computers can turn you screensaver into a slideshow, they don’t have the social aspect, which provides some novelty and a way of keeping in visual touch with you friends and family.

Of course, your computer has to be powered on, and computers don’t always make the best picture frames. That said, most of us keep our computers on standby much of the time and because Familiar is free and uses existing hardware,  a zero-investment, imperfect picture frame is far better than none.

If you have other suggestions for viewing digital photos, let us know.

via Netted by the Webbys

5 Minimalist Blogs Worth Checking Out

You’re editing your life. You tossed those jeans you haven’t worn since the Clinton administration. You automated your bill payments. You traded in those books for a Kindle. You moved to a home where you could walk to everywhere you need to go.

Beyond editing your physical possessions, you started to evaluate your mental consumption habits. You started to wonder about the quantity and quality of the media you consume. Perhaps those hours spent on TMZ.com might be spent better elsewhere. You want to consume less media in general, and make the stuff you do consume to support your new way of life.

While we know it’s inconceivable that you’d need anything more than LifeEdited.com, there are a number of worthwhile writers and sites singing the less-is-more gospel. Here are just a few that are worth checking out:

  • Zen Habits. Since 2007, Leo Babauta has been dispensing his practical suggestions for simplifying and improving your life.
  • Miss Minimalist. Blogger Francine Jay, according to her website, is a minimalist. Period.  A recent post took on whether having more than 1 child is non-minimalist.
  • The Minimalists. Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus were a couple corporate types who gave it all up to write heady essays about minimalism and living a meaningful life.
  • Rowdy Kittens. Don’t let the name fool you, blogger/author Tammy Strobel is a serious minimalist and, along with her husband, a tiny house dweller.
  • Project 333. Courtney Carver, who also runs the popular blog Be More with Less, runs this blog focused on fashion of all things. It’s a bit of how-to site, focusing on how to use only 33 pieces of clothing every 3 months.

Of course there are many more, but making an interminable list would sort of defeat the purpose of an edited reading list.

What are you reading? We’d love to hear your favorite sites and publications for minimalist living.

image credit ehow

Prototype Apartment Pushes the Small Envelope

Yesterday, we asked “how small is too small” for a home? This is not necessarily a simple question to answer. Not all small is created equally. 420 sq ft can be airy and intelligent or dark and dumb depending on its design. For proof, look at the LifeEdited apartment before and after its conversion.

But assuming you design a space optimally, how small can you go? A San Francisco-based firm called SmartSpace is trying to answer this question.

They built a prototype starting with 160 sq ft of living space, which is the minimum legal size for a dwelling in California.

The space, dubbed SmartSpace 1.0, is a lab for what works and what doesn’t in such a tight space. An MIT student served as its guinea pig, living in it for 3 weeks to solicit feedback. Here are a few lessons learned about this ultra-compact home in particular, and, one can infer, small living in general:

  • The Euro-bath “wet” shower (no divided shower) doesn’t jibe with the American audiences–too much mess and water. V2.0 will have separate shower.
  • V1.0’s cute round sink couldn’t handle real-world pasta pots. V2.0 will have larger rectangular sink.
  • They found the portable induction cooktop drawer “too clever by half” and will be keeping it on top in v2.0. Incidentally, they use the same model as LifeEdited apartment.
  • Keep appliances out of site.
  • Air movement is essential even if it’s not heating or cooling. A ceiling fan is installed in v1.0.
  • Ceilings should be at least 9′ to create sense of space.
  • Width of unit should be at least 10′. V2.0 will be 11′ wide.
  • Finishes and materials should be high quality. Detail is much more evident when there are no gaps.
  • Built-in items are preferred to standalone. A lack of cohesion can be overlooked in big spaces, but in tiny ones uniformity and order work best.

To maximize utility, SmartSpace added clever touches like its “Smart Bench,” which is a table on a hydraulic lift. When raised, it acts as a banquette and table; when lowered it is a bench or, with the addition of a pad, a guest bed.

So does this intelligent prototype prove that 160 sq ft is the minimum amount of sq ft a person needs?

Not at all. The answer is there is no answer. Living spaces, like people, have different needs for their lives and homes. SmartSpace is particularly geared toward singles in San Francisco–a city that has many out-of-house diversions that compensate for small quarters.

What this shows is that the amount of space we need can be seriously reduced with an open mind and smart design.

via Fair Companies

Okay, It Is Possible to Have Too Little Space

We’ve looked at some pretty small spaces like Felice Cohen’s 90 sq ft NYC apartment or Japan’s wan rūmu manshons. But these places feel palatial compared to the 16 sq ft “King’s Cube”.

“King’s Cube” is a “luxury” Hong Kong apartment that features “western-style, wood-like flooring” and “space utilization [that] is as high as 100%.” Incredible!

The video is actually a parody made by MFA student Joe Yiu to bring light to Hong Kong’s criminally small living spaces. Hong Kong is one of the densest and most expensive cities in the world. In order to house its population cheaply, apartment buildings like the one shown in the video are divided and divided again until an apartment is nothing but a bed. And as bad as the “reference” apartment is, when the host reveals the real King’s Cube apartment–which is the same size but lacking a window or any decor aside from a few wire hangers–you realize it could get indescribably worse.

While we’re obviously advocates for small-space living, putting candles in a roach motel does not equal luxury. And while it’s possible to live in what is effectively a human cubby hole, it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Obviously, there are many political and economic considerations in places like Hong Kong that go beyond the scope of this post, but it raises the question how small is too small?

Via MNN

Site Provides Real Estate Guide for Tiny Home Movement

In the market for a 300 sq ft geodesic dome in Seward, Alaska? Perhaps a 264 sq ft log cabin in Idaho? Or most any size yurt? If you answered yes, an appropriately-named website called Tiny House Listings has you covered.

If you’re not familiar with the tiny (or small) house movement, it is a movement by and for people who build and/or inhabit tiny (or small) homes–usually well below 500 sq ft. Many are so small as to be considered illegal for living; builders get around regulations by putting the structures on trailer carriages, thereby avoiding normal building code.

This is not merely an aesthetic or financial choice, but a philosophical one. Small house folk–because their homes afford no room for extraneous stuff–test the boundaries of what people really do and do not need to live happily. Freedom from mortgages, a contradictory stance to the McMansion status quo and the grey legality of the movement all make it all the more subversive.

Tumbleweed Houses out of California and Sarah Susanka, author of “The Not So Big House”  are the movement’s main exponents, though there are many others cropping up around the country.

If you’re considering joining the movement, the listing site has a good stock of tiny houses–some with land, some without, some on wheels, some out east, some west, some square in the middle. Few exceed $50K and many are well under that figure; prices seem to be more related to the land than the structure.

The site also links to small house plans (most, if not all, direct to Tumbleweed), builders (we found a company out of Maine that will make your own Hobit Hole), workshops and other resources.

While we tend to promote urban solutions to high density, small-space living, the small house movement shows how you can achieve simple, small footprint living further afield. If you’re considering a tiny house–either as a primary residence or part time one–The Tiny House Listing site is a good resource.

Any small house people out there? We’d love to hear your experience.

Combating the Attention-Span Crisis

Just as excessive consumer goods can make our lives more cluttered and complicated, excessive stimulation can make our minds restive and unsettled. And few things deliver excessive stimulation like online media, computers and mobile devices. We text while we pop through our 30 open tabs while we email while we cook dinner.

We came across this 15 min talk by tech entrepreneur and investor Joe Kraus, who explains how our phones and online activity is eroding our already threadbare attention spans. He explains that the human mind cannot multitask–that it shifts its attention from one thing to the next, but it does not and cannot pay attention to more than one thing at a time. Moreover, the more often we shift between various stimuli–i.e. multitask–the dumber we get (-10 IQ pts.) and the harder it becomes to shift in the future. As he says of multitasking, “It’s one of the only things where the more you practice it, the worse you get at it.”

He touches on several other topics like manners and possible solutions to this “crisis of attention” such as weekly media fasts and his SlowTech movement.

In addition to Kraus’ suggestions, here is a comprehensive list from artist/programmer/activist Steve Lambert of online tools that restrain our compulsion to multitask:

  • Self Control. This Mac or PC plugin enables you to block access to email and select websites for a set amount of time.
  • Freedom goes one step further and shuts down your online access altogether for a set time.
  • ColdTurkey blocks access to distracting sites for Windows OS.
  • Spirited Away automatically hides windows you’re not using anymore.
  • Vitamin-R hides applications, uses a timer, encourages goal setting and focus.
  • Concentrate blocks sites, allows sites, launches and quits apps, and more (but you can disable it) by Rocket Software. Free to try, then costs, and not open source.
  • RescueTime scheduled, timetracker, etc.
  • FlexTime is a versatile timer for repetitive activities.

Online media, computers and mobile devices are integral and invaluable parts of our lives. But in a certain way, because they have been introduced so fast, we haven’t had time to cultivate smart habits around their usage. Our primordial minds’ default setting is to get more stuff and receive more stimulation; to think that this setting would be overridden in the 15 or so years we’ve been online is mistaken.

But with consciousness and smart tools, we can start reigning in our attention and edit out useless stimulation for quieter, happier minds.

via Joe Kraus and Steve Lambert

Help Design Jim’s Kitchen. Win Money.

A new competition launched by our friends over at Architizer is looking for the world’s best ideas in small kitchen design. The competition centers around New York media exec Jim Richardson’s 120 sq ft galley kitchen.

The current kitchen (pictured below) looks like it was defeated by the same foe we faced while building the LifeEdited apartment–i.e. the lack of high-quality appliances for compact spaces. There is very little middle ground between huge appliances and rinky-dink, dorm-room models. Jim’s fridge and stove look better suited for a McMansion than a compact NYC apartment. This results in limited counter space, a small sink and little room for people (small detail).

Whereas the LifeEdited competition encompassed the whole apartment, this one’s narrow focus might inspire some great ideas about kitchens. We might suggest going with a small fridge and using systems like we looked at yesterday to handle some of Jim’s perishables.

On the competition site is a brief about what Jim is looking for–ability to entertain, have 2 people prepare food, which appliances he wants to include, etc. The design should be no more than $30K to realize.

The first prize wins $5K and the 2 runners up $1K each. Submissions are due by July 9th, 2012.

What are your great ideas for making a small kitchen work?

Parisian Apartment Presents Micro Luxury Living

We’ve looked at some pretty small apartments in the past, and while it can be inspiring to see folks occupying such a small footprint, it’s not always an aesthetic treat. Wired Magazine recently looked at a Parisian apartment that is both compact and comely.

Thibaut Ménard’s 130 sq ft Montparnasse apartment is micro-luxury at its best. Architects Marc Baillargeon and  Julie Nabucet built the space–once a master bedroom in a Haussmann multi-story building–with the detail normally reserved for larger, luxury units. They also included a number of innovative small-space solutions like a staircase storage unit that rolls away to create more space; a sliding bed that, when pulled out halfway, serves as a couch; and a split-level layout that stores the bed and gives the space more dimension.

Oftentimes, tiny spaces are associated with worst-case-scenarios; the story goes that someone was so down on his/her luck that he/she had to move into a 130 sq ft apartment. Ménard’s apartment and many others are presenting small living as an active choice, where spaces are optimally designed, not cobbled together with whatever is lying around.

If you know of other tiny homes with big design, let us know.

Images and story via Wired

A Big Documentary about Tiny Homes

Kirsten Dirksen and her production company Fair Companies fill a very special niche in the documentary world: they make videos almost exclusively about small homes and the people who inhabit them. We’ve seen some of her work here with Christian Shallert’s 258 sq ft bachelor pad and Felice Cohen’s 90 sq ft NYC “apartment.” She also profiled the LifeEdited project in its early days.

Dirksen has now sewn together many of her videos for a full length documentary called “We the Tiny House People”; it showcases small dwellings and dwellers from across the world.

What’s cool about many of the subjects is their lack of flash. While Shallert, Gary Chang and the LifeEdited apartment show what you can do starting from scratch with a healthy budget, most of Dirksen’s subjects live very modestly–with equally modest small space solutions, like a Barcelona family of 4 who occupies 505 sq ft. They have few special touches outside of a couple folding tables and casters on much of their furniture.

Check it out and let us know what you think.