Ten years ago, I published Deep Work. It was my second mainstream hardcover idea book. The previous title, So Good They Can’t Ignore You, hadn’t sold as well as we hoped, so the expectations were lower for this follow-up.
This turned out to be freeing, as it allowed me to write Deep Work largely for myself – exploring the conceptual edges of the issues surrounding distraction that interested me most.
I was fascinated, for example, by the economic reality that so many knowledge work organizations systematically undervalued focus, and was convinced that this provided a massive opportunity for those willing to correct for this mistake. In this way, I saw myself as articulating something like Moneyball for the cubicle class. I also firmly believed that the act of thinking was at the core of the post-Paleolithic human experience; the source of our greatest ideas, satisfactions, and even moments of transcendence.
This mixture of the economic and philosophical was different from the typical book in this genre at the time. Readers probably expected that I would open on a breathless tale of an overworked executive, then regurgitate some stats about interruptions, before proceeding with long lists of tips calibrated to be practical, but also not too challenging, presented in a conversational tone and accompanied by clearly manipulated case studies.
But Deep Work was much weirder and more intense than that. Re-reading it recently, I was struck by how many of my stories had nothing to do with the knowledge sector at all. I quoted philosophers of religion and a blacksmith who forged swords with ancient techniques. I profiled a memory champion and discussed chavruta, the Jewish practice of studying Talmud or Torah in pairs. Rather than opening the book on a frustrated executive, I focused on Carl Jung’s efforts to break free from Sigmund Freud’s capriciousness. It was a direct look at the sources and ideas that most resonated with me.
This idiosyncratic approach seemed to reveal something fundamentally true about the problematic state of work at that time, as the book soon found an audience, going on to sell more than two million copies in over forty-five languages. (In its wake, So Good They Can’t Ignore You finally found its groove as well, quietly selling more than half a million copies, providing me with a dash of retrospective vindication.)
All of this led me recently to ask a natural follow-up question: How have things changed since that book first came out in 2016?
I tackled this query in a long-form essay I published in the New York Times over the weekend. My answer wasn’t optimistic:
“The problems I focused on in Deep Work, and in my writing since, have been getting steadily worse. In 2016 my main concern was helping people find enough free time for deep work. Today I think we’re rapidly losing the ability to think deeply at all, regardless of how much space we can find in our schedules for these efforts.”
Distractions in the workplace intensified over the past decade with the addition of instant messaging tools like Slack and low-friction digital meeting programs like Zoom. Outside of work, social media, which was generally still admired when Deep Work came out, has morphed into an addictive TikTok-ified slurry of optimized brain rot. Meanwhile, new AI tools offer quick-fix short-cuts to whatever intellectually engaging work activities remain.
None of this is great news.
So, what should we do? The obvious short answer is to read Deep Work. (Or, if you already have, buy some copies for people you know who need to hear its message!)
But that’s only a small step toward our larger goal of a world in which we once again respect the act of cognition. In my Times piece, I suggest a louder response: we launch a revolution in defense of thinking.
I go on to suggest multiple concrete actions that such a revolution can include, such as:
- Stop consuming social media (which is, if we are being honest, digital junk food and something adults largely need to eliminate from a healthy content diet).
- Keep your phone plugged in and charging when at home instead of on your person.
- Push Congress to follow Australia’s lead and ban social media for kids.
- Build work cultures in which phones and laptops stay out of meetings, and find collaboration strategies that don’t require constant messaging.
- Stop vague demands to “use AI” and instead carefully integrate these tools where they actually make us smarter, not just busier.
But more important than any specific suggestion is the larger spirit of revolution. “I’m done ceding my brain — the core of all that makes me who I am — to the financial interests of a small number of technology billionaires or the shortsighted conveniences of hyperactive communication styles,” I write in the conclusion of my Times op-ed. “It’s time to move past fretting about our slide into the cognitive shallows and decide to actually do something about it.”
Yes. Before pushing the Congress or social media platforms to change their regulations, we must invest meaningfully in reclaiming our own attention.
One problem I have with leaving laptops out of meetings is that as a project manager, I’m expected to follow up on things discussed in the meeting. I’m also easily distracted by my own thoughts, so taking notes actually keeps me engaged in the meeting. I block time on my calendar to do deep work. Can I get a permission slip to have a laptop in meetings due to these circumstances? 🙂
How about a paper notebook and pen? It’s an extra step to type and follow up later on, but it allows you to sort out what really matters. I find thinking works a lot better on paper.
You can literally take notes by hand and train your focus – the same with ‘time blocking in your calendar’, there is a thing called planners, or even an alarm in your phone, if extremely necessary.
It’s not really a need but an excuse, sorry to say it so directly.
Why can’t you take handwritten notes?
No. Use a paper and pen. Your future self thanks you.
I use a simple 5×7 paper tablet. Don’t update software during the meeting. Later when time to be thoughtful as to the necessity of the change is always better. You don’t leave the meeting when you’re jotting down a change with a pen, you leave the meeting when you engage with your digital friend.
…paper notepad?
You can use a meeting recording device.
Then, you can focus on the communication during the meeting, and write the meeting summary or todo list base on the recording content from the device after the meeting.
I’m sorry I think we need to excommunicate you.
That concern is real—and we’re seeing it play out in education in a very concrete way.
From an educational effectiveness perspective, the issue isn’t just that we’re losing time for deep work—it’s that the core of what we’ve defined as “thinking” is being outsourced. Many student learning outcomes are still built on Bloom’s verbs: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create. The problem now is simple: AI can execute those tasks, and both students and faculty are increasingly relying on it to do so.
So the question isn’t whether technology is the problem. It’s how we’ve defined the work.
If we continue to anchor learning in tasks AI can perform, we shouldn’t be surprised when students disengage from thinking. But if we shift the target—if we overlay power skills onto those outcomes—we can reclaim depth.
Instead of just “analyze,” students should **defend** decisions.
Instead of “create,” they should **co-create** with intention and accountability.
Instead of “apply,” they should **operationalize** ideas in real contexts.
Instead of “understand,” they should **articulate and justify** their thinking clearly.
That’s where thinking lives now.
Deep work isn’t gone—it’s just moved. It lives in judgment, ownership, communication, and decision-making under uncertainty. If we design for those, students won’t lose the ability to think deeply—they’ll level it up.
Did we stop reading basic arithmetic just because calculators were invented?
I read your essay in the NYT. Thank you. I think, though, that you missed an even better prescription. Long walks (without headphones). Darwin, Kant, Einstein, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven and Tesla all used this technique to distill and clarify their thinking. While your suggestion of reading books is good, it still leaves you interacting with another’s thoughts. Walking and thinking lets you interact with your own mind.
This hits home: “It’s time to move past fretting about our slide into the cognitive shallows and decide to actually do something about it.” I couldn’t agree anymore more!! But in addition to the individual level “interventions” you suggest, I firmly believe that something needs to be done at the systems level. A large part of the problem stems from the negative externalities that collective action problems such as this one pose. We know that such externalities need to be addressed at the governance level (at the systemic level).
And I would elaborate on the last sentence of my response, but apparently the bot checking responses doesn’t let me. If you are interested in the detailed case for a path toward improvement on this dilemma, please let me know.
The concern is valid—but in education, it’s already happening.
We built student learning outcomes around Bloom’s verbs—remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create. The problem? AI can now do all of that, and both students and faculty are using it to complete those tasks.
So this isn’t about the presence of technology—it’s about what we define as thinking.
If we keep assessing what AI can do, we shouldn’t expect students to think deeply. But if we shift to power skills, we can reclaim that depth:
Defend, not just analyze.
Co-create, not just create.
Operationalize, not just apply.
Articulate and justify, not just understand.
That’s where real thinking lives now.
I have read Deep Work in 2016 and that caused a great shift in my thinking about work. It gave Words to impressions I had about the changing work enviroment. Unfortunately I haven’t been all to sucessful in convincing others about the importance of deep work of the downsides of continious distraction. Maybe I am to cinical, but for a lot of (maybe even the majority) people, distraction seems to be the core of their experience of work. And even ten years later I haven’t found the right way to make this clear to other people. This is very challenging in a social enviroment as you are expected to follow the “ rules”. Maybe this can be a future subject, how to convince others?
Cal, but the push to ban social media for kids isn’t about kids. It’s just an excuse to introduce digital verification and digital IDs. Now there is a push to do the verification at OS level instead of doing within the platforms. That is scary. I hope you already understand banning social media for kids isn’t about kids
Instead of further infringing on the privacy of the larger population with a social media media ban that will surely require ID verification and then invite breaches, there needs to be a large shift in how parents and schools raise, teach, and children to reactivate creativity and thinking – as you said, we need the larger spirit of revolution.
Do you have any thoughts on the role of AI in cs research or knowledge work generally?
Also want to add: I’ve seen many people talk about noise cancelling headphones when trying to work in coffee shops or other loud environments, but it never worked for me
I recently bought a gun and discovered $20 passive gun muffs and $2 earplugs. It works way better than any noise cancelling headphones I’ve used
Just a practical thing I’ve never seen mentioned
Cal,
After your book on the Deep Life comes out, I need you to write the book “In Defense of Thinking.” We all need your advice and level-headed guidance on this topic in book form.
Gratefully,
Nathan
nathans.blog