Overall, I think the article in itself was comprehensible with there of course being one point, if not a few, that had me at a standstill for some time. It’s around the 11th page that discusses how people are less likely to finish work that is vague, allowing you to think more critically rather than an assignment that is more descriptive and detailed. The exact quote itself by David Allen says “the vaguer the task, or the more abstract the thinking it requires, the less likely you are to finish it.” What I don’t seem to understand is how something that does not have many details to it makes someone take more time to think of it. Though there is the chance I am completely misinterpreting that section to begin with, the whole concept of how an assignment is explained determines the likeliness of one to do it is absurd. In other words, it’s as if Allen’s way of looking at procrastination is solely based on a person’s understanding of their school or organization’s system in what they look for to be demonstrated and, therefore, the students are to stress that no matter how long, short, open-ended, and/or specific a set of instructions is, all of the work must be of the same caliber. Is this even something that you just can apply to anyone? Definitely not. It’d be best to just do whatever the description orders you to do rather than overthinking about it for hours straight in my opinion. If something was already explained a certain way, then it is very likely that it was supposed to be like that in the first place. Another thing is that you could literally ask the instructor questions about almost anything regarding the assignment.
