A NASA nap trial, the UK's four-day week pilot, a 1995 Stanford essay, and two doodling studies that disagree with each other all point to the same lesson: some of the least intuitive productivity advice has real evidence behind it, and some doesn't hold up as well as its reputation suggests.
A 26-Minute Nap Beat a No-Rest Cockpit
In 1995, NASA researchers gave twelve long-haul airline pilots a planned 40-minute rest window during the low-workload cruise phase of transpacific flights. Nine other pilots kept working through the same stretch. The rest-group pilots fell asleep in about six minutes and slept for an average of 25.8 minutes, the origin of the now-cited "26-minute nap." Compared with the pilots who stayed awake, the nappers showed a 34% improvement in task performance and a 54% increase in physiological alertness, according to the NASA Ames report later summarized by lead researcher Mark Rosekind.
The trial measured pilots who were already fatigued from overnight, multi-timezone flying, not office workers after lunch. Sleep researchers who have revisited the data caution that a well-rested employee starting from a normal baseline is unlikely to see the same 34% swing, since the size of the effect reflects how much ground there was to make up. The narrower, still-useful takeaway is that a short, planned nap during genuine fatigue restores alertness faster than pushing through on caffeine alone.
The Four-Day Week That Grew Revenue Instead of Shrinking It
Sixty-one UK companies and roughly 2,900 employees cut their working week to four days for six months in 2022, in the largest trial of its kind, while keeping full pay. Researchers from Cambridge and Boston College who evaluated the pilot found that company revenue rose 1.4% on average during the trial and was up 35% compared with the same period the year before. Staff attrition fell 57%, and sick-day use dropped sharply.
Ninety-two percent of the participating companies kept the four-day schedule after the pilot ended. The researchers themselves flagged an open question: whether the reported gains hold up once the novelty wears off and a shorter week becomes routine rather than a trial. The pilot also had no matched control group of similar companies that kept a five-day week over the same period, so some of the revenue growth may reflect a broader post-pandemic recovery rather than the schedule change alone.
The To-Do List Trick That Turns Procrastination Into Output
Stanford philosopher John Perry described a pattern in a 1995 essay: procrastinators rarely do nothing. They do the second-most-important thing on the list, using one big, vague task at the top as motivation to finally clear the smaller ones underneath it. Perry called this structured procrastination, and the essay has been read, cited, and expanded into a short book in the decades since.
Perry's essay is a personal account and an argument, not a controlled study, so its claim rests on introspection rather than measurement. What it offers instead is a reframe: a list doesn't need every item done in order to be productive, and someone who avoids the item at the top while working steadily through the rest may already be using the technique without naming it.
The Doodle Debate: Two Studies, Two Different Answers
Not every counterintuitive tip survives a second look. In 2009, University of Plymouth psychologist Jackie Andrade had 40 volunteers listen to a dull recorded phone message; half doodled by shading printed shapes while listening. The doodlers recalled 29% more names and places on a surprise memory test, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology. The finding was widely reported as evidence that doodling sharpens focus during boring tasks by giving the mind something to do besides daydream.
A 2024 University of Guelph study complicates that picture. Researchers there had participants listen to lectures while doodling, fidgeting, taking traditional notes, or simply listening, then measured boredom, attention, mind-wandering, and recall. Traditional note-taking improved memory and reduced mind-wandering; doodling did neither, they found. The two studies used different tasks, a short phone message versus a full lecture, which may explain part of the gap, but no one has run a head-to-head replication to settle it.
The honest summary here is unglamorous: doodling probably doesn't hurt recall, and it may help when the task is short and monotonous, but it hasn't been shown to beat plain note-taking for learning something you actually need to remember.
Top comments (0)