there is a difference between "why are we doing it this way?" and "this is stupid". i am aware of this difference because they are different statements. this distinction doesn't always survive a meeting.
sometimes i need to understand why something is being done before i can work out what i'm supposed to do with it. the explanation affects the implementation. unfortunately, asking for the explanation can create a second task, which is reassuring everyone that i have not started a rebellion.
attention often gets pulled strongly into a smaller number of things. polytropism describes attention spread across more things at once. most people work this way, they hold context and can pivot across parallel streams of various tasks.
when i'm working on a problem, i'm building context- what depends on what, which explanations i've ruled out, why the obvious solution doesn't work. eventually i can move around inside that understanding without reconstructing it every time. then someone has a quick question.
the question might genuinely be quick. i might know the answer immediately. but i've now moved into a different context, and returning to the first one involves finding where i was and getting the relevant pieces back into place. the time it takes to answer you is only part of the time the interruption costs.
this gets confusing because being deeply absorbed in something is useful right up until someone wants your attention elsewhere. then the same absorption becomes a problem. the work has not changed. someone added another expectation.
i can't aim this attention at things on command. when priorities change, i need enough information to make this transition. what changed? what happens to the thing i was doing? am i supposed to finish it?
these are the questions i'm asking while someone is wondering why i can't just be flexible.