Originally posted by: Descartes
You haven't provided enough information. First, you'd have to quantify difficult. Difficult how? In terms of time? Physical/mental exertion? Monetary resources? What's the value for each task? Obviously, that which has the greatest value for the least effort is likely the winner, but even that doesn't consider all the ancillary details: time constraints, whether it's part of a greater goal that has a greater value than the other tasks, etc.
So, I think it's a bad question. Personally, I evaluate all facets of an action and take that which gives me the greater return [mostly] independent of effort. That which has the greatest return is usually that which is in agreement with long-term goals and that which challenges my current intellectual foundation as much as possible.
Exactly.
If one is more time consuming than the other, but there is a set deadline, it would be better to knock off the easier one first, to concentrate fully on the harder.
If one is more challenging than the other, I'd start with the more difficult, move on to the easier when I get burned out, complete that, then refocus upon the more difficult.
If the situations interact - one makes the other more harder to complete, by the magnitude of their original difficulty, then the difficult situation should be tackled first. The smaller situation only slightly magnifies the bigger, whereas the bigger magnifies the smaller far more. It's more efficient to go after the big problem first.
If one is more *important* than the other, it would be better to deal with the most important first, unless the less difficult situation is completely insignificant in terms of effort compared to the other.
But ALL of this is dependent upon how much more difficult, and specifically what kind of difficulty, one situation is over the other. Impossible question to answer as is.