With the battle cries resounding here most of the time, I can dedicate between two and five hours a day to "my own work". But I believe in short working periods. That can be productive as well. Especially if the quality is the determining factor, rather than the quantity of work. Also, I do consider giving my attention elsewhere important. It's training for me, still, despite the fact that it is also real.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Once upon a time, the Australian cricket team used the rule that we only have something like 40 minutes of pure attention available a day. They then trained to focus for very, very short periods of time (a couple seconds) and then tune out nearly completely when they weren't directly involved in the game (games are all day affairs and can be five days long). They were very successful.
Something like that. The thing is, one needs to identify what one's cricket game is and where to push harder.
Do you think most people even know what game they are suited for?
I wouldn't judge. I'd only say most of us have still many things to do before we find the optimal game for us. Which may be a life-long process.
It should be life-long I guess, as we change, as does the game. I like the artist life where there is no such thing as retirement, just changing the experimentation process.
Well, at least we have that one going for us ;)