I've had really similar feelings around my 'action time vs planning time' balance. Looking back now, however, I feel that maybe it does make sense to front-load lots of effort into the planning side. You read the books, you try out 10 different types of knowledge management systems, 30 variations of to-do lists, dozens of exercise regimes, etc. It creates this database in your head of options and theory. I tend to believe that those who spend the extra time up front to understand the theory will end up going further than those who jump right in to the actions, eventually. A concrete example: Person A finds a well recommended exercise regime online and follows it religiously from day 1, without variation. Person B finds a dozen plans, and tries a few different things each time they're at the gym for the first few years. Person A will undoubtedly get bigger/stronger in those first few years, but fast-forward 10 years and I think Person B will have the more nuanced understanding of what exercises fit them best and will ultimately outpace Person A.
It probably has to do with plateaus. As a dabbler myself, I know how easy it is to jump ship at the first sign of slow growth. Then I get stuck on the "what's the next big thing" phase. Nothing wrong with trying different things, but I try to remember that every decision I make is going to be sub optimal. ( I think at some point if you have 50% of the info you should just decide and execute because everything afterwards is wasting time-- there was a study on this).
So let me +1 this...
Person A = High action, low change
Person B= Low action, High change
In the beginning of a journey you need to have the mindset of Person A. AFTER you get results and have some solid experiences on your belt-- branch out and be person B.
I'm sure there's some amazing analogy out there like be the painter, than be the artist or something... but I'll settle on A & B for now haha.
What if both people are high action? That's what I meant to suggest. In thinking further on this, I think maybe "high action, low change" is how you end up a specialist, and "high action, high change" is how you end up a generalist. Both are useful and needed in the world, so maybe there's not really one correct choice. I tend to prefer being a generalist myself, and am very content in low depth of knowledge across a wide array of fields. I feel like it serves me well in day-to-day life. You'd never make it to the olympics that way though, so clearly there's something to be said for the specialist who commits early and sticks with it.
I've had really similar feelings around my 'action time vs planning time' balance. Looking back now, however, I feel that maybe it does make sense to front-load lots of effort into the planning side. You read the books, you try out 10 different types of knowledge management systems, 30 variations of to-do lists, dozens of exercise regimes, etc. It creates this database in your head of options and theory. I tend to believe that those who spend the extra time up front to understand the theory will end up going further than those who jump right in to the actions, eventually. A concrete example: Person A finds a well recommended exercise regime online and follows it religiously from day 1, without variation. Person B finds a dozen plans, and tries a few different things each time they're at the gym for the first few years. Person A will undoubtedly get bigger/stronger in those first few years, but fast-forward 10 years and I think Person B will have the more nuanced understanding of what exercises fit them best and will ultimately outpace Person A.
It probably has to do with plateaus. As a dabbler myself, I know how easy it is to jump ship at the first sign of slow growth. Then I get stuck on the "what's the next big thing" phase. Nothing wrong with trying different things, but I try to remember that every decision I make is going to be sub optimal. ( I think at some point if you have 50% of the info you should just decide and execute because everything afterwards is wasting time-- there was a study on this).
So let me +1 this...
Person A = High action, low change
Person B= Low action, High change
In the beginning of a journey you need to have the mindset of Person A. AFTER you get results and have some solid experiences on your belt-- branch out and be person B.
I'm sure there's some amazing analogy out there like be the painter, than be the artist or something... but I'll settle on A & B for now haha.
What if both people are high action? That's what I meant to suggest. In thinking further on this, I think maybe "high action, low change" is how you end up a specialist, and "high action, high change" is how you end up a generalist. Both are useful and needed in the world, so maybe there's not really one correct choice. I tend to prefer being a generalist myself, and am very content in low depth of knowledge across a wide array of fields. I feel like it serves me well in day-to-day life. You'd never make it to the olympics that way though, so clearly there's something to be said for the specialist who commits early and sticks with it.
I'm willing to bet your generalist knowledge is going to somehow merge together in your favor.
Either you create your own category of work or an intersection of skills that only you can do.
or you find something that you enjoy and dive deep into it.
Check out category creation! It's a cool idea you might enjoy digging into.
yeah, just looked it up and read a few articles. I'd never heard of the concept before, so thanks for that. It's definitely up my alley.