[CoryAlexMartin]

Probably one of the most damaging ideas I ever bought into (some time in my late teens) was the idea that people are not generally capable of being productive for more than 35 hours per week, and sustaining it. It seemed true, because I always had trouble working a full work week, even on projects I cared about.

At the tail end of my 20s, I started to realize that this isn't the case, at least for me. I've always found it hard to get work done because I'm low in industriousness, but that can be overcome with routine, minimizing distractions, and knowing when to switch to easier tasks. I don't really know what my limit is, but it's well over 40 hours.

I wish I had listened to more people like John Carmack when I was younger, because maybe I wouldn't have wasted so much of my time over the past decade.

[markild]

Damaging for what? I agree that it could be damaging for overall productivity, but I would argue that it's very good for other things. Eg. peoples ability to focus on other things in life, like family and friend.

I find it strange that we would want to optimize everything for growth.

[CoryAlexMartin]

I simply was working far less than I actually wanted to. Being good at my craft and producing good work is important and enriching to me. For people with my priorities, it's not good to always be told that we _shouldn't_ work that much. It's not good that John Carmack gets derided for talking about the benefits of working more. "Work less" is such an easy and convenient position to adopt, and it's thrown around in a way that I feel is careless.

I'm not even speaking from the position of someone who wants to work 80 hours a week to the detriment of family and enriching hobbies: I value those things as well. I can work an above average amount if I take time away from social media and watching YouTube videos and Twitch streams, which are things I feel like I've done in excess.