|
|
|
|
|
by Mattasher
893 days ago
|
|
Good post I'm quite certain this is correct: > Meaning that if you go from 4 priorities to 3, you can get, say, 10 percent more done; but if you go from 4 to 1, you get 400 percent more done. But unless you can afford a butler or work at a company that gives you a very high level of institutional support, mono-focus seems impossible in our current world. I'd love to completely deprioritize the following roles, but they don't seem to want to detach themselves from me: tech support geek for wifi and computer issues, bookkeeper and tax preparer working hand-in-hand with my accountant, occasionally car expert for buying and maintaining vehicles, real estate expert for evaluating house purchases based on market conditions and my families needs, health care plan decider, and on and on and on. Each one of these areas if filled with multi-armed bandit problems (How much research should you put into evaluating a new home purchase where you live, or looking for a better city to live in?). It's a lot. |
|
You can, in my opinion, pick the reasonably best option because the payoff of squeezing another 2 - 5% out of the decision isn't worth the multiple weeks or worse you will spend. Could you get the absolutely best house for the best price? Yeah. Is it worth the trade-off of your other focus? Probably not.
There's no need for you to be a master mechanic, you just need to be good enough. So rather than trying to be "pretty good" at 10 things, you should strive to be world class / "extraordinarily good" at 1 or maybe 2 things and leave the rest between "not a clue" and "passable".
The author's call isn't to cloister yourself away but to choose not to pursue things at length that aren't what you want to focus on. You can learn to fix a specific problem, you just shouldn't spend your time going down the rabbit hole learning how to fix every problem of every car unless that is your chosen focus.