[nhashem]

Here's my theory: the blocks of time the elite players spend is non-negotiable, because it's their "top idea in the mind."[0]

In the past when I've worked with friends on side projects, the conversation would sometimes go like this.

Me: "Hey, let's try and meet like three evenings a week for two hours to work on this. Let's start tomorrow?" Them: "Yeah -- wait, I have to meet a friend for dinner tomorrow. Can you do the day after?" Me: "Sure."

[two days later]

Me: "Hey, we're still meeting up tonight, right?" Them: "Crap, I have to work late. Let's meet on Saturday and just bang out some work all afternoon."

We're fucked. We're fucked before we've even started. If every "dinner with a friend" or "I have to work late" is going to sideline you, then how the hell are you supposed to do anything? Even if we do work for six hours on Saturday instead of three two-hour sessions during the week, it's just not the same. We'll have no cadence or rhythm and feel stressed and probably a lot like the people in the OP's study.

A few years ago I recognized this anti-pattern and so I don't really take on new projects or goals unless I'm literally willing to prioritize everything but the bare essentials (ie. family) above it. PG's "Top of Your Mind" describes what 'mental prioritization' looks like, and I think this study points describes what 'schedule prioritization' looks like.

I realize that my own conclusions are my projections completely based on own anecdotes, and I'm sure many people on HN won't hesitate to point out the logical fallacies for why that's dumb. But look back in your life and think about the times you've consistently said, "Sorry, I can't make it, I have to do X first." Did you eventually reach a level of achievement with X? I'm guessing you probably did.

[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/top.html

[rohern]

I do not think this is dumb at all. You have stated the problem very clearly.

I would like to ask a question that nags me every time I read an article like this: Why do we assume that we need "free time"? And to answer this, I have to ask another that occurred to me while reading the article: What do these elite players do during their free time?

This is an important questions for programmers and engineers, because we generally enjoy building things. In the context of the article, I take it as implicit that the one thing the elite players are not doing in their "free time" is playing music or that would obviously be a form of practicing.

So, then what is this free time that the elite have and how are they using it? Are they bumming in the front of the TV? Is the formula for success: work intensely for two short blocks and then veg?

[j-g-faustus]

> Why do we assume that we need "free time"?

Two reasons:

* For better or worse, humans are not machines. We can only keep doing the same thing over and over for so long before we go crazy, somewhat like Chaplin in Modern Times [1]. Creative work is somewhat less tedious than assembly line work, but there's still a limit.

* Because "non-free" time is time you spend making somebody else happy: Your boss, customers, friends or family, or society at large, e.g living up to expectations that you ought to be successful. Somewhere in there you need to make room to make yourself happy as well, it's not possible to live a life merely by attempting to live up to other people's expectations.

> I take it as implicit that the one thing the elite players are not doing in their "free time" is playing music or that would obviously be a form of practicing.

That doesn't follow. The kind of practice that makes you better is the boring stuff - playing scales and working on your technique. Doing fun stuff like playing your favorite tunes may be part of the training, but it's not the kind of training that improves your skills.

To keep learning, you need to keep pushing yourself into new unfamiliar territory, and to stay focused on mastering it while you're there. And we generally can't stay that focused for more than a couple of hours at a time.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wENE7O-Y6ME

[rohern]

I see where you are coming from and your response is of the form that expected to receive, but I am not convinced by your objections. Part of the problem, I realized while writing an initial response to you, is the split definitions of "free time". On the one hand, there is free time that we take because we find our performance declining, and so we stop our activity for efficiency reasons. And then there is free time that is really The Time. Free time of this sort is what life is all about, it is why we work.

My query was intended to refer to the second definition.

Neither of your objections have much to do with the first definition, and they do not satisfy me with regards to the second form of free time. If you consider the case of someone like a physicist, for whom their great love is also their form of achieving "success". For people of this type, and for ambitious people who discover fulfillment through worldly success, work is exactly the sort of activity that brings them happiness.

So perhaps that's the split. People of these types concern themselves with free time for efficiency, and the rest concern themselves with the second sort of free time. Perhaps this is also the split between the elite players and the music teachers.

[coldtea]

>I would like to ask a question that nags me every time I read an article like this: Why do we assume that we need "free time"?

Because we're not machines.

And because not everybody works on what he loves.

Sometimes, the things you love are not actual jobs (not rent paying ones, at least). Other times, they are very competitive and only few can land those jobs.

>This is an important questions for programmers and engineers, because we generally enjoy building things.

We also enjoy other things. I like programming at work. I like programming at home. I like reading about programming. I like participating in programming forums (well, it's kind of obvious, since it's Saturday night were I am and I'm on HN).

But I have tons of other stuff I'm interested in.

Not all if related to my work -- or even programming in general. And, yes, from time to time, I like to "veg in front of the TV".

[rohern]

Again, this is just begging the question. You are positing that we need free time because we are humans to explain the assumption that we need free time because we are humans.

I understand that people work lousy jobs. This is not the interesting case. The interesting case is for those people who are working jobs doing things they quite like, for example musicians.

[mcartyem]

On free time, it may be that the body assimilates what was learned during practicing. One accomplished musician believes:

"Relaxation is necessary tension. Tension is unnecessary tension."

http://www.dgmlive.com/aphorisms.html