
Maybe We All Need a Little Less Balance - tim_sw
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/well/mind/maybe-we-all-need-a-little-less-balance.html
======
alansammarone
This is a very good point. People tend to look for more "balance" when they
are unhappy with whatever their main focus is right now. The obvious example
applies: people don't like their day jobs very much, and so they go around
advocating more "work-life balance" to compensate for it, because they feel it
is a necessary evil. It's not (at least in most cases).

If you're not happy with whatever your main focus is, you need to change it,
not add more stuff to compensate.

(Of course, there are still some things that you should pay attention to apart
from your main focus, like your health and family. This is not the point
here).

~~~
_delirium
Is it really true that in _most_ cases people can find a day job that isn't a
necessary evil? People usually work because they need money to live, and
employers usually pay money because they want stuff done that is not
interesting or enjoyable enough for anyone to do as a volunteer. Most jobs in
developed countries are service jobs, and few of these are things people
_love_ to do, they're just things that need doing, and someone is willing to
pay for them to be done: working restaurants, inserting IVs in hospitals,
caring for elderly, picking up trash, cleaning offices, staffing call centers,
answering email on behalf of the CEO, processing insurance claims, driving
Ubers, etc.

So there is some amount of needing to do something you don't necessarily love
for a job, but it's perfectly reasonable for you to _also_ not want this to
consume your life 24/7\. I mean, if you can achieve the feat of the photo at
the top of this article—getting paid to surf—that might be great, but that's
not really the norm for jobs.

~~~
taneq
I think it's more a matter of being lucky enough to enjoy doing something
which is valuable to others. It's easy to love what you do if your hobby is in
demand.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Sometimes even those are pretty shitty jobs, though. My hobby is art.

Commissions really suck sometimes, as they aren't creative and generally
aren't enough to live on. Comic book artists often work long days only to be
greeted with pain at the end of the day. Hand cramps are the least of the
worries: such artists often develop problems with their dominant arm, commonly
carpal tunnel and tennis elbow. And these are usually contract jobs with no
benefits whatsoever.

My mother is an excellent seamstress. Most paid work is wedding alterations,
tailoring clothing, and sewing patches on military uniforms (decent demand
here for quality work, which she does). That work absolutely bores her and she
winds up hating her hobby.

Of course, these aren't exactly in demand per se but is illustrative of how
things change once you are working for it. It really isn't all that easy.

~~~
taneq
Agree 100%. As they say, if you only had to do it when you felt like it, they
wouldn't call it 'work'.

------
boxbag
I can relate to what is being discussed in this article. For the last 2 years
I've been focusing solely on my startup at the expense of my relationships
with family and friends. So far, it's been working alright because we're still
quite young and I don't feel like I'm missing out on any significant things in
their lives. But now I'm at the point where I don't need to sink 16 hours 7
days a week and I'm really struggling with reevaluating my identity which has
been so closely tied with just building shit constantly

~~~
csallen
I did the same thing in my early 20s and came to regret it. Especially since I
know now that if I'd found the right mentors and/or learned the right things,
I could've made better decisions and gotten much more accomplished in less
time. You live and you learn.

The identity thing you mentioned is big, too. We can turn ourselves into
machines, but it robs us of our personalities. Like anything else, being good
at being social requires practice. You get rusty. It also helps to have
interesting things to talk about, and work talk gets boring fast. If that's
all you have to talk about, you start to wonder what happened to the rest of
you, and so does everyone else.

------
mrhappyunhappy
Interesting how in US I always see articles talking about how to find
happiness. Ever since I moved to Japan I haven't heard this theme yet. I am
made to wonder if consumption based societies have a bigger issue with being
unhappy than those that strive for conservative lives. One one hand the author
has a point. I can think back to activities where I was happiest that involved
being consumed wholly by that activity. On the other hand, there are moments
where I think I'd be better off if I didn't focus so much on that one thing.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this other than I'm tired of these articles
that seek to define ways to be happy. This really says something about our
society or perhaps about the nation. Is there a happiness crisis? I don't see
it happening here in Japan but perhaps I'm disallusioned as I have not fully
integrated into this society.

~~~
jerf
"Interesting how in US I always see articles talking about how to find
happiness."

One of the things worth remembering sometimes is that technically, what you're
seeing is the _media_ culture of a country, not necessarily a country's
culture, in articles like this. They are certainly not unrelated to each
other, but they are not the same, either.

I've often thought, for instance, that _part_ (not all, but _part_ ) of the
reason so many of our journalists are down on capitalism is not just political
belief, but the specific fact that they are in an industry being actively
disrupted by it. Of course they're a bit dour about economic issues, they're
not exactly looking ahead to great prospects. I expect there's an ongoing
selection process where anybody who has any reasonable chance of getting out
mostly already has, so a lot of who is left is precisely the ones who are
trapped there.

Are Americans actually obsessed with seeking happiness all the time, or is
just our happiness-starved writers? I mean, it's not a topic I hear come up in
my casual conversations very often. I know self-help books sell, but there's
also a bit of difference between buying one on a whim and scanning it, and
obsessing over it.

~~~
Clubber
Your examination of the media is astute.

Part if the problem is businesses wanted more tabloid journalism because they
wanted to make money. The real journalists fought it but apparently lost, or
gave up, or did something else. Now that all news is essentially tabloid,
they're not distinct enough to not be aggregated.

I mean with Trump, it's even happening to the papers that have good
journalism. They've all turned to Chicken Little and the sky is falling. I
mean I can go anywhere to read about the part where Trump said something
stupid. I want them to analyze everything he said.

The newspapers were one of the latter industries affected by globalization and
disruption. Had they been one of the first, and complained when globalization
and automation was in it's infancy, a lot of people wouldn't have embraced it
so and the wealth gap would be a lot smaller. Who knows?

------
branchless
> “the path to fulfillment in life, to emotional satisfaction, is to find what
> _you_ really excites you and channel your all into it.”

That reminds me - what happened with the proofreader strike again?

This article is way out of touch. We know what we want, but we cannot have it
because we are in a system that forces us to work. And we cannot break out of
that system because of land costs. We want to go cycling. To spend time with
our kids. To sit on our ass if we so choose. To help others. To stroll. But we
gotta pay the rent.

I guess this guy needs to spend a bit more time at the office away from his
family to "achieve excellence" in basic proofreading. I wouldn't normally be
so harsh but who is this guy to tell us what life should be like when he seems
so out of touch.

~~~
eighthnate
> This article is way out of touch.

It is and it isn't. People have to write articles to make money. Most articles
just say things to say them because the journalists/authors have to earn their
pay checks.

> We know what we want, but we cannot have it because we are in a system that
> forces us to work.

"Let them eat cake"... Exactly. We all want shelter, food, necessity and money
to survive.

> who is this guy to tell us what life should be like when he seems so out of
> touch.

He's just some guy who is trying to get you to click and read his articles so
that he can make money.

Just like the evangelical preachers or the self-help gurus. They are all in
the business of making money. Not providing insights or anything of real
value.

------
Chiba-City
I try to live in Skill Sprints that direct focus for a few years. I pick
things that combine history, books, places and tool mastery like photography,
music training, cooking, core muscle exercises or even Buddhist Pali suttas
and walking meditation. You have to create your series of time boxed
challenges. With a daily drumbeat of global finance news and HN it keeps me
out of trouble. Our notational computer process logic and memory access
hierarchies turn out to describe almost everything worthwhile. [ed. Did not
want to skip music training.]

~~~
goldfeld
Fitter, happier, more productive.

------
yters
I've wondered when people tell me to be more balanced if it is for my good or
because people feel uncomfortable when someone is working very hard on
something. I do know I've had better success in things with single minded
focus, but when more balanced others find me more interesting. Perhaps I need
to balance my periods of balance and being focused.

~~~
landon32
I think a lot of people are stressed or sad when they are just going 100% on
something difficult. They are probably just looking out for you. When my
friends get crazy busy for a long time on something I tell them to take little
breaks and balance it out because I know they don't feel good.

For some people though, working all the time doesn't feel bad. That could be
the case for you.

~~~
jtmarmon
The thing that sucks about going 100% on something difficult isn't the thing
being difficult, it's when you fail relentless for an extended period of time
that makes you burn out.

~~~
smokeyj
I've taken a big step back from start up culture. I don't work more than I
have to, I travel more, I meet interesting people. The funny part is now I
feel more energized and connected with what people really need. Very little of
it has to do with apps or algorithms.

My feeling when being in startup mode was essentially the sunk cost fallacy.
I've already put this much work in, success must be around the corner. But I
look at some of my peers with similar mentalities and you can't help but feel
they're too focused on the day to day without realizing the product and demand
is garbage. Life is short, enjoy it.

------
RyanRies
You do have the strongest experiences and form the strongest memories (both
good and bad) when you are at your most unbalanced.

But it's also unsustainable to stay unbalanced for too long.

------
cortesoft
I think the idea is to be balanced across a larger time frame, not balanced at
every moment. Sometimes, you might be more into one thing or another, but you
have balance across a decade or some other time scale.

~~~
haffla
Exactly, you can have these extreme moments in your life and still be
balanced. The behavior the author is advocating is reactionary.. overly
negative, relax please!

------
ctvo
This misses the dimension where specific people are your passion in life. For
example your significant other and children. In those cases work IS a
necessary evil and work life balance is a direct attempt at gaining more time
for your passion.

I'm not in that boat and gladly lose myself in things, but I understand the
perspective.

------
calinet6
"Maybe the good life is not about trying to achieve some sort of illusory
balance. Instead, maybe it’s about pursuing your interests fully, but with
enough internal self-awareness to regularly evaluate what you’re not pursuing
as a result — and make changes if necessary. Living in this manner..."

...IS balance. Period.

------
workerthread
> Instead, maybe it’s about pursuing your interests fully, but with enough
> internal self-awareness to regularly evaluate what you’re not pursuing as a
> result — and make changes if necessary. Living in this manner trumps balance
> any day.

That is exactly how I would describe 'balance'. The article seems to use a
different definition, though.

------
manmal
What author describes likely comes down to individual traits, especially
hormone and enzyme status. E.g. if you produce high MAO-A due to genetics,
then your dopamine and serotonin status will be chronically low. And this
might lead to you being addicted to novelty, quick wins, and generally overly
stimulating activities [1]. Gut or microbiome issues can also have unbalancing
effects on neurotransmitters.

I don't mean to refute the article, it's just not for everyone; and maybe
people already do what they gravitate towards anyway.

1:
[http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1869106,0...](http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1869106,00.html)

------
deanCommie
To each is own.

I love my friends and my happiest moments are stories of adventures we did
together. Yet, I'm ultimately an introvert so after a weekend or week with
people I desperately crave consecutive days of solitude.

I love my job, but it's tough and there is always more work to do than there
is time for. When I'm on a project I like I throw all of myself into it, work
too much, and burn myself out.

I'm constantly trying to find balance because my default approach is an
"object in motion stays in motion".

------
corvos
Generally a good article but I think the author struggles too much with
something that isn't that difficult. If you really enjoy something then won't
you naturally pursue it? Of course, you love it. If you have multiple things
you love you'll pursue multiple things, dividing your time between them. IF
you hate something then the only reason you would give it time is because
there's something you don't hate about it.

This isn't that difficult, its really just intuitive.

------
projektir
I think balance will mean different things to different people, so this
question is going to be nearly impossible to answer. I also think people have
different personalities and happiness gradients.

I'm going to use a hazy definition of balance here, meaning that you do not
forget your friends, family, health, hygiene, ethics, beliefs, secondary
hobbies, leisure.

> Nearly all of the great performers I’ve gotten to know — from athletes to
> artists to computer programmers to entrepreneurs — report a direct line
> between being happy, fulfilled and at their best and going all-in on
> something.

The vast majority of people are not great performers, so this seems like a
poor sample to draw any conclusions from. Combined with survivorship bias,
likely this is just finding that the people who are most positioned to reach
what this society calls "greatness" tend to be those who are able to hyper-
focus on one thing without it draining them. There are often fairly serious
consequences to disregarding balance in one's life, but when it comes to the
"great", those consequences are often forgotten, forgiven, or written off. But
the "greatness" label is not absolute, it's assigned. We could have chosen to
value something else. I think the fact that we dropped ethics in favor of
"greatness" is a huge, costly mistake.

This is not the case for the other 99% of the population. Why does Western
philosophy insist so much on this insane focus on the "great"? They're not
most people. They're never going to be most people. And, frankly, they're not
very important. Why do we want to compel the person to just zero-in on one
thing? If you ask me, that sounds incredibly boring. Cue Heinlein's famous
quote.

As for me, I can observe a distinct increase in day-to-day happiness when
things are more balanced for me. When I have a solid schedule and routine,
when I eat well, when I exercise regularly, when I keep my area clean, etc.,
I'm generally much more content with things. If I have to super focus on a
given thing for a long time it usually wears me out and winds me up and not in
a good way.

This doesn't mean that aspects of balance don't need to be sacrificed at times
to get something done (after all, extra things require extra resources and
sometimes your resources are limited). But I didn't really enjoy such times.

But I've never been a thrill seeker, I've never been a hyper-specialist, nor
do I have a very obsessive personality over any given topic. This seems a very
personal thing, but current society definitely has a preference for the hyper-
specialized. I think that's a pity.

~~~
hU3t2p
Could you please point to or paste here the Heinlein quote you're referring
to?

I've tried to google-guess it but failed.

~~~
projektir
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a
wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization
is for insects."

------
elgenie
An undiversified portfolio maximizes possible upside … and possible downside.
If you have a rational level of risk aversion, that should persuade you to
strive for balance and a more certain return.

The fact that in this case the portfolio is of "life elements" rather than
"shares of companies" shouldn't change the conclusion.

~~~
landon32
I disagree- when doing something in life you can tell very quickly how it
makes you feel, but when investing in a company it can be difficult to see how
the company will do.

------
0xcde4c3db
One way to look at it is that balance is fundamentally about stability, not
neutrality. Maybe your fulcrum isn't at the center of all possible aspects of
your life, and maybe that's not something that needs to be fixed.

------
known
Achieve self-actualization in
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs)

------
syveen
I do need some unbalances to make sure that I'm a human, not a balance.
Passion, flow, abnormal, whatever you name it.

------
sundvor
So .. we need a balance between living balanced and unbalanced. That's
actually quite a good insight to ponder.

------
alnitak
I had a little moment of hesitation before clicking on the link "Rich Roll" in
the article..

------
stephengillie
Instead of a work-life balance, consider a state-of-flow/state-of-social
balance. Spend chunks of time heads-down in solo project; and spend chunks of
time between tech talk, elevator pitches, and tangential discussion. Instead
of striving for an eudaimonistic balance between the two, let the balance
freely oscillate between those extremes as feels natural for you.

------
d--b
So? We need more balance between a balanced life and an unbalanced one?

Seriously though, who is that guy talking to? Does anyone truly believe that
having a perfectly balanced life makes one happy? Haven't they made thousands
of movies about this?

Sorry for the negativity but "live a little" seems a bit of a shallow advice
from the New York Times...

