A man without a plan will almost always get nowhere.
But while you do want to narrow it down as specific as possible.
People often get too caught up at this stage and spend the majority of their time trying to perfect the plan.
Common Productivity Mistakes You Might be Making
>>> Thread <<<
Apply these to significantly improve productivity.
#6 alone will turn you into a machine.
A man without a plan will almost always get nowhere.
But while you do want to narrow it down as specific as possible.
People often get too caught up at this stage and spend the majority of their time trying to perfect the plan.
Pick one skill, one destination, and go.
Optimize as needed.
There is no such thing as perfect, it does not exist.
Your to-do list should not have 20 items on it each day.
Nobody has the capacity to do that many quality tasks.
Adopt the Jeff Bezos style:
3 big tasks each day, 3 decisions to make, as early as possible in the day.
That’s it.
Thing’s that are part of your everyday routine can be systemized.
By doing this you have less thinking and planning to do.
For example, you know you have to do an hour workout every day.
Have your workouts planned and ready.
Just hit go and get to work.
Fewer decisions, more brain capacity for the main tasks you need to do later in the day.
Caffeine is an amazing nootropic if used properly.
Somewhere along the line, it became a social thing and people just drink it to drink it.
For example, I only drink coffee right before I’m doing my big work of the day.
The work that requires the most brainpower.
Don’t fool yourself into thinking you can perform at the top quality when you are trying to do multiple things at once.
One task. 100% focus.
This is the only way you should be doing your major work.
The most common and WORST thing you can do for your productivity
Every time a notification drops in, you lose your whole train of thought.
TURN THEM OFF.
All of them.
You can survive for 2 hours without a dopamine hit.
This alone will skyrocket your productivity.
Try it and see for yourself.
Subscribe here if you want to get threads like this delivered straight to your inbox once or twice a week.
https://t.co/uPvDAG2PBI
More from Life
You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
