> The rule of life is: You can have two “Big Things” in your life, but not three.
Big Things include:
Job
Kids
Spouse
Social Life
Major Hobby (e.g. build a boat in the garage, become a chess master, video game addiction)
Startup
This seems to be saying that an employed married person who spends time with his kids and friends is an impossibility. Since that's obvious nonsense, what is it saying?
No, no deeper meaning here. That’s exactly what it’s saying.
Well, what it’s actually saying is that the hypothetical employed married person who spends time with his kids and friends is shitty at two of those things. (Perhaps more, or even all, but at least two - because, you know, that’s the rule of life.) What an inspiring and actionable message.
I grant that as a married person with a job and kids, I’m not great at pursuing hobbies or spending a ton of time with my friends, but I love the author’s implication that either my job, my spouse or my kids was just a bridge too far and I’m just out of luck when it comes to one of those.
Yeah... I think this article is bullshit. A better analogy, imo, is the somewhat cliche rocks in a jar. I'm my experience, you get ONE big thing in your life. But there can still be room for other, smaller rocks.
But the overall message is fine, if obvious. You have to prioritize, you can't do everything.
Yeah it just doesn't add up on the face of it. Having a good marriage does not entail spending 8 hours straight with your spouse every day of the week, no kids, no hobbies. That's nuts.
It makes about as much sense as saying that having a successful career requires 20 hours per day and is therefore impossible unless you sleep 4 hours a night. You can say that, but it's just untrue on the face of it, unless you redefine "successful" to mean "something you spend at least 20 hours per day on."
6 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 23.7 ms ] threadBig Things include:
Job Kids Spouse Social Life Major Hobby (e.g. build a boat in the garage, become a chess master, video game addiction) Startup
This seems to be saying that an employed married person who spends time with his kids and friends is an impossibility. Since that's obvious nonsense, what is it saying?
Well, what it’s actually saying is that the hypothetical employed married person who spends time with his kids and friends is shitty at two of those things. (Perhaps more, or even all, but at least two - because, you know, that’s the rule of life.) What an inspiring and actionable message.
I grant that as a married person with a job and kids, I’m not great at pursuing hobbies or spending a ton of time with my friends, but I love the author’s implication that either my job, my spouse or my kids was just a bridge too far and I’m just out of luck when it comes to one of those.
But the overall message is fine, if obvious. You have to prioritize, you can't do everything.
It makes about as much sense as saying that having a successful career requires 20 hours per day and is therefore impossible unless you sleep 4 hours a night. You can say that, but it's just untrue on the face of it, unless you redefine "successful" to mean "something you spend at least 20 hours per day on."
We can't "have more than two big things concurrently." Life is in the present in the doing.
Some people can't handle more than one big thing. Some people can handle more than two. To choose "2" is essentially arbitrary.