3 ms·
We live in a world where more = better, no matter the situation. This seems like a lack of nuance. Quantity does not always lead to quality. Personally, some o
by ceilingcorner 6y ago
We live in a world where more = better, no matter the situation. This seems like a lack of nuance. Quantity does not always lead to quality.
Personally, some of the best relationships I have with people are time-limited ones. Especially in our constantly-distracted age, where “time spent together with your family” is really “time spent watching screens together.” Better to have an hour of focused time with no distractions.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoCertainly but the implication was they preferred living most of their lives away from their families. And for certain ages of children quantity may be even more important than curated, moment-to-moment quality.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoMaybe, but I question the idea that ambitious people shouldn’t have children if they don’t want to spend large amounts of time with them. It’s bad for society if the top performers don’t have families. It’s also not remotely the case historically, where men would be gone working for weeks or months in order to provide for their families. Instead, I’d suggest that this obsession with maximizing time is of the same cultural source as ‘helicopter parenting’ and the ‘more = better, always’ mentality of modernity.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoFor most of history families lived and worked in the same place as farmers. Top performers aren't necessarily the ones working crazy hours.