The hobbies I called out do require significant expenditures of mental energy. I put them in the same category because I think they are in the same category. I didn't include, oh, watching soap operas (as a dumb example) because that is much less engaging, and far more passive.
When I watch most TV, I call that "down time". That's a different category.
I agree that social congress is not the same, and for some it is an onerous task and others it is a vivifying tonic.
I just find it orthogonal to the question: because if you LIKE social stuff, there is no reason to work on self-improvement skills alone. I have a very old friend who shares the same curiosity itches that I do, and we often learn together: sharing puzzles or studying books or articles as a form of social "play" as well as personal improvement.
So I do think it is "if you have time to play, you have time for self-improvement". And, I don't judge people harshly for making choice that suit their personality or their needs. If you don't (to steal from Stephen Covey) "sharpen your saw" on a regular basis, it gets dull: but if overall the balance you pick works for you, it's the best you can do.
In the past, I've sometimes accepted the consequence of "more play, less study", and other times I've gone the other way. In the last few years, it has certainly been "more study, less play", because really I was making a trinary choice: Family/Self-Improvement/Play, in about that order.
I can't have everything: I don't think anyone can. But the choices one makes, even if they don't realize it was a choice, are still choices with consequences.
And yes: like yourself, I am happiest when I can balance work/family/play/self-improvement in good proportion. I've been happiest when I could, I've been least happy when one dominates the others like a harsh master. (And at various times, I've had each of them dominate the others, never through personal choice.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2015-04-30 03:13 pm (UTC)When I watch most TV, I call that "down time". That's a different category.
I agree that social congress is not the same, and for some it is an onerous task and others it is a vivifying tonic.
I just find it orthogonal to the question: because if you LIKE social stuff, there is no reason to work on self-improvement skills alone. I have a very old friend who shares the same curiosity itches that I do, and we often learn together: sharing puzzles or studying books or articles as a form of social "play" as well as personal improvement.
So I do think it is "if you have time to play, you have time for self-improvement". And, I don't judge people harshly for making choice that suit their personality or their needs. If you don't (to steal from Stephen Covey) "sharpen your saw" on a regular basis, it gets dull: but if overall the balance you pick works for you, it's the best you can do.
In the past, I've sometimes accepted the consequence of "more play, less study", and other times I've gone the other way. In the last few years, it has certainly been "more study, less play", because really I was making a trinary choice: Family/Self-Improvement/Play, in about that order.
I can't have everything: I don't think anyone can. But the choices one makes, even if they don't realize it was a choice, are still choices with consequences.
And yes: like yourself, I am happiest when I can balance work/family/play/self-improvement in good proportion. I've been happiest when I could, I've been least happy when one dominates the others like a harsh master. (And at various times, I've had each of them dominate the others, never through personal choice.)