> The opposite is idleness, which we also do not particularly enjoy and will make ourselves play to avoid [...] It's a spectrum. Too busy or too idle for too long and we break.
Nope, there's a hidden axis you're implicitly ignoring. It's possible to be active and "in flow" doing something without feeling "busy". So it's not just a 1-dimensional spectrum of whether one is idle or doing things, but also the psyche/attitude experienced when doing those things. The corresponding analogue to idleness is "leisure", where it is possible to enjoy idling or acting without coherent purpose.
It takes a particular kind of anemic perspective to ignore the experiential axis, and just consider the axis corresponding to "things done" or "output produced".
For a more detailed exposition on what goes into achieving a "flow" state, I recommend checking out Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi's book titled Flow. For more on "leisure", I recommend Bertrand Russell's essay In praise of idleness.
You can accomplish a lot of task checkboxes that are irrelevant. This is exactly what the article talks about. You must ask questions on whether what you're doing has any value - ultimately for you or someone/something you value.
And while in flow state you cannot ask such questions as they're not directly related to what you're doing.
Company values are at least a few degrees removed from this ultimate value.
If you spend all the time in the flow state, you're likely are achieving nothing for your own goals, because you're not setting any. (Or worse, the goals are not thought out.)
Flow is the same as hyperfocus physically, and overdoing will ultimately harm you physically, if not psychologically or socially first.
It's also related to meditation. Like meditation it is not always beneficial, especially in excess.
If this author has some other definition of flow, be careful, there might be a tautology or "no true Scotsman" involved.
I found that a very nice observation! I've been struggling with stress lately and I feel like I'm surrounded by a culture where being busy is valued a lot, and people boast about how they stayed up very long to finish something, and it feels like that is a behavior that is reinforced.
I really like tackling things on my own time, and I feel this "tunnelling" a lot and I don't like it at all. Sometimes it can be nice, but I feel like due to stress I tunnel too much.
And I noticed that after being stressed for a while (weeks/months) it is very hard to come back and enjoy idleness. I think this is a problem in cultures with a "busy" work ethic.
Nope, there's a hidden axis you're implicitly ignoring. It's possible to be active and "in flow" doing something without feeling "busy". So it's not just a 1-dimensional spectrum of whether one is idle or doing things, but also the psyche/attitude experienced when doing those things. The corresponding analogue to idleness is "leisure", where it is possible to enjoy idling or acting without coherent purpose.
It takes a particular kind of anemic perspective to ignore the experiential axis, and just consider the axis corresponding to "things done" or "output produced".
For a more detailed exposition on what goes into achieving a "flow" state, I recommend checking out Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi's book titled Flow. For more on "leisure", I recommend Bertrand Russell's essay In praise of idleness.