Recently, I wrote the following function (in Clojure) for my scheduler, and I think a lot can be said about it even though it’s very straightforward*:
(defn time-balance [schedule time-track excluded-items]
(- (time-until-the-end time-track)
(time-left-to-do schedule excluded-items)))
In words, the surplus or deficit of time is equal to the amount of time left to do the things planned minus the amount of time that is available to spend doing things. Nothing earth-shattering per se, but:
First, time balances do NOT improve by working on things, although they can be prevented from getting worse. This can be seen by noting that if you work on something for a minute, you have decreased both the amount of time you plan to spend on tasks and the amount of time you have to get them done by one minute.
Although I made it an argument to the function just to avoid counting miscellaneous time, the excluded-items argument illustrates one approach to this conundrum: do fewer things. It’s valid and reasonable. Sometimes, dropping a low-value task is the right thing to do; in a world filled with possible activities, I don’t feel especially bad about not having chess-boxing in my schedule, since I don’t have chess or boxing in it in the first place.
Another possibility is to increase time “until the end.” I think it’s important to carefully remind ourselves of the difference between the schedule and reality. Extending my week by an extra day in my scheduler is easy enough, but this just means next week has one fewer day. The real, final end is mostly independent of most tasks you might spend time on. Life extension activities might improve your overall time balance, and this is the source of my interest in the area and support of projects like SENS, but there are limits to what can be done by an individual.
I began by supposing that there’s some amount of time you want to spend on a task, but this might not be true. Instead, it’s likely you’re reasoning backwards on a task from something you want to the amount of time you’ll need to spend to acquire it. This leads to another way to improve a time balance: increased productivity. As a simple example, I often watch videos at 110% speed, going through 30 video-minutes in slightly over 27 realtime-minutes. Few things are as easy to speed up as watching a video, however, and in a lot of areas, the best way to improve productivity is to spend time practicing — but spending time is what we want to avoid doing in the first place, so there’s a point where the productivity gain of additional practice is not worth it. Also, I find watch most videos at any more than 110% speed to be less enjoyable.
*The version of the function here has been edited for clarity, a fuller version is available.