More vs Less Training Time

[PhotonGuy]

What takes time is the set-up. Protecting the floors and getting the trim taped, and windows, and adjoining walls and ceilings if they are a different color. That is what takes all the time.

True, often there is more work in prepping a room to be painted than there is in the painting itself.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is the bit a lot of people don't realise.

Slapping paint on is quick and easy and if the prep is done right it'll look good unless you really make a hash of it.

Depending on what you're starting with, prep can take hours to days.

When I repainted my son's bedroom it took over a week - but that did include removing the old paint (semi gloss so almost impossible to get anything to stick over it), replastering a wall and replacing some of the skirting boards...

Yeah, and if it is a kitchen with old grease on the walls, gotta wash it with TSP. Over a semi-gloss you might get good results if you sand the walls to rough the surface. A lot less work than actually stripping the old paint.

 

[pdg]

So funny I forgot to laugh.

I know, right?

I can tell how hard you were laughing, you missed the 'funny' button and hit 'dislike' by mistake.

 

[dvcochran]

So I found this video which shows how to paint a room faster using an 18 inch roller while doing just as good a job. By using an 18 inch roller and by using the techniques in the video you save time. So that being said, is there anything wrong with using an 18 inch roller and the techniques in the video? Does it make a person impatient?

There would be for me. I am an abysmal painter. I truly despise it. I can make a mess with a 1/2” cut in brush. I do not want to see what mess I would make with 18” ‘s of brush

 

[Tez3]

Wait, no one mentioned rollers for painting. Am i the only one to use my hands? and the occasional brush?

I hate rollers, only ever use brushes and I've painted a lot of walls. Living in military married quarters means you have to have spotless clean walls when you march out, the easiest way is just to paint them. Over the years that's a lot of walls by myself as my OH was usually on deployment so it was left to me to move us lock stock and barrel to another house sometimes another house in another country.

 

[PhotonGuy]

So concerning reaching goals sooner, I think I've come up with an analogy that best makes my point so far. Lets say you work a job where you make $10 an hour and you work 20 hours a week. At that rate you make $200 a week and so in two weeks you will make $400.

Now, you can ask for more hours and work 40 hours a week and that way you will make $400 in just one week. The time it took you to make $400 is still 40 hours, 40 hours is 40 hours whether its spread over one week or two weeks but you're reaching your goal of making $400 gross amount in just one week instead of two so you're reaching your goal sooner.

Provided that doing 40 hours a week doesn't hurt your job performance, you can reach your goal of $400 sooner if you do 40 hours a week as opposed to 20. Its not taking less time to reach your goal but you are reaching it sooner.

 

[Flying Crane]

Getting back to the posts on painting: we moved into a new house last year and the covid lockdown has given me the time to start painting the rooms. Looking for a silver lining in a bad situation.

 

[skribs]

So concerning reaching goals sooner, I think I've come up with an analogy that best makes my point so far. Lets say you work a job where you make $10 an hour and you work 20 hours a week. At that rate you make $200 a week and so in two weeks you will make $400.

Now, you can ask for more hours and work 40 hours a week and that way you will make $400 in just one week. The time it took you to make $400 is still 40 hours, 40 hours is 40 hours whether its spread over one week or two weeks but you're reaching your goal of making $400 gross amount in just one week instead of two so you're reaching your goal sooner.

Provided that doing 40 hours a week doesn't hurt your job performance, you can reach your goal of $400 sooner if you do 40 hours a week as opposed to 20. Its not taking less time to reach your goal but you are reaching it sooner.

So let's say your bills are $700/month. Let's take the approximation of 1 month = 4 weeks to simplify this. You can net $100/month, or you can net $900/month. Which will help you meet your goals faster?

Now let's say you work 60 hours per week. Now you're netting $1700/month. That's going to once again shorten the time it takes to meet those goals, but it's not nearly the difference it was before.

Let's say you want to save up $10,000 for a down payment on a car. At 20 hours/week, that will take you 100 months (8-1/3 years). At 40 hours/week, that will take you 12 months, and you'll have some remaining. At 60 hours/week, that will take you 6 months to save up, with a little bit of change leftover.

This is assuming that your goal is finite. Let's say your goal becomes more nebulous. For example, you want to save up for 5 years to buy a car with cash.

• 20 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $6,000
• 40 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $54,000
• 60 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $102,000

You can have a better goal with more time invested.

In my opinion, this is a better analogy for martial arts training. Do you want to have a used 2005 hatchback? How about an entry-level BMW? How about a top-of-the-line Corvette? This doesn't make someone impatient. It means someone has higher standards for what they want to achieve.

 

[skribs]

So anyway, is a student being impatient by choosing to train three hours a week instead of just one?

Coming back to the original question, I think it can be safely said there are only two ways in which you could see someone who trains more as being "impatient":

1. If the training will end (i.e. the person who quits right after getting their black belt)
2. If you're jealous of someone who trains more than you do, and it's easier to call them impatient than to train more.

 

[Flying Crane]

So let's say your bills are $700/month. Let's take the approximation of 1 month = 4 weeks to simplify this. You can net $100/month, or you can net $900/month. Which will help you meet your goals faster?

Now let's say you work 60 hours per week. Now you're netting $1700/month. That's going to once again shorten the time it takes to meet those goals, but it's not nearly the difference it was before.

Let's say you want to save up $10,000 for a down payment on a car. At 20 hours/week, that will take you 100 months (8-1/3 years). At 40 hours/week, that will take you 12 months, and you'll have some remaining. At 60 hours/week, that will take you 6 months to save up, with a little bit of change leftover.

This is assuming that your goal is finite. Let's say your goal becomes more nebulous. For example, you want to save up for 5 years to buy a car with cash.

• 20 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $6,000
• 40 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $54,000
• 60 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $102,000

You can have a better goal with more time invested.

In my opinion, this is a better analogy for martial arts training. Do you want to have a used 2005 hatchback? How about an entry-level BMW? How about a top-of-the-line Corvette? This doesn't make someone impatient. It means someone has higher standards for what they want to achieve.

Not a bad analogy. But let’s not forget that at 60 hours/week one runs the risk of burnout before reaching the goal. If the work is difficult or stressful and not interesting to you personally then even 40 hours/week can burn you out faster than you anticipated.

I think there is a balance that one needs to find, between how much time and effort to give it to gain positive results, without overdoing it and risking burnout or diminishing returns for the effort. Just what that balance is varies with the individual.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Not a bad analogy. But let’s not forget that at 60 hours/week one runs the risk of burnout before reaching the goal. If the work is difficult or stressful and not interesting to you personally then even 40 hours/week can burn you out faster than you anticipated.

I think there is a balance that one needs to find, between how much time and effort to give it to gain positive results, without overdoing it and risking burnout or diminishing returns for the effort. Just what that balance is varies with the individual.

Yup. If you work 60 hours/week, but after 1.5 years burnout and end up quitting, making no money per week, overall you'd have been better off working 40 hours per week.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Coming back to the original question, I think it can be safely said there are only two ways in which you could see someone who trains more as being "impatient":

1. If the training will end (i.e. the person who quits right after getting their black belt)

1. Its usually quite the opposite. When you get your black belt, that's when you start training even harder. After you get a black belt it doesn't get easier it gets harder.

   [*]If you're jealous of someone who trains more than you do, and it's easier to call them impatient than to train more.

Try telling that to Bruce Lee.

 

[skribs]

1. Its usually quite the opposite. When you get your black belt, that's when you start training even harder. After you get a black belt it doesn't get easier it gets harder.

Try telling that to Bruce Lee.

That's kind of my point. Saying "you're impatient" if you train more (which is what you said in your OP), is based on a flawed premise that training has an end-date, or jealousy that someone else is training harder than you.

 

[PhotonGuy]

So let's say your bills are $700/month. Let's take the approximation of 1 month = 4 weeks to simplify this. You can net $100/month, or you can net $900/month. Which will help you meet your goals faster?

Now let's say you work 60 hours per week. Now you're netting $1700/month. That's going to once again shorten the time it takes to meet those goals, but it's not nearly the difference it was before.

Let's say you want to save up $10,000 for a down payment on a car. At 20 hours/week, that will take you 100 months (8-1/3 years). At 40 hours/week, that will take you 12 months, and you'll have some remaining. At 60 hours/week, that will take you 6 months to save up, with a little bit of change leftover.

This is assuming that your goal is finite. Let's say your goal becomes more nebulous. For example, you want to save up for 5 years to buy a car with cash.

• 20 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $6,000
• 40 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $54,000
• 60 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $102,000

You can have a better goal with more time invested.

In my opinion, this is a better analogy for martial arts training. Do you want to have a used 2005 hatchback? How about an entry-level BMW? How about a top-of-the-line Corvette? This doesn't make someone impatient. It means someone has higher standards for what they want to achieve.

You've just done what too many people on this forum do, you've added to my analogy and made it more complicated. I want to keep things simple as that's how I can make my point and when people add to my examples it only makes it more complicated. Therefore I would like to ask you, and everybody else, to please not add to my examples and keep them as they are.

 

[skribs]

You've just done what too many people on this forum do, you've added to my analogy and made it more complicated. I want to keep things simple as that's how I can make my point and when people add to my examples it only makes it more complicated. Therefore I would like to ask you, and everybody else, to please not add to my examples and keep them as they are.

Then your point only makes sense if it's simplified to the point of being inaccurate.

Which makes sense, because your point is simply wrong.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Then your point only makes sense if it's simplified to the point of being inaccurate.

Which makes sense, because your point is simply wrong.

So its wrong that if you work for 40 hours a week at $10/hour you will make $400 sooner than if you work 20 hours a week at $10/hour?

 

[isshinryuronin]

When you get your black belt, that's when you start training even harder. After you get a black belt it doesn't get easier it gets harder.

Not sure if I agree. Let's use an analogy.

You are creating a sculpture out of stone. To begin, you must haul a huge block of rock to your studio, careful not to screw up your back. This is the White belt stage. Then, start hammering away with a chisel for hours till your arms ache, cleaving off chunks, without shattering the block. This is the hard work. Green belt stage. But then, as it takes shape into something recognizable, you can throw away the heavy hammer and chisel, and start to use the lighter weight, finer, tools. using less brute force and more wrist technique. More precise and less physical effort, but slower paced and more care taken. You realize, this sculpture won't be done in a few months, or even years. This is the black belt stage. Next, you are ready to polish and add expression to your work, letting your hands and fingers do the magic, and advance thru the Dans.

So, I don't know if one trains harder - certainly one starts to train differently.

 

[skribs]

So its wrong that if you work for 40 hours a week at $10/hour you will make $400 sooner than if you work 20 hours a week at $10/hour?

That specific fact is correct. How that fact is applied in the real world is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Your analogy works only if you simplify it and remove any variables that would make it wrong.

Let's go back to your quote:

You've just done what too many people on this forum do, you've added to my analogy and made it more complicated. I want to keep things simple as that's how I can make my point and when people add to my examples it only makes it more complicated. Therefore I would like to ask you, and everybody else, to please not add to my examples and keep them as they are.

This says a couple of things:

1. You realize that more data would invalidate your point. You are asking for us not to provide more data, so we won't see the holes in your logic.
2. You are effectively trying to silence everyone. You make a point, nobody else is allowed to speak about it. That's the equivalent of saying something, and then when someone tries to argue, you stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LA LA LAL ALA LALLALALAAL LA" so you can't hear anyone tell you anything you don't want to hear.

This goes back to your original point, that training more is "impatient." You've demonized someone who trains harder. When someone trains harder than you, there are three approaches you could take:

1. Use them as an inspiration to train harder
2. Accept that they train more than you, and understand your own limitations on time, physical endurance, or drive to train as hard as they are
3. Spin their dedication as a negative trait so you seem superior

This whole thread seems to be you making fun of people that you're jealous of, and then getting upset when everyone tells you that it's a you problem and that training hard is a good thing.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

This goes back to your original point, that training more is "impatient." You've demonized someone who trains harder. When someone trains harder than you, there are three approaches you could take:

1. Use them as an inspiration to train harder
2. Accept that they train more than you, and understand your own limitations on time, physical endurance, or drive to train as hard as they are
3. Spin their dedication as a negative trait so you seem superior

This whole thread seems to be you making fun of people that you're jealous of, and then getting upset when everyone tells you that it's a you problem and that training hard is a good thing.

I think you've misunderstood PhotonGuy's pont. He didn't criticize people who train harder/longer as being impatient - he asked if someone who trains more would be considered impatient.

The reason he asked such a thing, if my years of reading his posts don't mislead me, is that some time back in one of his earlier threads someone (I don't remember who) told him that training more hours per week in order to progress faster was just a sign of impatience and shouldn't be encouraged. Since then that's been a point he has fixated on and occasionally returned to.

 

[skribs]

I think you've misunderstood PhotonGuy's pont. He didn't criticize people who train harder/longer as being impatient - he asked if someone who trains more would be considered impatient.

The reason he asked such a thing, if my years of reading his posts don't mislead me, is that some time back in one of his earlier threads someone (I don't remember who) told him that training more hours per week in order to progress faster was just a sign of impatience and shouldn't be encouraged. Since then that's been a point he has fixated on and occasionally returned to.

I thought that at first. But he's so fixated on it that at several points in the thread he's come back to it. It's sounding like he's defending that position.

Still, my point regarding his other comment still stands. He's trying to have the last word in the argument by banning everyone else from speaking their mind about his posts.