Eri on September 28, 2011 at 07:38:
I think counting things in hours at least is more sensible; seconds can give an impression of more than it actually is (“I’ve studied for a million seconds!” “But that’s only like, 228 hours…”)
Why do I kind of insist or…persist…in counting language exposure time in seconds? Because it’s a cheap win. It’s like timeboxing. It usurps the delay component of Piers Steel’s Temporal Motivation Theory equation. Or rather, it recruits the delay component in our favor by suppressing it, therefore driving up utility.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, don’t worry…I stare at that equation practically every day 1. What I’m saying is, a second is so short that it virtually erases and motivation to procrastinate. You’re like “a second? SURE!”.
Trying to rack up an hour feels like work. Screw that. Racking up seconds is a game that is easy to win and, yes, makes you feel good. Sure, a million seconds is “only” 278 hours…But that’s fine. Why? Because it’s accurate. A million seconds is an accurate (if sweet-sounding) measure of exposure time — it is real time — whereas “2 years” is almost always a vague, meaningless lie.
- Showing off ↩