Speaker A
Hello. When I was in high school, I was scrolling through Instagram and I stumbled upon a graphic. The graphic looked a little something like this. Okay, there was a triangle, and at the end of each tip of the triangle, there was a priority. So, on one tip of the triangle, there was sleep. On the other tip of the triangle, there was success in work or school. And then, on the last tip of the triangle, there was social life. On the bottom of the screen, it said, "Choose two." Basically, the concept of this was you can't prioritize everything in your life that you want to prioritize. You might want to have good quality sleep, good quality social life, and a successful work life or a successful school life, but the truth is, we're not capable of that as humans. You have to choose two in your life. You can't have all three. You can't succeed in every area of your life that you want to succeed at. That was kind of the concept of this graphic. Now, for me, as a high school student, this absolutely blew my mind. This was philosophy at its finest. This was everything I was looking for at the time—a basic explanation for why I was struggling so much. And it did explain that to me because, at the time, I was prioritizing social life and success, and I wanted to be prioritizing sleep, but it just seemed like I couldn't get that part under control. So, for years of my life, I sort of lived with this Instagram graphic in the back of my head. I constantly reminded myself, "Something's got to give. I can't prioritize everything I want to prioritize 100%." But recently, I had an epiphany, and I was like, "You know, is this true? Is this accurate?" So, today, I want to explore this concept, and I want to talk about what parts I think are true, what parts I think are false, and how we can use this Instagram graphic to come to a useful conclusion that's maybe a little bit more developed than the simple Instagram graphic, because I think that there's a lot of value there, but I think it could use a little bit more nuance. I think that there's more there. So, we're going to be talking about this today. Who would have thought that a weird Instagram graphic from 2016 would follow me into 2023? The first thing I want to discuss is the truth in this model. I think the truth is that, at a given moment, you can never give your 100% to everything that you want to give your 100% to. Something is always going to get 50% effort. In your life, if you're in a season of your life where you're really focused on getting enough rest but also getting all your school and work done, there's a good chance that you're not going to be hanging out with your friends very often. Your friends are going to be receiving 50% of your effort. If there's a period of your life when you're just trying to enjoy life and so you're hanging out with your friends a lot but you're also getting proper sleep, your school or work life is probably going to suffer a little bit, or it's just going to receive 50%. I think it's impossible to expect yourself to give 100% in every category of your life at all times. It's completely unrealistic. If you expect that from yourself, you're not going to be feeling so good because you're destined to fail. You're destined to not complete your promise to yourself if your promise is, "I'm going to give 100% to every category of my life at all times moving forward." You will fail at that most likely, and you will feel bad as a result. So, I think the nice thing about this model is that it sort of shows you that you can only choose two at a given moment, and that third thing is going to suffer. But that's okay, and that's human. I think that's a good thing to remember. It's inspiration to give yourself some grace when you find that certain areas of your life aren't getting proper attention. It's like, no, that's not a failure. That's being a human. But now, I want to talk about why this diagram is flawed. I think the first issue is this model kind of makes it feel like you have to choose your priorities and leave some things behind when choosing those priorities, and that that has to be your life's mission. Not to read too deeply into this, but that was sort of the way I interpreted this model when I saw it. I was like, "Oh, this feels like a huge commitment. Wow, I have to choose two of these things to prioritize for the rest of my life," instead of looking at it like, at any given moment, I can only choose two, but if I decide to change my mind down the line, I can do that. If I want to prioritize school and social life for the month of February, great. But then, if March rolls around and I want to prioritize social life and school and let my sleep suffer a little bit, then I can do that. I feel like this model made me think very one-directional, and so that was the way I misinterpreted it, I think, at the time, because I was like, in order for this model to make sense, I have to stick to it forever. I don't think that's true. I think this model is a positive thing and an accurate thing if you look at it in the sense of, well, yes, I can only choose two priorities at a time out of three, but I can also shift that on a monthly basis, on a weekly basis, even on a daily basis if I want to. I think this model kind of makes you feel like you can't constantly be shifting your priorities in a way that eventually allows you to actually find success and balance in all of these categories. It makes you feel like one thing will always have to suffer forever, and I'm not so sure that's true. Another issue I have with this model is that I think it neglects two more crucial categories and priorities that we have in our lives. I think it neglects quiet alone time, slash boredom time, time to be bored, time to be alone, time to be quiet, which is crucial, I would argue. I mean, I guess that could be grouped into sleep, but I don't really think so because sleep is like not awake, and it's really important, in my opinion, to be awake and alone and quiet and introspective. I think that's so important, and I think that that should be a priority, and that was neglected from this model. But another thing that was excluded from this model diagram was time to be creative, time to participate in hobbies, time to do extracurricular activities. I think those two things are incredibly important and should be included in this diagram. So, in my mind, I think that this diagram needs to be updated to, instead of being a triangle that says sleep, work/school, and social life, I think it should be a pentagon that has sleep, work/school, social life, alone time/recharge time/boredom time, time to be bored, and time for hobbies, creativity, and extracurricular activities. Then, instead of saying "choose two," it should say "choose as many as you can at any given moment," and it's okay if it's only one, and it's okay if it's only two. If you can get up to three, you're a superhero. If you can get up to four, you're really a superhero. If you can get up to five, you are annoying, and everybody's jealous of you, and you're defying all laws of humanity, basically. So, now that we have this updated diagram that I believe is more accurate, let's talk about why this is a useful diagram. I think it's useful because, in order to be intentional about your time, you have to decide what your priorities are on a given day. I think a lot of us do this subconsciously. You know, we wake up and we're like, "Okay, what's my priority for today?" We look at our calendar, we're like, "All right," and it all happens subconsciously. But I think there's something to be said for being mindful about our priorities and what we want to use our time for. There's nothing wrong with falling into autopilot and letting those choices be subconscious, but I think it's actually a superpower in a lot of ways to be mindful about our priorities and to be sort of strategic about what we prioritize and when we prioritize it because I think it makes us a lot more efficient. It makes life a lot smoother because you're correlating your priorities with you.