Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just the true Scotsman fallacy, though. I have been plenty focused before and not accomplished anything of note. More, I've had plenty of brief diversions into a topic that produced more learning than some deliberate attempts I have made.
> This is just the true Scotsman fallacy, though I think the "true Scotsman fallacy" is often used as a way to dismiss actual classification mistakes. What one calls focused might not actually be focused -- humans are easy to deceive themselves. Besides, I don't see what other possibility would there be. That being focused is not important? That people can just as well achieve the same (or even more) things when unfo…
So, why then don't we encourage more practices that encourage happy accidents?
I accept that the one argument is more appealing to emotional logic. I am highly suspicious of arguments that speak to that form of plausibility.