Time and effort are not direct correlations of each other.
Many argue about the number of hours they work in all circles of careers and life. Those that argue about that and not the output that the work provided have a terrible outlook on the rewards of effort. What would you prefer as an end user? A product that took thousands of hours to build and works marginally or one that took 5 hours and works incredibly well?
On one side, the culmination of all our efforts must be directly driven by time. Although it may have only taken our second example 5 hours to complete this specific project, can we discount the amount of time it took to acquire the skillset to complete it? Does that not contribute towards the overall time that it took to complete a goal?
If our argument on effort was solely a correlation with the amount of time it takes to complete a goal, what is the point of completing it all? Why not reward the mediocrity with medals of effort as they're so close to completion? Why not continuously have sex and never finish? The effort is clearly in the importance of never-ending labor and not the goal itself.
As humans, we have a distinctly linear train of thought due to our ability to conceive mortality. We consciously breakdown ideas into different steps of completion. We predict time in a linear fashion and analyze our relationships in the same manner. It's inherently difficult for us to disconnect the idea that effort can be compounding and is not only linear.
Imagine two scenarios, both in which we must cross a river that is 10,000 miles wide. On one side of the equation are humans who think linearly and others who think in a compounding fashion.
The humans who think linearly do not have the best patience for a particular outcome. Instead of planning, many of them will headfirst dive into a decision and let the future dictate their fate. These humans begin marching in a line through the river beginning their 10,000 mile trek.
The second group of people sit on the side of the beach and begin planning a best strategy of attack. They know in the current instant that some technologies may be limited that can advance their quest to cross the river. They begin researching new ideas, creating mathematics, and expanding upon the fringes of what their primitive people know. They create maps with the stars, floatation devices, and structure their expedition to cross the river. They manufacture boats and optimize the ratio of ship capacity to bouncy of their vessels. These people then set off on their journey.
The first group by walking would take 130 days to cross a river that is 10,000 miles. They would applaud themselves for their 130 days of effort, tribulations, and accomplishments.
The second group, after spending months preparing for the journey, increasing their technological prowess, would sail across the river in 500 hours (assuming a 20 mph sailing speed).
Both groups put in a significant amount of effort to reach the same goal of crossing the river. One group, by the advantages of their hard work crossed the river in 130 days via linear focus. The second group crossed the river with 500 hours of travel time but with a significant focus on compounding efforts. By creating innovations in their math, strategy, and other components they could optimize their efforts to accomplish the same goal that took 130 days in just 500 hours.
Which group can be argued to have placed more effort into their goals? With how we compare our working hours as a symbol of ability, hustle, and drive, we should constantly check in on ourselves and how we work.
We should all strive to be those that cascade over the water and focus on compounding effort activities. Those that don't will always slowly trek through the river hoping to not be swept away by the current of time.