I propose 3 areas of defining thinking "past", "future", "present".  followed by a hard question.

Past

This can be classified as any system of review, any overview of past progress, and any learning from the past broadly including history, past opportunities or challenges, shelved projects, known problems and previous progress.  Where a fraction of your time should be spent in the process of review in order to influence your plan for the future.

Future

Any planning-thinking tasks, or strategic intention about plotting a course forward towards a purposeful goal.  This can overlap with past-strategising by the nature of using the past to plan for the future.

Present

These actions include tasks that get done now, This is where stuff really happens; (technically both past-thinking and future-thinking classify as something you can do in the present, and take up time in the present, but I want to keep them apart for now)  This is the living-breathing getting things done time.  the bricks-and mortar of actually building something; creating and generating progress towards a designated future goal.

The hard question

I am stuck on finding a heuristic or estimate for how long should be spent in each area of being/doing.  I reached a point where I uncovered a great deal of neglect for both past events and making future purposeful plans.  

Where if 100% of time is spent on the past, nothing will ever get done, other than a clear understanding of your mistakes;

Similarly 100% on the future will lead to a lot of dreaming and no progress towards the future.  

Equally if all your time is spent running very fast in the present-doing-state you might be going very fast; but by the nature of not knowing where you are going in the future; you might be in a state of not-even-wrong, and not know.

10/10/80?  20/20/60?  25/25/50? 10/20/70?

I am looking for suggestions as to an estimate of how to spend each 168 hour week that might prove a fruitful division of time, or a method or reason for a certain division (at least before I go all empirical trial-and-error on this puzzle).

I would be happy with recommended reading on the topic if that can be provided.

Have you ever personally tackled the buckets? Did you come up with a strategy for how to decide between them?

Thanks for the considerations.

[Feel free to read this poor little unrigorous and unsourced post in JK Simmons' voice. That is entirely optional and you are of course free to read it in any voice you like; I only thought it might be interesting in the light of what is mentioned in the edit at the bottom of the text]

Nowadays, it seems that the correlation between sciency stuff, social ineptitude, and uncoolness, is cemented in the mind of the public. But this seems to be very era-specific, even time-specific.

As a lesswronger, I find what follows ironic: In Islamic countries, "scientists" are called with the same word use for religious leaders and other teachers, "olama", literally "knowers"; historically, there's been a huge overlap between the two, and, when one of these folks speaks, you're supposed to shut up and listen. This is still true to this day. There might not be much wealth to be gained from marrying a scientist, but there was status; amusingly enough, it's in modern-day materialism that is pushing them into irrelevance as money becomes, more and more, the sole measure of status.

In the West, in the XIXth century, Science and Progress were hip and awesome. Being a scientist of some sort was practically a requirement for any pulp hero. In the USA, an era of great works of engineering that had a dramatic impact on life quality made engineers heroes of popular fiction, men of knowledge and rigour who would not bow down to money and lawyer-cushioned bourgeois, or to corrupt and fickle politicians, men who would stand up against injustice and get the job done no matter what. Everyone wanted to call themselves an engineer, and the word was rampantly abused into meaninglessness; florists called themselves "flower engineers"! That's how cool being an engineer was.

In the Soviet Union, as long as they didn't step on the toes of the Party, scientists were highly acclaimed and respected, they got tons of honour and status. There was a huge emphasis on technological progress, on mankind reaching its full potential (at least on paper).

Nowadays, nearly the entire leadership of China is made of technicians and engineers. Not lawyers, or economists, or literati. These people only care about one thing, getting the job done - and that's what Science does.

So, I've really got to ask, when and *how* did Science and Engineering become "uncool", and why are they termed "geek", the term used for sideshow circus performers whose speciality was eating chickens alive (or something like that), and which, before that, used to be synonymous with freak and fook? When and how did we become worse than clowns in the eyes of society?  Most importantly: how can the process be reversed?

After all, from a utilitarian standpoint, Science being cool and appreciated and respectable is kind of important.

EDIT: There's also the strange relationship, in the public mind, between science and dangerous, callous, abusive insanity, with a long tradition in popular fiction from Victor Von Frankenstein and Captain Nemo to Tony Stark and GLaDOS, and some Real Life counterparts, especially in brutal totalitarian regimes. Wikipedia has an interesting article on the topic, and how the characterization and prevalence of the Mad Scientist related to time-pertinent perceptions of Science.

For some reason, that aspect is often treated as cool and dramatic and impressive (besides being characterized as repulsive), perhaps because it involves displays of power over others, which is a high-status thing to do. Is that one of the existing paths to social prestige? Achieving power, and being inconsiderate about flaunting it? I'd like to hear more constructive alternatives, because that one doesn't seem viable, from where I stand.