I'm awake about 17 hours a day. Of those I'm being productive maybe 10 hours a day.
My working definition of productive is in the direction of: "things that I expect I will be glad I did once I've done them"[1].
Things that I personally find productive include
- Chores
- Work
- Eating
- Cooking
- Reading a good book
- Watching TV with my Wife/Kids
- Playing with the kids
- Socialising with friends
But not
- Doomscrolling
- Watching TV alone
- Playing most computer games
- Sitting on the couch doing nothing
- Reading a book I'm not particularly interested in
etc.
If we could find a magic pill which allowed me to do productive things 17 hours a day instead of 10 without any side effects, that would be approximately equally as valuable as a commensurate increase in life expectancy. Yet the first seems much easier to solve than the second - we already have some drugs which get pretty close (caffeine, amphetamines).[2]
Now obviously the correct thing to do is both, but in the same way as we want a Manhattan project for anti-aging, we should also advocate for a Manhattan project for focusing/willpower.
I would not believe that unless you have done a simulation study with the small n of this study, plausible levels of measurement error (alcoholism being much harder to measure than weight or body fat), with about a dozen covariates (to correspond to the different ways to slice the patients and threshold BMI etc), and then shown that you hardly ever get a false negative like this. My experience with doing such power analysis simulation studies for other things inclines me to think that people greatly overestimate how informative such small studies are once you allow for plausible levels of measurement error and (reverse) p-hacking degrees of freedom.