Whether this author had a point I will never know because article is rather poorly written. To support virtues of "focused thought" the article starts stating that some unspecified "researchers" "discovered" something. Citations, or it didn't happen. Such claims must be falsifiable or dropped.

Then it posits a question "how to practice focused thought" and the first suggestion is "I like practicing focused thought by writing before starting work". That's a uselessly self-referential recommendation. Why even bother posting something that can't be used under a question that presumes a practical, usable answer?