I would agree, as it isn’t how fast you get there, but how completely you get there

I agree. There are many ways to reach a goal and the shortest route may not be the best way. For example, suppose I need to get from a town on one side of a vast mountain range to another town on the other side. The SHORTEST ROUTE would be to proceed on a straight line between the two cities. However, this would require that I tunnel through the mountain which could take years. The next SHORTEST ROUTE would be a direct line between the cities, but, without tunneling, I would need to scale the mountain on foot. The SHORTEST WAY to the other city would not be a direct line. It would be a meandering trip through natural passes in the mountains, cutting back and forth across, up and over the mountain. This would be the LONGEST ROUTE to the other city, but definitely the SHORTEST WAY.

Other goals in life will have similar long and short ways and routes. And, most often, if you look for short cuts to the things that matter most, you end up lost or at a much different destination than you planned.

No; because anything shorter than the longest route would not be a “route” to the goal since by definition it does not reach the goal.

If you mean there are no get rich quick schemes, than yes I agree.