Live data from Hacker News

Is full-time work bad for our brains?

bbc.com

211–220 of 229 posts

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#211
post #77

It would be interesting to see a study controlling for the "sandwich years". My suspicion is that the sandwich years on top of 40+ hour/week employment causes a lot of cognitive degradation. But, 40+ hour/week employment without the sandwich years would see significantly less, if any, degradation.

What are sandwich years?

From the article: "McKenzie’s team is now looking into the driving factors behind their research such as the “sandwich years” when many adults have at least one person to look after, a child or an elderly parent, on top of working full-time."

This terminology stuck out because I'm smack in the middle of it right now. It's a regular conversation piece when my wife and I get together with other parents.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

9 to 5 school sounds like a breeze compared to China. Kids in China are doing 7 to 7 while in middle school (with piles of homework to do during lunch break and in the evening). In high school there is no leaving campus except for once a month.

It is common for high-achieving US high schools to do similar hours too. My alarm was set to 6:15 AM (I optimized it so I could sleep in as late as possible -- perfected the art of getting ready in 15 minutes because I was in such a zombified state of sleep deprivation every morning), got to school at 7 AM trying my best to concentrate for the next 8 hours on fast-paced AP honors coursework. School ended at 3 PM, and…

Mind you, all of this is technically optional. I went to a well-funded high school in an affluent suburb, and there were certainly students who had schedules like yours -- I personally knew quite a lot of people whose high-school lives resembled yours -- but there were also a bunch of slackers who just didn't do anything. For as many people like you I knew, I knew just as many stoners (including two guys who were sent to the alternative school multiple times a year because they were too stupid to not get caught with weed on campus). I even knew a few people who dropped out.

I followed the middle path, taking advantage of a quirk of Texas law. You see, I have less than zero interest in athletics and little to no interest in other after-school activities. I wanted to go to college, and my dream involved getting a CS degree, but I couldn't care less about getting into some prestigious private and/or out-of-state school or what have you.

This was good because I live in Texas, and Texas law requires all state universities to accept any in-state student who graduates in the top 10% of their class. So I just made sure to do well in my classes. I participated in virtually no extracurriculars (except one club that only met sporadically because I had a personal interest in it), I took exactly one AP class because I knew I'd breeze through the material (AP CS 1; I would've taken AP CS 2, but it was cancelled my senior year due to lack of enrollment), and I only took a small handful of PreAP/Honors classes because they were in subjects I knew I was good at. My lack of extracurriculars helped me to have the energy to pay attention in class, and I took easy classes (well, easy for me). Hell, I was so good at paying attention in class that I could do virtually no studying outside of class and still ace almost all of my tests. My evenings were free as a bird. As such, I made straight As (and often A+es, which counted for GPA in my high school) in almost everything with little effort. I made the top 10% with about a dozen students between me and the cutoff, and I went to a very nice state university that's known for its CS program.

I made some incredible friends in college, who I'm close to to this day, learned a lot of things that I still use in my thirties, and those four years at a state school were the best years of my life. Whatever else I regret in my life, how I went about my schooling wasn't one of them.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#213
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this you? If so, why aren't you seeking out more work to do, since you have so much free time? I know this sounds snarky, but I have never seen a company that didn't have undone work. And I've rarely met colleagues who didn't appreciate a helping hand when they were busy.

Likely: zero equity, and a negotiated wage that is less than the opportunity-cost of one's time because it had an expectation of "slack" calculated into it by the employer. Most retail jobs have these properties.

I worked and managed retail for several years. There was always more work that needed to be done. Retail stores are messy, and sales correlate positively with clean, attractive merchandising. Customers are needy, and sales correlate positively with customer service.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#214
post #85

I worked three years full time and now on a startup. I've come to realize that most of the performance improvement for me with the latter is attributable to a difference in sleep duration and quality. I'm someone who needs variability (+/- 2-3 hrs) in when I go to sleep and little to none in total duration. This is especially important when you're exercising consistently (and doubly so for HIIT). Work life normally d…

Kind of off-topic, but what has your experience with HIIT and sleep been? I am just starting, and being somewhat obsessive about sleep would be interested to hear your experience.

If you're obsessive about sleep, I think you'll be fine :) My mistake was doing 3 20 min sessions of pretty intense HIIT a week and then not getting nearly enough sleep (averaged maybe 6 hrs). I felt chronic fatigue at work - it feels like a heavy wave of exhaustion very different from typical feelings of tiredness. You'll notice your work performance degrade correspondingly. Under normal circumstances you might be able to get away with bad sleep for a handful of days or even a few weeks. Not so with HIIT. You have to have an athlete's level of attention to your recovery.

All that said, HIIT is the most effective kind of exercise I've encountered and I recommend it wholeheartedly!

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I agree with that I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today. Because managers up a level have no other way of knowing if you're being productive or not. So they look and see if people are ferociously typing. This is not a joke.

that's why I am sometimes envious of sales guys or traders. Their work is easily measurable.

The value they add is easily measurable, but it's still quite difficult to tell whether their performance is due to individual merit or external factors.

For example, in any given year some traders are wildly successful (and reap huge bonuses) but year to year their performance is variable enough to be noise - it's not clear that really good traders really exist. Some are just bound to get lucky.

Similarly sales guys may appear great because their product sells itself, or terrible because of a downturn in the business cycle or sector.

It's not insane to want a read on "how hard are you working" or "how skilled are you" that is independent of all the messy confounding variables of the market.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is common for high-achieving US high schools to do similar hours too. My alarm was set to 6:15 AM (I optimized it so I could sleep in as late as possible -- perfected the art of getting ready in 15 minutes because I was in such a zombified state of sleep deprivation every morning), got to school at 7 AM trying my best to concentrate for the next 8 hours on fast-paced AP honors coursework. School ended at 3 PM, and…

Mind you, all of this is technically optional. I went to a well-funded high school in an affluent suburb, and there were certainly students who had schedules like yours -- I personally knew quite a lot of people whose high-school lives resembled yours -- but there were also a bunch of slackers who just didn't do anything. For as many people like you I knew, I knew just as many stoners (including two guys who were sen…

Yes, I should have mentioned that I went to a modestly-funded public high school in a small dying steel town outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania -- most of my classmates were the aforementioned stoners as well (they graduated to heroin -- indeed, my county has one of the highest rates for heroin abuse in the country).

For some reason, I believed that I was destined for a better life, I really loved computer programming and I wanted to live in Silicon Valley, and I worked my ass off for it. There were no handouts, and I knew I would be judged with the same yardstick as the kids from the likes of Phillips Exeter with their near-perfect SAT scores, the byproduct of personalized tutoring. The web site College Confidential was my bible. I'm one of the few that left the town, and now I live in Silicon Valley.

Still, I got thin envelopes in the mail from all but one of my reach schools. I took the opportunity I had and ran with it.

I have zero regrets as well. Turned out that playing one hour of Counter-Strike a day instead of five had a much bigger payout.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#217
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll try to state in this language what I think is the conceptual flaw. The stated conclusion is "there is an optimum number of work hours, and it is less than 40." However, their method of analysis is this: "We fit a non-linear model that is a quadratic model cognitive ability y ~ ax + b x^2 for x work hours / week, and we found a statistical optimum around 25 hours" The problem with this is that you're trying to fi…

> Because there is a fairly strong correlation with unemployment and cognitive indicators You're arguing that there's an endogeneity effect -- that poor cognition causes less working? That's a common problem. The authors discuss their use of an instrumental variable technique to avoid this issue. > parabola is already being "forced down" near hours worked = 0 Not sure what you mean. Typically a model like this includ…

You'll learn a lot more if you ask, instead of "what could be wrong about what this person is saying", you ask "what could be right about it?"

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#218
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely: zero equity, and a negotiated wage that is less than the opportunity-cost of one's time because it had an expectation of "slack" calculated into it by the employer. Most retail jobs have these properties.

I worked and managed retail for several years. There was always more work that needed to be done. Retail stores are messy, and sales correlate positively with clean, attractive merchandising. Customers are needy, and sales correlate positively with customer service.

I didn't mean "slack" as in "free time because there isn't anything to do"; I meant "slack" as in "extra tolerance because—at a given wage—an average employee will predictably goof off X% of the time."

This is how all large chains (McDonalds, WalMart, etc.) are managed from a corporate perspective. Instead of paying X salary to ensure enough "morale" for optimal worker productivity, it is actually more cost-effective to pay workers a lower wage such that they're sub-optimally productive—but still productive—and then put systems in place to both idiot-proof and peer-quality-check each employee's output, such that the output is still guaranteed even with multiple "malfunctioning" process-nodes potentially touching it.

The epitome of this approach is seen in how an "automatic" Amazon Mechanical Turk work pipeline operates at scale: a program hands off work-items to workers, and then treats each individual work-product as being of unknown quality, handing it off to further workers to give a quality-judgement to it, cross-checking those workers' opinions in case some of them are just mashing "good", etc. None of this would be necessary if the work paid well-enough for market-forces to apply (i.e. if people would want to compete for the work.) But since it doesn't pay, people aren't interested in one-upping one-another's quality to steal the job, so you just end up with whoever decided to wander in.

See also: the economic "Losers" in the MacLeod Hierarchy.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#219

This is a paper on the work that the article cited: https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_s... There is a critical mathematical mistake with their use of statistical analysis which basically, as an artifact, bakes in this "conclusion" into the "results". It comes about because they manually add "Working hours-squared/100" into the factor analysis, and then, low and behold, there is a parabola cor…

I should add, for the benefit of anyone that reads this in hindsight, that I actually very much endorse the question that this work seems to be asking:

How shall we live?

I do think the problem has much more to do with the nature of work, and not quite so much to do with its amount.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with the inclusion of a quadratic term in a linear model if the variable is significant, which is clearly is according to Table IV. You can't just plot a single predictor against the sample outcome and expect the plot to be particularly revealing in multiple regression. Plus, this isn't even multiple regression; this is a two-stage least squares multiple regression. The working hour (WH) variabl…

I'm afraid I don't think you are understanding my point, but apparently it is a difficult one to make. I'm unfortunately too busy to make it clearer, so I will just leave you with a koan. Why not include a third order term in the regression? What about an n-th order term? What assumptions do we "bake into" the results of a statistical regression as an effect of including, or not, any function on the original data? Th…

Why not include insignificant terms in the regression? Maybe because they're insignificant?

I understand what the regression is doing. The authors understand. You do not, though.

You've already admitting not to having a background in stats, yet you keep throwing around words like "significance" and "model fitting" without having the faintest clue what they mean mathematically. I'm sorry, but I can't fit several semesters of undergrad-level stats in these comment boxes.

Post reply on HN