Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
1–10 of 304 posts
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#2The title is misleading - Darwin was pretty much always 'on the job', as we can see from his notes and correspondence.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#3The title is misleading - Darwin was pretty much always 'on the job', as we can see from his notes and correspondence.
In his early life he was a neglectful student, an underachiever. He was a late bloomer.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#4After that, it was all downhill: The 60-plus-hour-a-week researchers were the least productive of all.
Could causality be in the other direction? Researchers who aren't getting publication-worthy results spend more time in the lab desperately trying?
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#5Richard Hammings anecdotes of famous scientists would suggest otherwise... They may not look like they were working but They were always thinking on their problem. Working on a problem doesn't need to be done sitting in your desk but it can be done while on hikes with your colleagues or locked in the attic of your room.
Their minds were constantly thinking of their problems.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#6They also didn't have iPhones or televisions.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#7> Scientists who spent 25 hours in the workplace were no more productive than those who spent five.
Anecdotally this is a concept I've run into in many areas of life, the most overt one being school, I suppose because it's so easily quantified.
You can do a moderately acceptable amount of work on any given assignment and get a C+, work hard for a B/A or work your hands to the bone for an A+, but at the end of the day all three students graduate.
At a certain point you get diminishing returns for working harder. On the flip side being able to be productive for those few hours consistently without burning out nets you long term growth.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#8After that, it was all downhill: The 60-plus-hour-a-week researchers were the least productive of all. Could causality be in the other direction? Researchers who aren't getting publication-worthy results spend more time in the lab desperately trying?
At least anecdotally the opposite is true.
Researchers who are getting publication worthy results are in general hustling to manage multiple projects, run experiments, write papers, apply for grants...
The most talented researchers I know are without exception the ones who willingly live in their own lab. By their own admission they love it though. I don't sense burnout.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#9Richard Hammings anecdotes of famous scientists would suggest otherwise... They may not look like they were working but They were always thinking on their problem. Working on a problem doesn't need to be done sitting in your desk but it can be done while on hikes with your colleagues or locked in the attic of your room. Their minds were constantly thinking of their problems.
I think about software development all the time too, but if I was in the office as often as I think about it, I would be so burnt out and depressed, I wouldn't get anything done.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#10Yet Another Article With Initial Caps Telling Me How To Live My Life