I am as happy as the next person to accept that you can work less and achieve more.
Ordinarily, I would protest that there is no data here, just some anecdotes.
But in this case, I say, let's just accept this claim at face value.
Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
11–20 of 304 posts
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#12Richard 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.
Link to a transcript of Hamming's talk on the subject:
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#13After 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.
publication worthy != famous
Publication-worthy scientists try to manage multiple projects, work slave hours in the lab, interact with people 60+ hours a week, shaving themselves to fit perfectly into the mould of the scientific community. Sure-fire 50% improvements on existing results should be chased, because you'll get a paper in your name. Low-hanging fruit should be chased, because you'll get a paper in your name. Papers in your name gets you degrees, tenure, and more grants. Forget chasing 10-fold improvements. 10-fold improvements are dangerous because they're likely to fail -- too risky when you're trying to get grants, get tenure, or get your PhD.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1436
Famous scientists didn't care about tenure, PhDs, papers, or any of that crap. They cared exclusively about 10-fold, 100-fold, 1000-fold improvements. Some published papers in peer-reviewed journals, but many had a hard time getting them reviewed because of their controversial ideas, especially if they were theoretical.
Of course, for every famous scientist, there are hundreds of others that tried and failed hard, and you never heard about them.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#14Richard 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.
Yeah, just because it takes me 2 hours to physically type out the code does not mean I was not working on it mentally for weeks leading up to it. I think this is kind of the age-old question of "where does creativity happen" (replacing 'work' with 'creativity' in this context).
Most physicists, philosophers, and mystics will maintain that time does not actually exist, but is a conceptual projection in a sphere of transformations, so trying to measure things like creativity and time may not lead to very useful correlates. However, the fact that one should focus ones effort in small, useful periods, is precisely what I take away from information such as this.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#15The 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.
As a poet I must contend that no flower blooms late for its own rhythm. They're all right on time.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#16Your subconscious grinds away, even when you do not work.
Then you see or hear something, a final piece in a puzzle, and an idea is born!
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#17If their job was, say, picking cotton, then the hours they spent at work would directly correlate to their work output.
So what is the difference?
Maybe scientists are still thinking about difficult problems when they are away from work. Like when they are sitting in their porch swing with nobody else around to distract.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#18There is being at work for long hours and actually being productive during that time. They are different things.
There are still many jobs and/or management mentalities that see "butt in seat" as productive time. Especially in "brain labor" jobs versus physical labor jobs where your time working is inherently productive.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#19After 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?
Consider the scientific method starts only after a hypothesis is made. A hypothesis is certainly informed by prior art, but even the most limited hypotheses have some kind of a leap they're trying to test; A hand extended in some direction in the darkness. It's not science there, it's intuition.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
In his early life he was a neglectful student, an underachiever. He was a late bloomer.
As a poet I must contend that no flower blooms late for its own rhythm. They're all right on time.
Though I admit I'm mused,
this is Hacker News,
so you're gonna have to specify time signature
otherwise this is just conjecture.