Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 304 posts

Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours

#21

Post by itamarst »

DannyB2 wrote: post #17

If 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.

For factory work at least this is not true. Multiple people and real-world experiments, from Henry Ford to German factories, have found that 40 hour workweek maximizes output: http://www.igda.org/?page=crunchsixlessons

Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours

#22

Post by Cyph0n »

YCode wrote: post #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…

Exactly. I view school as an optimization problem where the goal is to find the minimum amount of work that will get you the maximum performance (grades, effective learning), while also minimizing the negative impact on other aspects of your life.

I was a straight A student all though my major (EE), but I never hesitated to take a B+ if I felt the amount of work needed for an A wasn't worth it. In addition, I made sure to enjoy my free time and work on stuff that I love (software dev, for instance!). I think I was successful: IIRC, I pulled 1 all nighter in my 4.5 years as an undergrad.

Obviously, I didn't graduate with a 4.0, but I got a high enough grade to get admitted to an excellent school for a PhD.

Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours

#23

Post by Asooka »

bdavisx wrote: post #9
j7ake wrote: post #5

Richard 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.

Or otherwise said - "Your get your best ideas on the toilet/in the shower/walking around."

Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours

#24

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

j7ake wrote: post #5

Richard 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 need to figure out a way to bill for time I've spent thinking about the problem rather than the time my butt was in the seat.

Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours

#28

Post by drzaiusapelord »

whistlerbrk wrote: post #26

And then on the flipside there is Musk, Jobs, Gates and countless others who work(ed) all the time. All I'm saying is I see a lot of emulation-of-success articles posted here...

>who work(ed) all the time.

Except as executives, their work is different than a skill workers' work. I mean, they don't have a manager busting their ass about TPS reports, they made their life their work. So a two hour lunch meeting that is 50% bs'ing is 'work.' Leaving at three to go golfing with a few guys, one of whom who is vendor, is 'work.' Going to the birthday party of a partner's kid is 'work.' Staying late for a meeting where you sit quietly munching on a bagel and watch those below you sweat through a presentation is 'work.'

They're human just like us and only have x amount of productive hours. Low key managerial tasks, networking, socializing, and sitting through meetings isn't exactly the same thing as sitting at the compiler agonizing over someone's legacy code and burning your brain out. If you're doing hard skill work that requires serious concentration, you simply can't do that for 8-12 hours a day. You can push 4-5 and then you're done and if you don't recognize your limits you're entering burn-out zone. Unlike a high level executive you can't take a 4 week 'working sabbatical' to a Greek island and work by answering emails on the beach when the stress catches up to you. You have your vacation days and that's it and you better hope its not crunch time when you do burn out.

edit: grammar fixes

Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours

#29

Post by mythrwy »

The guys on the article were walking about on huge familial estates and had servants.

I on the other hand have a mortgage to pay.

Out of the box creative thinking as the result of leisure is great. Sometimes it pays off. More often it doesn't. Sadly most of us don't have the luxury of finding out. At least for now.

Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours

#30

Post by vikiomega9 »

Cyph0n wrote: post #22
YCode wrote: post #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…

Exactly. I view school as an optimization problem where the goal is to find the minimum amount of work that will get you the maximum performance (grades, effective learning), while also minimizing the negative impact on other aspects of your life. I was a straight A student all though my major (EE), but I never hesitated to take a B+ if I felt the amount of work needed for an A wasn't worth it. In addition, I made su…

A point of note is finding that minimum amount without sacrificing future growth in terms of learning/skill set, ie. learning to learn or understanding a fundamental.
Post reply on HN