I am not Einstein but in my 40s and definitely doing a lot with my time: on one side it was hard commitment and fierce hustling for 15-20 years in the past, on the other side hustling increases efficiency and high-level productivity dramatically, so that I can now do a lot (and well conceived / designed) in a very short time. Low-level implementation is invariantly slower though, be it by yourself or delegating. As an analogy with more talented people, I suspect scientists finding their Eureka! moments easier worked very hard for a long period in their past.
Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
31–40 of 304 posts
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Good point, otherwise cheating would be a valid strategy (ethics aside).
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#33And 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...
Musk might run a successful company but that's not really a science
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#34And 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…
> Except as executives, their work is a little different than skill workers.
This, which is addressed in the first chapter of "Deep Work" by Cal Newport. The concept of long periods of uninterrupted concentration and singular focus applies to researchers, programmers, artists, and other occupations. But an entrepreneur does not require "deep work" (though can certainly apply it).
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#35If 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.
If you pick cotton for 80/hr a week I promise you won't be picking cotton in the long run as long as the guy only doing it 20 hr/week (you will develop physical problems very quickly)
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#36If 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
The methods of testing employed by most manufactures of that time period are extremely flawed and considered blatantly unscientific today.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#37And 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...
Those people are not scientists. Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors. Jobs dropped out of University. And Gates is probably closest to a scientist, although I'm not aware of any research by him.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#38I 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.
For some data I suggest the following books, if the subject interests you:
"Peak: Secrets From The New Science of Expertise"
"Deep Work"
"A Mind for Numbers"
All are pretty engaging reads!
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#39Richard 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.
Bill by results/projects not by time?
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
The methods of testing employed by most manufactures of that time period are extremely flawed and considered blatantly unscientific today.
Robinson also points to studies in construction industry run in the 1980s.