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

41–50 of 304 posts

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

#41

Post by pixl97 »

meow_mix wrote: post #35
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.

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)

From a business perspective it is probably better to burn though many people at 80 hours a week, rather than fewer 20hr week employees (er, or slaves as history goes). Since it is a low skill job and anyone can do it the employee longevity likely doesn't matter. An employee that has picked cotton for 1 month isn't likely to be that much worse than an employee that has picked for 1 year. Of course this is my anecdote, and picking cotton is rather brutal by hand, hence we have machines that do it for us now.

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

#43

Post by Veen »

amelius wrote: post #37
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...

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.

The article isn't entirely focused on scientists either. Many writers and other creative professionals are discussed.

I think with Jobs et al, for however long they work, it's likely they still only do a limited amount of focused creative work in that time. The rest is spent doing the every-day politicking, intuitive decision-making, and administrative stuff that goes along with being a CEO.

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

#45

Post by amelius »

dheera wrote: post #13
1propionyl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nam…

Of course, merely by statistics, there must be a few exceptions too, i.e. lab slaves becoming famous by accident. And the question then is if those exceptions are more abundant than those famous people going for the hard results.

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

#46

Post by smokeyj »

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…

> I suppose because it's so easily quantified.

I wonder what's being quantified.. intelligence or obedience.

This would be like rating a strong-man competition by how much time was spent in the gym and how much unnecessary pain was self-inflicted.

It's like there's a culture of "pain enthusiasts". They do things like talk about running until it hurts, they tend to get injured often, and of course they have nothing to show for their dedication.

I'm realizing that there's a mentality about these people. The idea of working smarter and not harder literally offends them. The idea that the amount of work is less important than the effectiveness of work offends them. These are often the same people that voice their concerns about working from home and why it can't work. My suspicion is because their value is measured by "time in the gym" rather than tangible real-world results.

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

#47

Post by jtraffic »

vikiomega9 wrote: post #30
Cyph0n wrote: post #22

Earlier 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.

I totally agree here. Sometimes I've been frustrated at the lack of flexibility to use assignments in a self-directed way. I like the idea that you should "never waste a good deadline." I've always admired students who find creative ways to learn what they want while still getting credit.

The assignment from which I learned the most and which I had the most fun on was totally open ended other than some general methods.

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

#48

Post by Veen »

laurentdc wrote: post #10

Yet Another Article With Initial Caps Telling Me How To Live My Life

No one is telling you how to live your life. This article merely points out that there's evidence that common assumptions about the relationship between the amount of time worked and productivity aren't accurate.

What you choose to do with that information is entirely up to you. You may enjoy working 80-hour weeks and achieving as much as a person who works a 20-hour week. Others may differ.

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

#49

Post by contravariant »

pixl97 wrote: post #41
meow_mix wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

From a business perspective it is probably better to burn though many people at 80 hours a week, rather than fewer 20hr week employees (er, or slaves as history goes). Since it is a low skill job and anyone can do it the employee longevity likely doesn't matter. An employee that has picked cotton for 1 month isn't likely to be that much worse than an employee that has picked for 1 year. Of course this is my anecdote,…

If the amount of experience is irrelevant why not use more employees for shorter periods of time?

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

#50

Post by smokeyj »

Cyph0n wrote: post #32
vikiomega9 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

But cheating is a valid strategy.. Colluding when everyone else is competing is exactly what intelligent people do. Not following the rules because they're stupid is what intelligent people do. It's not mutually exclusive to understand the fundamentals and cheat. The idea that we should compete with our peers for a chance at higher education is like a dystopian hunger games novel.
Post reply on HN