Live data from Hacker News

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

nautil.us

101–110 of 304 posts

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

#101
post #46
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…

In tech/development culture, working smarter equates to something like "I did this in 3 lines of Node". God help the maintainer or ops person when left pad is pulled or the performance suffers.

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

#102
post #59
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Given that students are almost always graded on how well they do on assignments/exams rather than how long they studied, your strong-man competition analogy doesn't make much sense.

You're implying that grades are an objective metric of value. This is often false, because the metrics for grading are oriented around what's easily testable, rather than what's actually a sign of good work.

Kind of like hours spent in a gym, actually.

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

#103
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…

> 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.

Forgive me but I must take you to task for this. The point of post-secondary education is not to graduate; the point is to get an education that enables you to succeed in your career. This may or may not matter if all you're doing is websites and CRUD apps (which should really be taken as a warning about the long-term stability of such a career) but that's not the fault of the degree program.

(Some may wish to point that grades don't necessarily correlate with mastery of the knowledge presented, and I'd have some sympathy for that, but that's a different argument entirely.)

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

#104
post #96

Maybe I missed it in this story, but this anecdote about Poincare himself is apropos: "The famous French mathematician Henri Poincaré was very interested in mathematical creativity. He describes a period of hard and seemingly fruitless effort to solve a problem, from which he took a break to join a geological expedition. As he was stepping on a bus, he made one of the most important breakthroughs of his life. The sol…

Some other anecdotes:

At seventeen Hussain went on forty-day self-imposed retreat known as a chilla, where a musician practices in isolation until a state is reached in which the music and musician become one. The removal of everyday distractions, combined with single-minded concentration on the practice allows the musician to attain a state of Samadhi or meditative absorption, where one enters into a deeper relationship with one’s own music, and comes in direct contact with the source of music itself. Visions and hallucinations are not uncommon, where one’s musical ancestors may appear and offer encouragement or criticism. What is certain is that the musician makes remarkable progress in his craft. Hussain recalls his first Chilla in Hart’s drumming “I saw things in the music that I had never seen before, new combinations, new patterns”. Six month’s later, against his father’s advice, Zakir was ready to do a second chilla. This time around, the visions were more intense, and Hussain had a premonition that he would soon go to America. From: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zakir_Hussain_(musician)

Or

“Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.” From: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to-...

Just presenting a different perspective. Its all too common to look at this idea of brilliant talented scientist to whom 'solutions come out of nowhere'.

The point really is it takes a lot of work to get to a point where you can paint a masterpiece or compose a symphony effortlessly.

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

#105
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being creative is like tending a garden. Ideas grow on their own, and all you can really do is prepare the environment to facilitate this growth. You do this by clearly defining the problem, fertilizing your mind with inspiration, and revisiting the problem periodically to keep it present. From there, you need to relax and let your brain do its thing. Actively thinking/concentrating actually inhibits brain activity i…

Not exactly: "Opportunities multiply as they are seized." - Sun Tzu One way to have good ideas is to have a lot of them and then filter. Even in highly creative endeavors like say music and painting, volume of work largely matters. You have to spend a lot of time(years) doing a lot of work before you get anywhere close to good.

You can work on a lot of different problems and still do the creative garden cultivation that the previous poster said. I do that. I've got about 10 prototypes for board and card games actively going at once at the moment, and I write down fresh ideas that pop into my head to come back to later.

Even if months pass, I'll get spontaneous ideas to certain projects that improve them a ton. But I have to feed my brain with fuel for inspiration constantly, and actively try to apply any interesting idea to my existing projects and see if they inspire anything new for them.

I can't find the quote now (It's written in a notebook I don't have on me at the moment), but this is apparently how Richard Feynman approached work, although by working on multiple problems at once, not projects (although all of my projects have problems :).

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

#106
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…

> 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. Forgive me but I must take you to task for this. The point of post-secondary education is not to graduate; the point is to get an education that enables you to succeed in your career. This may or may not matter if…

Elite and even state flagship universities do not see their mission as primarily career training [0]. You'll get that in vendor certification courses at your local community/technical college (Microsoft Certified whatever, Oracle Certified whatever, Cisco Certified whatever). Not generally under the heading "computer science."

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/...

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

#107
post #96

Maybe I missed it in this story, but this anecdote about Poincare himself is apropos: "The famous French mathematician Henri Poincaré was very interested in mathematical creativity. He describes a period of hard and seemingly fruitless effort to solve a problem, from which he took a break to join a geological expedition. As he was stepping on a bus, he made one of the most important breakthroughs of his life. The sol…

It's the seemingly fruitless effort that builds up our familiarity with a problem via intense focus on each small detail. With the clear, detailed problem built up, Poincare could look at it from a distance and see the solution.

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

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree about school. I see people constantly trying to use pattern matching and memorization to pass tests; always doing extra credit; putting too much effort into minor things; and exacerbating all of these problems by taking too many units in an effort to get out early. I don't know how they're not already burnt out. Meanwhile I never specifically study for a test. I've just studied regularly every day, thought ab…

I congratulate you on your innate talent that allows you to excel that way. In various subjects, particularly abstract mathematics, I had to grind heavily in order to keep up with the class. I attended every office hours and pattern matched heavily, studying into the wee hours. (I had tried your method and failed in previous semesters). Other subjects I had no problem. Low-level operating systems, writing, literary d…

I do not think we are in disagreement. I'm talking about the difference between someone who maximizes life and education versus someone who maximizes GPA. I'm taking it as a given that these two individuals are equally capable in whatever subject they're studying.

That said, I tutor mathematics and I hear all day long "I can't do this" and it has never once been true. For the people I help it is usually a matter of finding how they learn best (visual, verbal, hands on...) and/or finding an appropriate metaphor. And yes, even despite this, they often struggle; but genuine struggle is a good reason to put in more hours. I don't dispute that.

Your prof's answer is the kind of answer that disgusts me. It's not teaching. In mathematics it is exceptionally questionable, because it is tantamount to expecting you to derive the whole of mathematics by yourself.

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

#109
post #96

Maybe I missed it in this story, but this anecdote about Poincare himself is apropos: "The famous French mathematician Henri Poincaré was very interested in mathematical creativity. He describes a period of hard and seemingly fruitless effort to solve a problem, from which he took a break to join a geological expedition. As he was stepping on a bus, he made one of the most important breakthroughs of his life. The sol…

Similar to what Gelman said about what he called the Feynman method: "Step one: write down the problem statement. Step 2: think real hard. Step 3: write down the problem solution." His point was, I think, that not every scientist can work that way. Some are real treasures, come along one in a generation.

That's not the most useful lesson I'd take from that. (That's not a very useful lesson, because I guess if you're not already a Feynman level genius, too bad)

The more useful lesson, useful for anyone, is that sometimes sleeping on it (literally, or just doing a very different activity) helps.

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

#110
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

In tech/development culture, working smarter equates to something like "I did this in 3 lines of Node". God help the maintainer or ops person when left pad is pulled or the performance suffers.

Mm, you're talking about a microcosm of the buy-vs-build question. Only junior developers would obliquely state that using a library is always "working smarter". A much bigger aspect of working smarter is deciding that you don't need to build something at all because it's the wrong approach to solve a business problem.
Post reply on HN