Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by yomly » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:37 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #144

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many f…

Agree but the danger is equating only hard work to success.

i.e. successful? => works_hard?

But works_hard? => successful? does not necessarily follow.

In the words of Bezos:

"You can work long, hard or smart, but at Amazon.com you can't choose two out of three"

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

#162

Post by mod » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:37 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #147

Note that work hours mostly means hours spent at one's job site (e.g., at their university in the case of an academic scientist). My experience observing people when I was at Caltech, and observing a few top software and hardware engineers in industry, is that the most productive people do work the way Bruce Banner handled anger in the Marvel movie "The Avengers": Steve Rogers: Doctor Banner, now might be a good time…

I often remember a blog post or something that I read by a programmer--I'm sure I discovered it here.

Anyway, he said that his wife was conditioned to not interrupt him no matter what activity he was doing, because he might be 'programming' while doing something like tending his garden.

I think all of us programmers have experienced the phenomenon where we get stuck, then stand up and walk away and within 5 minutes we have 5 new possible solutions in mind.

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

#163

Post by moftz » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:37 PM UTC

cgriswald wrote: post #60

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 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…

It took me nearly all of my college career to finally figure out how to actually be successful in my studies. I never had to work hard in high school to pass my classes (I think because my teachers held my hand a bit too much). I took that attitude to college and got my ass handed to me over and over again. I skated by for awhile until it was clear that I had to shape up or go home and go to community college. It took a couple years to build up my skills but by the end of my college career, I was getting the semester grades I should have been getting the whole time. My GPA didn't recover as much as I had hoped it would but I graduated. I was able to get a job where the recruiter didn't ask me what my GPA was, probably a major reason why I got the job in the first place.

Now I have to think about a grad school because it's pretty much required for my field of engineering. I'm not sure if any grad school would be interested in my pitiful grades from back then.

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

#164

Post by selestify » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:39 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #150

jartelt wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I am just arguing that someone's grade on a test is directly linked to how well they do on the test and not necessarily on how much studying they did. If you don't like university tests, that is fine (I do not believe they are perfect either). But, they do a decent job of determining if a student knows a specific set of facts and can solve a specific set of problems. I have graded these tests before and no where…

The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results. So, when you look objectively you find the most highly paid author has zero relevant accolades. in academic terms, gave the appearance of doing what was necessary".[18] Rowling recalls doing little work, preferring to list…

> The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results.

Interesting, do we have any explanations for this phenomena?

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

#165

Post by gthtjtkt » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:42 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #144

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many f…

> MOST successful people work very hard. Surprising right? Duh.

If you're going to complain about an author making unsubstantiated generalizations, you should probably avoid doing the same.

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

#166

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

arcanus wrote: post #139

Verdex_2 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be really interested in someone elaborating on this idea "phd is an apprenticeship for researchers". Several people have insisted that I should go into a phd program, but when I looked into it I saw a lot of: learn how to do grant applications, publish this non-reproducible and barely significant result just so you have something published, work on a phd adviser's bad idea so he can take the credit, etc. If y…

Much more important than the idea is the process you learn how to vet and research the idea. That is the 'support'. Now I can independently expand on my own ideas, and reject unpromising ones. Some are born with this skill, but many who think they have it... don't. A PhD isn't really about doing something useful, although that is typically a result. It's learning how to explore an idea and expand upon it. Your adviso…

[deleted]

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

#167

Post by mempko » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:45 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #144

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many f…

I'm curious why you think Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the rest "worked long hours". Being there for 16 hours a day is not the same as working 16 hours a day. There are days where I feel busy but get very little work done. I suspect because these guys ran these companies like kings in a fiefdom they had a lot of busy work.

Let's not conflate time wasted to time worked. Also intellectual jobs most certainly require walks, sleeping, and leisure because creativity is a right-brain activity.

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

#168

Post by jes5199 » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #144

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many f…

sure entrepreneurs work hard, but they produce very little of lasting cultural value. If you want a legacy, you have to be more creative.

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

#169

Post by ythn » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #144

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many f…

Yes but it's currently popular to speculate on the automated future where nobody works and everyone gets free money.

Yet, I have a hard time believing that vision of the future. My vision of the future is one where people still need to work, and those that work harder will reap more than those who don't.

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

#170

Post by mythrwy » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:48 PM UTC

Fricken wrote: post #132

mythrwy wrote: post #29

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.

I spent my early 20s working 2 shifts a week at a bar. It doesn't cost much to buy yourself the time and headspace needed to get from 0 to 1 as a creative worker. It was a rich life. It still is. All that's changed is that I travel more. Priorities, man.

Oh, fully agreed. It's not like it's 1874 and we pretty much all have a fair amount of leisure relatively speaking.

It's just I've noticed a fair number of "great contributors" to human knowledge and civilization appear to have had a lot of trivial things in life taken care of out of the box. As opposed to those who come up scrabbling (who often wind up wealthy but aren't necessarily great contributors in an intellectual sense). The Greek philosophers, Buddha, people like Thomas Jefferson, the people in this article. All some degree of wealth and leisure and other people (initially at least) taking care of the small things for them.

There are always the Ben Franklins though so I guess it's not a universal truth.

Just kind of makes me wonder what humanity could be if so many people weren't born into a world that required a hustle or die mindset. Meh, probably just a lot more video game screencasts on YouTube:) But maybe not.