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

#171

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

collyw wrote: post #159

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 am willing to bet that starting with a million in the bank will make you more likely to succeed that working hard. Didn't Thomas Piketty's book come to a similar conclusion?

All things equal, the person who works harder will usually come out on top (of course, there's always some RNG). Applies to all areas of life. Scenarios where you have an unfair advantage (money in the bank) are irrelevant here.

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

#172

Post by Pica_soO » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:48 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…

You can not control your sub-conscious, the one part that glues together the creative part of your work. You can feed it, you can walk it and you can hope that the digestion pours out something useful. This might look like slacking off to some ignorant person, in violent denial regarding creative work. Because, if break-troughs are not gained by mechanically grinding away for hours on logic riddles, till you level up to genius- it might be the "work hard, not smart" that's actually lacking off.

One can treat this like a sport, can threat this like a craft. But then you still will never be a da Vinci, or a van Gogh - elevating a whole field by digressing and recombining . Just another speed-painter hoping that his great day shall come after the 1000x tourist portrait.

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

#173

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

this is such a typical HN discussion; misleading headline provokes reaction to the headline rather than the content of the article. nowhere in the article are entrepreneurs discussed, or doctors, or anyone else whose work requires many hours of clocked-in work.

the fundamental claim of the article is that deliberate focus in a creative field cannot happen without deliberate rest. you can't always be on if you want to achieve the types of breakthroughs which underpin the most significant steps forward in science, literature, and music.

that's it. he never discussed Gates' work habits, except in context with Gladwell's 10k hours for expertise thesis. he then goes on to say that those 10k hours do not exist in a vacuum, and that this number is often misinterpreted; those 10k hours of focus also require a commensurate amount of leisure and rest.

he even specifically says that "[scientists'] legacies are often easier to determine than those of business leaders or famous figures", which to me says that those individuals are outside the scope of his discussion. how so many people here are projecting that conclusion is a mystery to me.

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

#174

Post by jordanmoconnor » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:50 PM UTC

I'm just spitballing my opinion here.

One of my favorite quotes is: "Most people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in ten years." - Bill Gates

Working long hard inefficient hours might get you short term gains, but consistent effective work over years will bring long-term success.

Typically (for me) putting short time constraints on projects amplifies my focus and cuts down on wasted time. The best way to cut down time is to have a well planned path of execution (know what you're doing before you sit down and don't do anything else).

That's how you can be successful without necessarily working long hours.

I'm not successful in terms of my own standards, but I think this makes sense.

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

#175

Post by charlieflowers » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:52 PM UTC

importantbrian wrote: post #120

There was a poll on HN a couple of years ago that asked how many productive hours each reader had in a given day, and if I remember correctly there was a large plurality that picked 4-6 and a rather large group that picked 2-4. Which seems to square fairly well with my personal experience and that of the scientists in the piece. I often wonder how much actual work people who spend 80 hours in the office are actually…

I used to spend 80 hours in the office. Most of it was waiting around for everyone to go home so I could get some programming done.

Now I'm much more balanced. I realized I want to have work I'm passionate about, and go at it with all the gusto I have, but also limit it to a timebox so it doesn't take over my life.

Everything that involves reaching "as far as you can" needs to also be boxed. Otherwise, it's like a cancer cell that "grows as much as it can" until it destroys you.

So, define a box for how much you want to work. Inside that box, work like a single-minded barbarian. But outside the box, enjoy life, smell the roses, and participate in hobbies. That's my formula now.

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

#176

Post by gregmac » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:54 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…

> if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness

What good is (your definition of) success if you do nothing but work and are unhappy? Or did you mean something else by this?

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

#177

Post by dnautics » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

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...

I would say a huge distinction is that for scientists the expected failure rate is in the 80%-90% range; so diminishing returns hit harder and sooner. Success is more contingent on keen observation and pivoting to a better ground idea. For Musk, Jobs and Gates, who are more like engineers, the expected failure rate is much much lower. There is still a 'fail fast' paradigm that is effective, but it's effective in a very different way.

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

#178

Post by danohu » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 5:59 PM UTC

importantbrian wrote: post #141

agarden wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you referring to this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7900741

No, I looked, but couldn't find the exact one I was looking for. It had a lot of responses and was in a purer poll form.

maybe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=493152 ?

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

#179

Post by camelNotation » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:00 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…

>That said, if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness, then go live your life whatever way you want. In fact that's how 99% of the world live their lives.

Human beings have struggled for thousands of years to define what it means to live a good life and be "successful." Few (if any) ever associated success with the acquisition of wealth. Even the rich ones, like Marcus Aurelius, did not consider wealth to be an indicator of a good life. It's rather odd that you would do so with such flippancy and dismiss those that pursue other avenues of fulfillment as "not successful".

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

#180

Post by squidlogic » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:02 PM UTC

gregmac wrote: post #176

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…

> if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness What good is (your definition of) success if you do nothing but work and are unhappy? Or did you mean something else by this?

Not OP so I can't say what is meant by "happiness" here, but maybe if you feel your life can serve a purpose other than your own pleasure/comfort you would be willing to experience less pleasure/comfort to achieve that goal. That's different than happiness, but maybe that's what he/she was getting at.