They also had another thing in common; they didn't care much about money
Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
181–190 of 304 posts
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#182They 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…
the "entrepreneur" narrative is swinging back to personal goals/development/balance, now that a bunch of people are failing in the 3rd wave (dotcom, the recovery, now post-crash). you're going to see a lot of this stuff.
obviously what you said is true but the real golden goose is working reasonable hours AND making really good money. a lot of people find that place eventually, a lot don't.
also i have a feeling the people who found a way to work 2 hours a day (or whatever) and make tons of money aren't really talking about it... for obvious reasons.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#183No desire to be famous but I can't see myself getting to where I am without working hard. I'm just not smart enough.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#184What did Darwin do to pay his bills?
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#185Mixed feelings on this -- I don't think sitting at a desk for 12 hours is useful for anything other than social signalling, but, there's a Stephen King quote I love: "Amateurs sit and wait for inspiration, the rest of us just get up and go to work." Sometimes you just have to grind. Some of my most productive days have been when I really really didn't want to work, but I had to, and somehow the inspiration came out of that.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#186I bet famous scientists spend almost every waking hour actively thinking about their subject of study, even if they're not necessarily sitting around pushing a pencil at their desk.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#187They 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're conflating knowledge work with manual work.
Knowledge work requires the brain to wonder...to explore a problem and possible solutions freely.
Michael Jordan wasn't trying to create anything new, he was trying to develop a physical skill. Physical skills are made via repetition.
Things like stress and distraction destroy knowledge workers. This is something every experienced engineer knows.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#188They 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…
an idea to consider
time might not be a very good dimension to compete along
because it has a firm upper cap
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#189The title is misleading - Darwin was pretty much always 'on the job', as we can see from his notes and correspondence.
In his early life he was a neglectful student, an underachiever. He was a late bloomer.
True - maybe he needed something to motivate himself, and he certainly found that!
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Not sure how much research backs this up, but I think it's a change in what's important. A 10 year old who copies someone else brilliantly is praised, an adult doing the same thing makes minim wage.
"Even prodigies who avoid burnout and resist social pressures are unlikely to make a big splash as an adult. The problem, notes giftedness researcher Ellen Winner, is that to make a major contribution in the arts, and even the sciences "you need a rebellious spirit and the type of mind that can see new things." Most prodigies, however, are acclaimed not for their innovation but "for doing something that's already been done, like playing the violin in the style of Itzhak Perlman." Only prodigies who can reinvent themselves as innovators, she says, are likely to leave a lasting mark during adulthood." https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200511/why-prodigie...