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

#211

Post by cocktailpeanuts » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:48 PM UTC

anotherhacker wrote: post #187

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'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.

i'm not conflating anything more than what this article is doing.

On the other hand, you are guilty of taking my words out of context. It's convenient to just take michael jordan and use it as an argument, isn't it? I also mentioned another "knowledge work" example.

I'm not saying scientists should be working 18 hours a day. In fact when it comes to scientists and researchers I do agree that you should NOT work too hard because you will burn out, and most creative ideas come when you're taking a break.

But it's not cool to take that example and tell the world you should "slack off" because it's "scientific". That's not how the world works. If you want to achieve something, you can't win against someone who go all in. Simple as that.

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

#212

Post by cgriswald » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:52 PM UTC

vram22 wrote: post #127

cgriswald wrote: post #60

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 think the core problem for most people is that they are attached to the wrong outcome. Their goal is the high GPA. Likely to be true for many people. I remember my uncle, who was a prof. in the US, bemoaning the fact (and this was way back) that some of his students used to come and ask him "What do I need to do to get an A?" His point being, of course, that those students did not have a genuine interest in the su…

I've seen the same. To me it always came across as "Your chosen field of study bores me. What's the least amount of this thing which you've devoted your life to that I can learn without it affecting my future in any way? Please provide this in checklist form." Why would any prof respond positively to that?

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

#213

Post by sangnoir » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:54 PM UTC

exergy wrote: post #205

gthtjtkt wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not OP, but this is an interesting moment to ask: would you not consider the "I worked harder than others, therefore I'm more successful" sentiment self evident? In my experience, people in my group whom I'd categorize as "successful" have often been confident in making peace/having passion for the vocation of their choice, and have paid their dues so to speak, in terms of research papers read, hours spent with t…

> I'm not OP, but this is an interesting moment to ask: would you not consider the "I worked harder than others, therefore I'm more successful" sentiment self evident?

No - I consider the sentiment very unscientific. I suspect that a significant percentage of people who think they put in above average effort fall below the average. That's assuming we can agree on a common definition of "hard work" - is physically toiling, clocking in hours, mental anguish, perseverance or a combination of the above?

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

#214

Post by MaysonL » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:55 PM UTC

yomly wrote: post #161

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"

Very few people have the stamina, energy, and brain and emotional chemistry to perform on three out of three for very long.

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

#215

Post by datalus » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 7:01 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…

Steve Jobs had a shit personal life. No thanks.

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

#216

Post by mythrwy » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

abandonliberty wrote: post #151

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…

In an environment with few opportunities, a B/A is not good enough. Highly recommend the Indian film "3 Idiots" for a great critique of the pressures that students face in other parts of the world. It's also one of the most accessible and enjoyable Indian films.

Seconded. 3 Idiots is fantastic fun film. If you haven't seen it you should!

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

#217

Post by camelNotation » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 7:08 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #191

camelNotation wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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, l…

No. you define your own success. For most people it's a social thing so you look at people around you and define your success. That's why people buy home, buy cars, etc. That's fine but you should really have control over what you consider as "success". When I say success I mean having a clear goal of where you want to go and achieving it. If you want to be "cool" and just enjoy your life AND achieve what you want ou…

>When I say success I mean having a clear goal of where you want to go and achieving it.

I strongly disagree with this. Goals - insofar as they exist at all - should always be small, fluid, and constantly shifting based on how you evolve and grow as a person. Who you are in five years should be completely different and better than the person you are today. That only happens by establishing systems of behavior that meet higher order ideals of what is good and virtuous, not embedding your entire understanding of success into a single end point. It's far more effective to measure the hours of each day by the quality of your habits than the years of your life spent fighting for some arbitrary accomplishment that may never come.

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

#218

Post by agentgt » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 7:10 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…

> Also, if you want to succeed, don't listen to these idiots. Statistically those who work harder succeed more. Period.

I'm mean I generally agree but one thing I really can't stand is people believing that success is entirely hard work.

The reality is most of success is "standing on the shoulder of giants". People are generally successful if they are given a massive starting advantage. That starting advantage could be genetics (which can be argued easily since that is sort of hidden) and wealth (of which there is less denying).

You mention Bill Bates. Bill and both Mark Zuckerburg went to Harvard. Both had(ve) affluent parents. Even Steve had some nice advantages as well. As well in the case of this article most scientist have/had affluent parents.

Of course there are Cinderella exceptions. I don't know stat wise what it is but I'm guessing low.

I just don't want to hear hard work always equals success when most board rooms are filled with the white good old boys network.

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

#219

Post by amelius » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 7:10 PM UTC

xiaoma wrote: post #54

amelius wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "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." Three of the most important scientific papers in modern history—uncovering the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion and the special theory of relativity—were written about a hundred years ago by a man who could only sign them "Mr." when first writing them. About…

> Science isn't restricted to or based on credentialed people.

You are correct, but what other evidence do we have showing whether these people are scientists?

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

#220

Post by ksk » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 7:19 PM UTC

anotherhacker wrote: post #187

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'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.

Creativity also applies to athletes. They have to come up with new solutions to solve problems all the time - such as coming up with a novel way to bypass the defense of the opposition and score, given a particular situation. Just because they combine their physicality with prior experience, knowledge and cognitive ability (which they can't use too much of given the "realtime" demand) doesn't make them any less creative. IMHO They're more creative than most people on here who are implementing CS ideas already explored decades ago.