Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 304 posts

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

#221

Post by Sharlin »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #194
gregmac wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Why would you not be happy if you achieve what you want in life? Sure it's a stressful journey, but if you ask me if i would pick between a life that actually served a purpose vs. a life I just lived because I lived, I would pick one that aimed to serve a purpose any day, no matter how stressful it is. You may think living a balanced "happy" life is happiness, but when you're at your deathbed and think back at your l…

As far as I know, most people wish on their deathbeds that they'd have worked less, been with their loved ones more, and generally would have done more anything else than work.

I get that there are extremely driven individuals who want to achieve great things - and some of them are even able to do so - but articles like this should be understood in the context of a culture where common people work themselves to death trying to achieve "success" defined by the surrounding culture rather than in their own terms.

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

#222

Post by ksk »

sangnoir wrote: post #213
exergy wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 toi…

Its rather odd that you chose to fight the battle of what is 'scientific' simply based on logical reasoning - which is flawed to begin with. Logical arguments serve no purpose here without practical proof.

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

#223

Post by amelius »

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…

> Now I can independently expand on my own ideas, and reject unpromising ones.

Unpromising in what sense? Unpromising for you personally, or for the greater good of humanity?

Research always comes with a risk. It is called "re-search" and not "re-find" for a reason. You can learn some heuristics that will help you explore, but it is certainly no guarantee for finding anything.

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

#224

Post by adarsh_p »

This may have been true during Darwin's time, but it simply does not apply in today'a academic world. The level of competition for grants, publications, etc. is way, way higher than before. Not that I've conducted a survey, but I'm pretty sure every professor at an R1 university works at least 60 hours a week, if not more.

Source: Am finishing up my PhD in theoretical high energy physics.

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

#225

Post by megalodon »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #211
anotherhacker wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

You can't count productivity in hours. Someone who goes "all-in" 6 hours a day can certainly accomplish more than someone who says they go "all-in" 12 hours a day.

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

#226

Post by rawrmaan »

charlieflowers wrote: post #175
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 ca…

As someone who has been on both sides of this equation, I think you've phrased it very eloquently. Well said.

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

#227

Post by ryandrake »

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…

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

For good or bad, academic performance is measured with GPA, so you should not be surprised to see people optimizing for this measurement. You can't measure "interest in the subject" and even if you could, you could not judge teacher and/or student performance based on it, so instead we have GPA.

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

#228

Post by wutbrodo »

Pica_soO wrote: post #172
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…

> some ignorant person, in violent denial regarding creative work

What an apt description of the tone of the top of this comment subthread.

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

#229

Post by ksk »

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 think this exposes the "religious" nature of humans in general, including plenty of people on HN. You see them using logical arguments to reason, instead of practical proofs (presumably in order to get away from personal bias). Surprisingly they end up with even more bias when using logical reasoning.

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

#230

Post by AngeloAnolin »

"The rest of the time, they were hiking mountains, taking naps, going on walks with friends, or just sitting and thinking"

I think in most likelihood that the creative mindset of these people ticked when they were doing these stuff, hence, once they get back to work, their focus is so sharp and intent on finishing.

Post reply on HN