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

251–260 of 304 posts

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

#251

Post by cocktailpeanuts »

Since so many people here are talking about how "in science it's different, you need to just chill out. Science is all about creativity and you shouldn't work hard if you're in a "creative business"", let me just leave this link here: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/work-hard/

If one of the best mathematicians of our time is saying "Work hard", it probably means more than some rando who writes for some blog.

If you want to just "chill out" and live a fun life, feel free to do so, the world would suck if everybody worked hard. It's actually great that you guys decide to believe working less is good for achieving what you want, because the ones who actually know what's up have higher chance of success.

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

#252

Post by kafkaesq »

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…

At a certain point you get diminishing returns for working harder.

Diminishing returns on your health and in actual quality work of done, for sure.

But unfortunately you also tend to get "increasing returns" in terms of appreciation by uninspired middle-level managers, who tend to think: "We know he's a good worker 'coz we can see him workin'!". Which is unfortunately the great majority of them. Who themselves tend to be deeply insecure about their own position and how they're being evaluated, and so forth.

And so the world keeps going, round and round and roun,

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

#253

Post by hospes »

rhino369 wrote: post #138
hospes wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors Having PhD or working on it is not a prerequisite for being a scientist. Musk is not in academics, but he is a CTO of a SpaceX, so he is in charge of scientific and technological issues within an aerospace company. He does more applied science than vast majority of scientists that I can think of. Edit: Typo

>He does more applied science than vast majority of scientists that I can think of. Does he do it or does he manage a company and people who do it?

People who work with him say he does both managerial work and scientific.

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

#254

Post by taocoyote »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #251

Since so many people here are talking about how "in science it's different, you need to just chill out. Science is all about creativity and you shouldn't work hard if you're in a "creative business"", let me just leave this link here: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/work-hard/ If one of the best mathematicians of our time is saying "Work hard", it probably means more than some rando who writes for some b…

I would argue that "working hard" and "working long hours" are not the same thing.

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

#256

Post by amag »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #251

Since so many people here are talking about how "in science it's different, you need to just chill out. Science is all about creativity and you shouldn't work hard if you're in a "creative business"", let me just leave this link here: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/work-hard/ If one of the best mathematicians of our time is saying "Work hard", it probably means more than some rando who writes for some b…

Breathing is not just inhaling, you also need to exhale.

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

#257

Post by antognini »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #251

Since so many people here are talking about how "in science it's different, you need to just chill out. Science is all about creativity and you shouldn't work hard if you're in a "creative business"", let me just leave this link here: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/work-hard/ If one of the best mathematicians of our time is saying "Work hard", it probably means more than some rando who writes for some b…

I think Terry Tao's advice is consistent with the original article:

> There is an important distinction between “working hard” and “maximising the number of hours during which one works” ... Generally speaking, it is better to try to arrange a few hours of high-quality working time, when one is motivated, energetic, prepared, and free from distraction, than to try to cram into one’s schedule a large number of hours of low-quality working time when one or more of the above four factors are not present.

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

#258

Post by zymhan »

taocoyote wrote: post #254
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #251

Since so many people here are talking about how "in science it's different, you need to just chill out. Science is all about creativity and you shouldn't work hard if you're in a "creative business"", let me just leave this link here: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/work-hard/ If one of the best mathematicians of our time is saying "Work hard", it probably means more than some rando who writes for some b…

I would argue that "working hard" and "working long hours" are not the same thing.

Yes, merely staying late to work every day won't lead to a breakthrough.

Being so absorbed in your work that you forget to stop working is a by-product of really enjoying your work and wanting to learn more. You can't force enjoyment of (or a breakthrough in) a subject just by slaving away for hours after the office closes.

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

#259

Post by martingoodson »

As a counterexample, Hans Geiger was a workaholic. Rutherford said he "works like a slave… [He] is a demon at the work and could count at intervals for a whole night without disturbing his equanimity" [1]

He eventually discovered the atomic nucleus, so I guess it paid off.

[1] http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/science-and-technology/ph...

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

#260

Post by unabst »

I suspect if you counted the hours they were thinking about their work, the conclusion would be the exact opposite.

Granted, we are talking about "thinkers" here. We can think sitting on the toilet or taking a shower, and maybe even better than staring at a book.

Walking to get your juices flowing surrounded by clean air and a soothing environment would make any hiking trail a great office for any scientist or philosopher.

"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer. "

― Albert Einstein

"Richard Feynman was fond of giving the following advice on how to be a genius. You have to keep a dozen of your favorite problems constantly present in your mind, although by and large they will lay in a dormant state. Every time you hear or read a new trick or a new result, test it against each of your twelve problems to see whether it helps. Every once in a while there will be a hit, and people will say, 'How did he do it? He must be a genius!"

- Gian-Carlo Rota, Indiscrete Thoughts

Post reply on HN