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

261–270 of 304 posts

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

#261

Post by arcanus »

amelius wrote: post #223
arcanus wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You can learn some heuristics that will help you explore, but it is certainly no guarantee for finding anything.

Agree. Those heuristics were precisely what I was alluding to. It is all about how you explore that space. The best researchers have an amazing ability to intuitively ascertain promising directions. Many smart folks I know constantly spin their wheels working on problems that are intractable.

To me, that ability is the principle value add of a senior PI (aside from funding, of course!)

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

#262

Post by sedachv »

linkregister wrote: post #90
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 congratulate you on your innate talent that allows you to excel that way. In various subjects, particularly abstract mathematics, I had to grind heavily in order to keep up with the class. I attended every office hours and pattern matched heavily, studying into the wee hours. (I had tried your method and failed in previous semesters). Other subjects I had no problem. Low-level operating systems, writing, literary d…

> In various subjects, particularly abstract mathematics, I had to grind heavily in order to keep up with the class. I attended every office hours and pattern matched heavily, studying into the wee hours. (I had tried your method and failed in previous semesters).

Grinding will always fail with abstract mathematics because it distracts you from divergent thinking and spontaneous insights. The problem is that university courses are on a fixed schedule so people that need more time than allotted for this kind of study are not accommodated, which pushes a lot of people away from mathematics who could otherwise contribute.

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

#263

Post by glangdale »

unabst wrote: post #260

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 philos…

Yes indeed! From TFA: "Yet when you look closely at their daily lives, they only spent a few hours a day doing what we would recognize as their most important work. The rest of the time, they were hiking mountains, taking naps, going on walks with friends, or just sitting and thinking."

"Just sitting and thinking" sounds like part of their work, and the article deploys a sleight of hand to define this as "not really work" so that it can discover that these guys didn't work very hard.

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

#264

Post by Retric »

crazy2be wrote: post #243
Retric wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eve…

Well, I guess it all depends on what you mean by do poorly in life. High school valedictorians and child prodigies (especially the former) are disproportionately likely to hold positions of societal power. Just read the bio of any president of the IMF or the World Bank or the Federal Reserve. Essentially all of them graduate university summa cum laude or magna cum laude. Innovative scientists and people who move the…

Sure, when all you need for 'successes' is to be accepted credentials are useful. But, that just means you where picked it does not mean you actually succeeded at something.

It's the difference between getting funding, and not just having an IPO but actually pay real dividends for significantly more than total investments.

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

#265

Post by sedachv »

moftz wrote: post #163
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…

It took me nearly all of my college career to finally figure out how to actually be successful in my studies. I never had to work hard in high school to pass my classes (I think because my teachers held my hand a bit too much). I took that attitude to college and got my ass handed to me over and over again. I skated by for awhile until it was clear that I had to shape up or go home and go to community college. It too…

Don't apply to universities. Come up with a strong proposal for a research project, think about professors at the less popular research universities that you would want to work with, and see if any of them would be interested in having you as a student. Then you can apply and if the graduate program admissions department is not swamped with 95th percentile applicants you have a much better chance of getting in if the professor wants you in. If that professor happens to be on the admissions committee or is chairing the department or however the administration is set up at that university at the time you are applying you may even get the GPA requirements waived altogether. Professors are always up for competent students that are interested in the field, in working with them, and that can publish a lot of papers. As a student the last thing you want to do is get into your dream school only to end up being advised by a "difficult" professor.

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

#266

Post by raz32dust »

Depends on whether whatever you are doing is something with a finite goal and has clear steps (e.g, deliver a prototype, complete testing, complete a presentation, prepare for a test etc.) or something that is more exploratory and you are not really sure what you are looking for. Most of the work we do is of the first kind. In that case, the amount of work accomplished is directly proportional to time spent*focus. For the second type of work, there is no correlation. You just have to train your neurons to try all combinations until something clicks. People who are not doing research or art (i.e, most of us, despite what we'd like to believe) can and will see more results if they spend more time. You need to be able to recognize whether you are doing type 1 or type 2 work and plan accordingly. Time and focus is not going to help in type 2 work beyond a minimum. If you are doing type 1 work and stretching yourself, recognize the trade-offs you are making and don't burn out.

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

#267

Post by ksk »

bmer wrote: post #247
ksk wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wouldn't say logical reasoning is at fault here, as much as analogical reasoning.

But it is, because it ignores the reality of the situation. "People don't like to be constantly shown ads, and so if you don't show ads too much they might respond to the ads. They also say they want more truth in advertising so you should refrain from over the top advertisements that promise the moon." sounds like a reasonable logical argument. Except that practically speaking its not how it works and contradictory things often get you results. The main problem is that we're dealing with humans and also that logical arguments don't work well in heavily interconnected contexts.

As programmers we like to isolate and optimize and we will continue to run into a wall when we try to apply that in human contexts.

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

#268

Post by xapata »

unabst wrote: post #260

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 philos…

If you can keep 12 problems constantly present in your mind, you're a genius.

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

#269

Post by SilasX »

linkregister wrote: post #90
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 congratulate you on your innate talent that allows you to excel that way. In various subjects, particularly abstract mathematics, I had to grind heavily in order to keep up with the class. I attended every office hours and pattern matched heavily, studying into the wee hours. (I had tried your method and failed in previous semesters). Other subjects I had no problem. Low-level operating systems, writing, literary d…

>Eventually I realized that I was never grokking things with mathematics beyond a certain point. I was in office hours with the professor, asking how I could generalize the concept to a new problem. He said "just use your critical thinking skills! That's what employers are looking for."

That's the introvert's version of "just be yourself, you're overcomplicating it" -- i.e. just draw on innate skills that I have without realizing and you don't.

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

#270

Post by abandonliberty »

mythrwy wrote: post #216
abandonliberty wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Genre: Superhero?
Post reply on HN