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

271–280 of 304 posts

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

#271

Post by wfo »

Qwertious wrote: post #102
jartelt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that students are almost always graded on how well they do on assignments/exams rather than how long they studied, your strong-man competition analogy doesn't make much sense.

You're implying that grades are an objective metric of value. This is often false, because the metrics for grading are oriented around what's easily testable , rather than what's actually a sign of good work. Kind of like hours spent in a gym, actually.

They are pretty objective, but you're right they are oriented around what's testable. This mostly is true in large intro classes -- specialized grad courses (well really qualifiers), advanced undergrad courses with 10 students, they're testing good work. But what's testable is generally straightforward and pretty easy. So if a student can't even do well on what's testable they don't have a prayer at moving farther than that. Excepting for students with special needs, learning disabilities, etc.

It's like if we wanted to test someone's ability to run a mile but had no way to measure time. We'd still test them to see if they could complete it, and if they can't, well they certainly can't do it quickly. But anyone competent can most certainly pass that basic test.

Grades aren't an opportunity to show off, they're an opportunity to express basic competence.

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

#272

Post by dilemma »

hospes wrote: post #253
rhino369 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Believing them would be naive.

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

#273

Post by dilemma »

sjg007 wrote: post #57
wainstead wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except as executives, their work is a little different than skill workers. This, which is addressed in the first chapter of "Deep Work" by Cal Newport. The concept of long periods of uninterrupted concentration and singular focus applies to researchers, programmers, artists, and other occupations. But an entrepreneur does not require "deep work" (though can certainly apply it).

There is some deep work for the executive / entrepreneur which is to figure out what to build or where the market is going.

Yes, it is required for the creative parts of the job which is building a coherent vision, strategy and planning.

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

#274

Post by JeffR1992 »

This article resonates with me in so many ways. I barely managed to get into any university in my home country, but once I was accepted to one, I set up a strict and timed schedule of 5 hours of concentrated work each day, outside of classes and other mandatory requirements, and left each evening for recovery. A few years later the structured work payed off and I am now completing grad school at Stanford. I honestly thought I would be working in a video rental store in my tiny hometown for the rest of my life. Let's home the structured approach continues to help into the future.

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

#276

Post by jackhammer2022 »

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…

Also here's the Feynman algorithm[1]:

- Write down the problem.

- Think real hard.

- Write down the solution.

This article not only falling for survivorship bias but also confirmation bias [2]

1: http://wiki.c2.com/?FeynmanAlgorithm 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

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

#278

Post by Spooky23 »

selestify wrote: post #164
Retric wrote: post #150

Earlier 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?

I think the posters are making some subjective judgements that vary from the norm.

There was a Boston College study awhile back that tracked a group of valedictorians. The were almost all successful and satisfied with life, but were more likely to be in professions. (Doctor, nurse, accountant, etc)

In this forum, entrepreneurs are on a pedestal. It's a different personality type -- when people with entrepreneurial instincts are in an environment that doesn't support them, they tend to do poorly.

My sister was a valedictorian. She's smart and creative, has a great career in a great company, is in a good marriage and has a happy family. Success by any measure that I can think of. There are people on HN who know who she is, but she is unlikely to be a billionaire tech mogul, which seems to be the standard of success in this particular story's comments!

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

#280

Post by asafira »

dvtv75 wrote: post #249
asafira wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a PhD, I want to give a word of caution: Classes in school are really almost nothing like doing research (or taking on any large, difficult project). I still take some here and there personally, but the main idea in this article isn't about finding a optimum point on the grade vs. effort plot (I totally agree with your assessment though!). I'm not sure I buy the "you get diminishing returns for working harder" in…

As a counterpoint to this, my second year in CS had four papers (Programming, Data Structures and C, Operating Systems, and Networks). The course was being revamped one year at a time, and right at the beginning of second year there was a problem with the workload: they had set the load and level for Programming to final year level. A dozen (out of 140ish students) dropped out by the end of the first week, and by the…

Regarding this comment, I have a general broad question for the HN community: I honestly find it hard to strike a balance between being extremely cautious in my writing/responses, and being straight-forward and clear. What is the right balance?

In this case, of course I don't mean to say that every class in existence follows this grade vs. effort plot. There are absolutely incredibly difficult classes where this is not true, and you need a lot of effort just to pass.

The fact of the matter is that this is absolutely not true in general. I didn't mention that in my comment, but I totally agree there are counterexamples of classes, it's just that the vast majority of classes follow the trend of being pretty easy to just pass (considering classes of all disciplines here --- for example, I know many people that have taken literature courses, pulled an all-nighter before each paper due date, otherwise didn't work at all, and passed. All together the class took maybe 30 hours of work outside the classroom for the entire semester!)

Post reply on HN