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

If you're busy, you're doing something wrong (2011)

calnewport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 169 posts

Re: If you're busy, you're doing something wrong (2011)

#21

Post by BLKNSLVR »

RangerScience wrote: post #13

People are focusing on this term "busyness", but what I see resembles more "deliberateness". It's like... Let's theorize that the underlying mechanism of excellence is "strength of focus", in the same way that weight lifting is "strength of muscles". The elite player's practice schedule then resembles HIT vs the average player's aerobics. It's similar to how work/life balance isn't just about leaving the office, but…

That reminds me of this, "seemingly non-sensical but rings true upon reflection" quote:

If you want something done, give it to the busiest person

Re: If you're busy, you're doing something wrong (2011)

#22

Post by tapland »

Swizec wrote: post #16
caseymarquis wrote: post #9

Seems like a bit of a tail wagging the dog situation. How do we know the more relaxed/organized schedule leads to success, and not that success leads to a more relaxed/organized schedule? This reminds me of some other advice I remember reading: No level of hard work or organization will substitute for talent and opportunity, and nearly all success stories to the contrary are missing key facts. ie Myth: Michael Jordan…

Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard. But crucially, at the peak of the game, both talent and hard work are just the cost of entry. The rest is luck and opportunity. For example: Phelps won the Olympics by a knuckle . That’s a difference so subtle it’s down to chaotic systems and butterfly wings for that particular race. Overall everyone at that level is hugely talented and incredibly hardworking

But most importantly for your example: genetically superior for the task. =/

Re: If you're busy, you're doing something wrong (2011)

#24

Post by bsanr2 »

I think anxiety is the key here. Everyone is capable of deliberate practice, but the degree to which one can sustain it for an extended, discrete session varies a lot by how the stress people feel from outside sources or from the process of mistake-making inherent in practice intrudes on and interrupts their focus. It could be that some subset of average players would be better if the stressors could be dealt with.

Re: If you're busy, you're doing something wrong (2011)

#25

Post by varvar »

DavidPiper wrote: post #11
caseymarquis wrote: post #9

Seems like a bit of a tail wagging the dog situation. How do we know the more relaxed/organized schedule leads to success, and not that success leads to a more relaxed/organized schedule? This reminds me of some other advice I remember reading: No level of hard work or organization will substitute for talent and opportunity, and nearly all success stories to the contrary are missing key facts. ie Myth: Michael Jordan…

Kudos for debunking two myths knew about and believed at face value. I agree with the talent + opportunity + hard work combination, and I would say that enjoyment is also necessary for the hard work not to become (self-)destructive in the long term.

The myths are promoted as means to raise hope in the "little man" and to attract new blood (workers) to the specific industries, thinking they can also become as big as the stars of that industry, starting with very little.

This is very deceptive, and probably gets people into trouble more often than not, changing their long term orbits based on fantasies built on selective factology about what is enough for success.

Re: If you're busy, you're doing something wrong (2011)

#26

Post by taneq »

dsaavy wrote: post #2

Key factors that separated the elite players from the average: - one morning and one night period of very deliberate practice - an extra hour of sleep - leisure time was rated as more relaxing

Well crap, I’d better start rating my leisure time as more relaxing.

Re: If you're busy, you're doing something wrong (2011)

#27

Post by BjoernKW »

war1025 wrote: post #3

I think this might be somewhat tangential to what the article has to say, but I think there is a fair amount of mindset to the "busyness" thing. Some people seem to think that "busyness is next to godliness", so they make sure never to let anyone see them idle. They don't so much focus on what they are doing, just that they are doing something . I've always taken the opposite approach. I go out of my way to make it l…

> Some people seem to think that "busyness is next to godliness"

"Idle hands are the devil's workshop." ...

There are entire ideologies based on this kind of thinking.

Interestingly, both Protestant work ethic (which some argue gave rise to capitalism) and communism (because in communism the value of a product arises from the work put into it rather than its market value) are centred around this idea.

Re: If you're busy, you're doing something wrong (2011)

#28

Post by tempestn »

tapland wrote: post #22
Swizec wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard. But crucially, at the peak of the game, both talent and hard work are just the cost of entry. The rest is luck and opportunity. For example: Phelps won the Olympics by a knuckle . That’s a difference so subtle it’s down to chaotic systems and butterfly wings for that particular race. Overall everyone at that level is hugely talented and incredibly hardworking

But most importantly for your example: genetically superior for the task. =/

Which is basically another form of talent.

Re: If you're busy, you're doing something wrong (2011)

#29

Post by scythe »

varvar wrote: post #25
DavidPiper wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kudos for debunking two myths knew about and believed at face value. I agree with the talent + opportunity + hard work combination, and I would say that enjoyment is also necessary for the hard work not to become (self-)destructive in the long term.

The myths are promoted as means to raise hope in the "little man" and to attract new blood (workers) to the specific industries, thinking they can also become as big as the stars of that industry, starting with very little. This is very deceptive, and probably gets people into trouble more often than not, changing their long term orbits based on fantasies built on selective factology about what is enough for success.

>The myths are promoted as means to raise hope in the "little man" and to attract new blood (workers) to the specific industries, thinking they can also become as big as the stars of that industry, starting with very little.

Why invoke conspiracy when mere venality will suffice? Optimism sells. Hollywood has warmed its benches with a never-ending stream of would-be stars and filmmakers despite the fact that the image of the struggling Hollywood hopeful is as cliche as that of the morally intermittent lawyer.

Perhaps one of the strangest things about our psychology-and-PR-dominated world is that psychology is so subtle and powerful that it affects us even when it is not affecting us, making us see ghosts in the shadows of folklore. What would be so nice is a list of criteria for determining when a meme may have been designed for cultural impact. Surely cui bono is not enough -- it implicates nearly everything!

Re: If you're busy, you're doing something wrong (2011)

#30

Post by hanoz »

Good job the violinist works in the music industry not the software industry, or he might find after all his sessions of focused deliberate practice that now no-one wants to hear the violin anymore, and he must in future focus his efforts on the upcoming disciplines of both xylophone and clarinet.
Post reply on HN