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

51–60 of 169 posts

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

#51

Post by rorykoehler »

weinzierl wrote: post #32
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

> That’s a difference so subtle it’s down to chaotic systems and butterfly wings for that particular race. I don't know much about swimming but in bicycle races and skiing close results seem to be very common. Now if it really is "down to chaotic systems and butterfly wings" I wonder why we don't see much more variance amongst the winners?

Cycling is much more tactical. Trying to win by a large distance reduces your odds of winning.

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

#52

Post by Pranz »

d--b wrote: post #44

Er... These guys are still practicing 50 hours per week. FIFTY. That's _a_lot_ of violin. So assuming you take one day off per week, you still need to pack 8 hours and 20 minutes of practice per day. So, we stack these hours in 2 sessions of 4 hours and 10 minutes per day. One in the morning and one in the afternoon. So what does it look like? They work from 8am to 12.10am, then take a break until 2pm, then work from…

The 50 hours likely include other things than just practice, like analyzing songs, reading about music e.t.c.

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

#53

Post by rorykoehler »

ianmcgowan wrote: post #37
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…

You are the embodiment of one of my favorite words. Sprezzatura "a certain nonchalance, so as to conceal all art and make whatever one does or says appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it" and also more briefly "studied carelessness". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprezzatura

There is a very good cafe and roastery beside an old client of mine in KL called Sprezzatura. I as least assumed it was a made up name! It’s actually an exceptionally good name for this type of business.

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

#54

Post by close04 »

hadlock wrote: post #47
darawk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Myth: Bill Gates is a college drop out who found success in a technical field purely based on personal merit. Reality: Gates' private high school gave him more access to computers than Harvard, and continuing at Harvard would have been a waste of time given his level of experience in the field. In what sense is that a myth? He is a college dropout. Lots of people had access to computers at that time. True, not ever…

Bill Gates' parents were board members at other companies with moderate influence in the local Seattle business community. There is a good chance that he would have been more successful than most people at even just selling office supplies due to his connections. It's not like he grew up in the rough part of town and got in to Harvard through a hardship scholarship.

Indeed it was Bill Gates' mother, Mary, who had the clout to introduce Bill to IBM's the president, chairman and CEO John Opel while both serving on the board of United Way of America. This paved the way for Microsoft's deal with IBM.

I've heard so many way below average dropouts from nameless universities or high-schools justify their "performance" by mentioning how Bill Gates was also a dropout without realizing that Gates dropped out of Harvard (!) after already having an excellent education and most likely being above average at all relevant topics for his future career.

The myth isn't that Gates is a dropout but that he's the average dropout, or that being a dropout is somehow a signal of greater things to come.

This comic makes for an eye opening read for many [0]. (Edit: updated link, thanks, it must have been a case of copy/pasta).

[0] https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilswo...

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

#55

Post by deepGem »

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…

"Just working hard is a recipe for failure for most people."

It is quite impossible to just work hard unless you are forced to. I mean there has to be some spark, some excitement about the work you are doing. Which typically means you have some inkling to do take on this task, which you may not be good at but with hard work you will make progress and eventually good at the task, and this self fulfilling cycle continues.

I am not however certain that this process will equip you to spot good opportunities. You can be really good at what you do and not even realize how many opportunities in that same space have gone by. You may be very content with your status quo. There could be multiple reasons for not spotting opportunities.

So I wouldn't say that just working hard is a sure recipe for failure.

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

#56

Post by csallen »

piazz wrote: post #19

It does indeed seem like the arrow of causality may be backwards here. Many people I know who are truly naturally talented are relaxed because their work does not subjectively feel difficult to them. Yes, they push themselves hard and strive constantly to improve. But when the nature of your work matches the contours of your mind perfectly, it's not really work – it's purpose. In this zone you can feel yourself excel…

This doesn't seem to match what the article says. It's not saying that the elite players feel relaxed, nor is it saying that they don't need to force themselves to study.

Rather, it's saying that they studied exactly as much as the lesser players, and that they did so with more discipline, both by spending more time on deliberate/hard practice, and by strictly scheduling their practice sessions.

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

#57

Post by koonsolo »

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…

You are correct, but I think you have to make a distinction between being successful, and being the best in your craft. Those two not always align, and the article talks about the second one.

If you look at top athletes, where being the best in your craft is priority, talent, quality of training and rest are the most important factors. I agree that the same is true for mental work. Look at the daily schedules of famous writers and scientists. 6 hours is a full day of work, with a lot of resting and walking.

But if you move into the realm of successful people, all those things that you mention come into play. They can also handle more work hours because management is not as intensive as serious mental work on 1 topic.

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

#58

Post by zumu »

darawk wrote: post #43
silvestrov wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In what sense is that a myth? That Harvard provided a better education than his High School and that leaving Hardvard is someting only loosers do.

Nobody goes to Harvard for the education. They go for the degree. The thing he abandoned was the credential - and that his high school did not give him.

You really go for the connections, which he clearly didn't need.

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

#59

Post by notahacker »

darawk wrote: post #33
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…

> Myth: Bill Gates is a college drop out who found success in a technical field purely based on personal merit. Reality: Gates' private high school gave him more access to computers than Harvard, and continuing at Harvard would have been a waste of time given his level of experience in the field. In what sense is that a myth? He is a college dropout. Lots of people had access to computers at that time. True, not ever…

The myth is the usually intended implication that Gates fell into the category of people who for whatever reason couldn't cope with their college, and not somebody who actually had one of his college papers published in an academic journal before taking leave from Harvard to found a company

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

#60

Post by rusk »

hanoz wrote: post #30

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.

If he has appropriate training in music theory it should be easy to get moving more quickly though ... that said in this specific example muscle memory is a factor so maybe all the keyboards in the office getting switched to dvorak is a better metaphor!
Post reply on HN