Live data from Hacker News

Work Hard (2007)

terrytao.wordpress.com

191–200 of 203 posts

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#191
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe an article he wrote called A Close Call: How a Near Failure Propelled Me to Succeed [1] might be of interest to you. "After many nerve-wracking minutes of closed-door de- liberation, the examiners did decide to (barely) pass me; however, my advisor gently explained his disappointment at my performance, and how I needed to do better in the future. I was still largely in a state of shock—this was the first time I…

Is this supposed to be a tale of overcoming adversity, almost failing some exam? The stakes are so low I can barely identify the conflict in the story. Actually failing something of actual importance and then overcoming the odds to succeed anyway would be a little less boring. He sounds like he's lived his entire life in a university basement and mistook the petty challenges of academia for real life.

The original poster made a comment about grinding to get a math PhD. You said Terrence Tao is a blatant counter example to that. I posted (I'll concede that I probably didn't display great quotes from the article or provide enough context) an article about Terrence Tao almost failing his PhD generals exam, which I thought would lend some evidence to the idea of grinding for the PhD, which is the original point under discussion. Since he passed the generals and he didn't prepare very well for it, may be you're right and that is weak evidence. I think the article does provide some evidence that others who were studying for their PhD in math at Princeton while Terrence Tao was studying for his were not relying solely on intelligence alone. Perhaps I'm wrong on that point too.

However, I don't think you're trying to criticize the article as bad evidence in relation to achieving a math PhD. You're going on about academia having low stakes and academia not representing real life. If I'm mis-characterizing this, then I apologize. I do believe you're moving the goal posts in this discussion. The original article posted is about math graduate school. That's all. It's not about real life. The first two sentences in the article establish this point.

> Relying on intelligence alone to pull things off at the last minute may work for a while, but, generally speaking, at the graduate level or higher it doesn’t.

> One needs to do a serious amount of reading and writing, and not just thinking, in order to get anywhere serious in mathematics;

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel in general by "hard work" people imply "putting in the time and effort". And I still contend, people who do put the time and effort into something probably find it easier to do so than those who don't. Let's say that "putting in time and effort" is the key to success, aka, "hard work" is the key to success. Alright, now what if you're finding it hard to "put in the time and effort"? I would say if you find it…

I get that. I think the definition of success obviously varies a lot as well, but if we talk about the upper echelon of anything, eventually everyone is putting in the time and effort, but there are people who are still above and beyond everyone else in that upper echelon. So the question becomes, whats the difference?

> So the question becomes, what's the difference?

It's mostly luck most of the time, and that includes the amount of motivation you have to go beyond in that venture.

This is mostly my opinion, but the evidence I've seen over the years lead me to conclude this too.

How motivated you are at one thing, and how exclusively focused your motivation is, from what I've read, is mostly luck. But beyond that, there's a lot of factor purely driven by luck, your genetics, your environment, the time and place of your efforts, etc.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if looking for actionable things related to working harder is a useless waste of time? It might be better then to look into medical, genetic and environmental aspects, and focus on that instead of trying to find tricks to work harder. For example, trying to change your environment might help more than busting your a$$. Can you move to a place with better access to education, books, or people with expertise? Can…

All what you describe requires the precursor of you throwing the dice to see what happens. >You can achieve that by finding something you have a natural aptitude for, or for which you have the right environment to succeed at. Again to explore this requires you to throw the dice and you will stumble upon it. Also aptitudes change with time and to explore the next aptitude requires you to throw the dice. You should als…

Yes, luck plays a big part of it, so it's important to redefine your perspective so you don't value dominance over others or class or such things, because that can be a lost cause. You were given a hand of card at random, and while there is some wiggle room in terms of how far you can make it given the cards you were given, a bad hand is still a bad hand, and can only let you do so much.

Focus on your personal growth, but understand your circumstances and where you start from, and recognize how much you managed to optimize and accomplish relative to that.

And in my opinion, there's no place for hard work within this framework. The feeling of hardship is your body telling you your circumstances ain't cut out for this thing. You also have the ability to reason, so you can reason that some hard things are worth pushing through the pain, like say for a life saving surgery. But sometimes I think people reason that they will be able to push through something, yet fail consistently to be motivated to do so. That's when you need to realize, hold on, ok, this ain't gonna work for me, I need to find something else that's easier. And no, the people who made it where you failed didn't do so because they just pushed through that same hardship, generally it just wasn't as hard for them to find the motivation to push through.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ range by occupation: https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx The 10th percentile of MDs is still above 100. The 10th percent of legal occupations is 100. Also: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-IQ-of-a-medical-do... Sources + people's estimates place the average IQ of a doctor well above 100. You seem very out of touch if you think that there's a large proportion of doctors and lawyers who have a…

Who said anything about 10th percentile? There is no universal ranking of doctors, you can't really claim "percentile of success" for doctors or lawyers, and it's weird you're trying to do so. Why is it so important to you that you have to be "smart" to be a doctor/lawyer?

You said: "I think you'd be quite alarmed by the number of successful doctors and lawyers who don't meet the 100 IQ bar you're setting here".

The number of doctors and lawyers who do not meet that bar appears to be slim to none, so I'm not at all alarmed...

> There is no universal ranking of doctors, you can't really claim "percentile of success" for doctors or lawyers, and it's weird you're trying to do so

I'm not claiming percentiles of success, it's IQ percentiles across all doctors and lawyers.

Regardless of how you define success, a very small proportion of doctors and lawyers don't meet the 100 IQ bar. And if you define success as anything other than having the job, that proportion gets smaller.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All what you describe requires the precursor of you throwing the dice to see what happens. >You can achieve that by finding something you have a natural aptitude for, or for which you have the right environment to succeed at. Again to explore this requires you to throw the dice and you will stumble upon it. Also aptitudes change with time and to explore the next aptitude requires you to throw the dice. You should als…

Yes, luck plays a big part of it, so it's important to redefine your perspective so you don't value dominance over others or class or such things, because that can be a lost cause. You were given a hand of card at random, and while there is some wiggle room in terms of how far you can make it given the cards you were given, a bad hand is still a bad hand, and can only let you do so much. Focus on your personal growth…

>a bad hand is still a bad hand, and can only let you do so much.

Very true. I had realized this during and after graduation some 15 years back. Exposed to the internet I saw people doing amazing things on open source and wanted to do the same but simply didn't have the infrastructure in my country to do it. I spent all my life struggling to be the best but my environment simply isn't conducive enough to recognize my effort. Now I think it was just a waste of time and I should have just lived and enjoyed the moment. There was also a talk by Linus Torvalds who said he is incredibly lucky to get to do what he is doing which really started the questioning process as I was always told to put hardwork when I was young and achieve things discounting the support for it.

>And no, the people who made it where you failed didn't do so because they just pushed through that same hardship, generally it just wasn't as hard for them to find the motivation to push through.

This sentence makes a lot of sense. Thanks! I have been exposed to a lot of wrong signals saying "I have done the hard work to achieve it and you should be doing it too or you are just lazy" without them not acknowledging the circumstances.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about 10th percentile? There is no universal ranking of doctors, you can't really claim "percentile of success" for doctors or lawyers, and it's weird you're trying to do so. Why is it so important to you that you have to be "smart" to be a doctor/lawyer?

You said: "I think you'd be quite alarmed by the number of successful doctors and lawyers who don't meet the 100 IQ bar you're setting here" . The number of doctors and lawyers who do not meet that bar appears to be slim to none, so I'm not at all alarmed... > There is no universal ranking of doctors, you can't really claim "percentile of success" for doctors or lawyers, and it's weird you're trying to do so I'm not…

There are way more than "slim to none" doctors/lawyers who are at or below 100 IQ.

Your citation is not accepted (it's from nearly 30 years ago, is a sample of men over 30 in Wisconsin, cites research from many years even older [50s and 60s], there's no accounting for correlation -- maybe doing harder work makes you better at taking IQ tests).

It's only doctors, who happened to be the folks who ran the study, that are substantially higher than every other group listed. I wonder why.

IQ is a predictor of success, but it is not an exclusive predictor. Unless you have a mental disability, you can be literally anything you want to be, and even if you have a mental disability, you can still be nearly anything you want to be.

Hard work is astronomically more important than IQ. The literal article you're commenting on is written by someone with one of the highest IQs in the world.

You're in disagreement with all these "high IQ" people you think are worthy of studying other humans, and given the option, I'm going to listen to them over you.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#197
>"It is also important to direct your effort in a fruitful direction rather than a fruitless one"

This is actually the most critical sentence in the entire article.

I read an article somewhere, maybe 25 or 30 years ago, that was about this exact topic.

Some successful scientist, I don't even remember his name now, was asked about his success.

He said that others worked just as hard and diligently. But his skill was in selecting the projects that had a high degree of probability of success. He would watch others in his profession and see how they made horrible choices in the selection of their work. The unsuccessful people made a series of unwise choices. Tilting at windmills that had exceptionally poor chance of success, areas where there was no funding available or very difficult to get funding, and all sorts of other problems.

The same thing is true with everything. For example, lots of people start businesses that are shitty selection right off the bat - they have almost zero chance of success before they even begin. All teh perfect execution and hard work will be for naught. The founder has blinders on.

You always hear about the successes. People always say false things like, the idea is 1%, execution is 99% of it. Not true. It's more like, the idea is worth 99%, and the execution is the other 99% of success. Trust me, I've seen a LOT of great execution on shit ideas and the company goes down the drain. You just never hear of them. And by the way, this is in regards to ideas that are actually have a corporation started around them, as opposed to just aimlessly talking about ideas.

Anyways, take what you will from what I just wrote.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there's anyone I'll listen respectfully to about the value of hard, diligent work, it's Terence Tao. Why? He is a genius, and most of us aren't geniuses.

He wrote eloquently about one of his failures in grad school iirc because he simply didn’t work enough nor seriously enough. Even though he is a genius there is quite a lot of work required.

Hey, are you talking about this article: https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202007/rnoti-p1007.pdf?

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#199
post #31

On a related note, this always trickles down to low level managers who then proceed to tell it to the floor workers. Trying to motivate a cleaner, assembly operative, driver, cashier, warehouse operative, packer and other low level workers with it is like telling them to go fuck themselves. It sounds like bullshit. It is bullshit. No one fucking loves these jobs. There's nothing to aspire to. Working hard means just…

To be honest, I don't see it as that different as a developer. None of my work makes the world a better place, and I work on products most people would see as essential and important. I want to be vague, but it's not like we make useless junk. The people pushing this garbage will be the ones seeing the benefits, I'll get a pat on the back if I'm lucking (and maybe like 1-3gs which will go right in my 401k)

Realistically, at mid-to-senior level, I've already seen all the significant changes to class that I will likely see. Hard work isn't even the main way to get ahead in the corporate world. Politics and social BS will have way more sway, and besides that, you just have to ensure that you don't have a reputation for incompetence (however exceptionalism is optional). Your mileage may vary, but in any case, hard work only gets you so far.

While I might be able to squeeze out an extra 10 or 20 grand here and there, salaries don't really go down, and it's not likely for that incremental improvement to have much of an effect. You know what will effect me though? Sacrificing the little personal time I do have.

It will only make me crazier and less healthy, by causing me to skip self-care and socialization. Something has to give, and I will not be seeing my friends, skip working out and cooking, or my house will be a disaster. I've done the math and 40 hours plus cooking/cleaning/exercise, basically yields 0 free hours, and whatever remains has to be use to relax or hang with friends.

It's just a bigger middle finger to the kind of low paying jobs you're talking about, because at least in engineering, you get a bigger payout for that sacrifice, and a chance of advancement. That's no small thing, and I'm not trying to say things are exactly the same, but it's not so different.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#200
post #31

On a related note, this always trickles down to low level managers who then proceed to tell it to the floor workers. Trying to motivate a cleaner, assembly operative, driver, cashier, warehouse operative, packer and other low level workers with it is like telling them to go fuck themselves. It sounds like bullshit. It is bullshit. No one fucking loves these jobs. There's nothing to aspire to. Working hard means just…

You would think the average HN'er wouldn't fall for it, but they do. The rich have been telling the poor how to live their lives forever. Jesus being the exception. (He wasen't rich) I only get offended by wealthy boys giving their midlife, or old age, success speech Or, thinking they can advise on art, philosophy, or writing, because they have a mouthpiece. Every one of them leaves out the emphatic wealthy father wh…

I thought I was the only one that got offended by that kind of thing, it's ridiculous. How have these people convinced themselves that they're actually better.
Post reply on HN