Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by InclinedPlane » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #144

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many f…

> Also, if you want to succeed, don't listen to these idiots. Statistically those who work harder succeed more. Period.

Here is the absolute crux of the problem. Putting in hours of toil is not how you get ahead in most fields. It's not an XP system, it's non-linear. More hours isn't better. More drudgery isn't better. You need to be putting in an appropriate amount of time but you also need to be using your time well. If you show up and you're just punching a time card you're not guaranteed any progress whatsoever. If you're working long hours chances are high that you're not putting in your best work, that a lot of the work you're doing is just rote, autopilot stuff, and that a lot of the time you're "working" you're merely being present in a work environment and not actually working.

Concentrate first on understanding what you're working on at a deep level, being present/mindful in your work, being adventurous and curious, and accepting of feeling like you're struggling. That takes a lot of effort and a lot of courage, it's always a struggle to expand your mental horizons or to explore the unknown (to you and to humanity in general). But it doesn't necessarily take much time. If you use your time efficiently you can absolutely get ahead, far ahead, of others who are working more hours and making less progress.

It's not a tradeoff, it's not a binary choice, it's a matter primarily of how effectively you use your time.

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

#202

Post by matwood » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #197

TheCowboy wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much aggression here. Relax. Working longer hours isn't equivalent to working harder. Plenty of unsuccessful entrepreneurs worked long hours and worked hard, and there are examples of people/businesses doing productive work with more balanced workdays. 99% of the people in the world live in a way to not be successful, but to have a balanced life with happiness? It should be obvious that for 99% of people,…

It's pretty clear that doing the 80 hour week is something that works well if you're, say, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. A difficult job, to be sure, but not top-notch in the grand scheme of things. You're not inventing quantum mechanics, you're figuring out ways for people to share more cat pictures. But if you are operating at the top of the pyramid of knowledge, like some of the people mentioned in the article, t…

> But if you are operating at the top of the pyramid of knowledge, like some of the people mentioned in the article, that's a different kind of effort.

Yeah, it's an effort they are probably thinking about 24/7. Defining 'knowledge work' is challenging because so much of the 'work' happens when the person is not sitting at the computer/desk. Creative work is similar.

Instead of saying so and so worked 4 hours/day, we need to change the definition of work.

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

#203

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #144

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many f…

That said, if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness

You seem to be using an extremely narrow definition of success. Perhaps you should articulate your premises more clearly.

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

#204

Post by linkmotif » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:30 PM UTC

I'm just going to drop this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10882202

You can listen to the guy who wrote this article. Or you can listen to John Carmack. 0_0.

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

#205

Post by exergy » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:30 PM UTC

gthtjtkt wrote: post #165

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #144

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many f…

> MOST successful people work very hard. Surprising right? Duh. If you're going to complain about an author making unsubstantiated generalizations, you should probably avoid doing the same.

I'm not OP, but this is an interesting moment to ask: would you not consider the "I worked harder than others, therefore I'm more successful" sentiment self evident?

In my experience, people in my group whom I'd categorize as "successful" have often been confident in making peace/having passion for the vocation of their choice, and have paid their dues so to speak, in terms of research papers read, hours spent with their instrument, hours of training for sport etc.

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

#206

Post by dv_dt » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:31 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #144

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many f…

> There are many famous athletes who worked long hours. Ask Michael Jordan.

Jordan also gets paid enough that he can hire a support infrastructure so that his long hours don't impinge on his down time. Did he get back after practice and then need to worry if his house is clean, or car needs to go into the mechanic, or do his bills, or even if his pantry and fridge are stocked with food? Likely no. Long hours for the extremely well paid don't have the same effect as the rest of us.

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

#207

Post by Florin_Andrei » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #202

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear that doing the 80 hour week is something that works well if you're, say, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. A difficult job, to be sure, but not top-notch in the grand scheme of things. You're not inventing quantum mechanics, you're figuring out ways for people to share more cat pictures. But if you are operating at the top of the pyramid of knowledge, like some of the people mentioned in the article, t…

> But if you are operating at the top of the pyramid of knowledge, like some of the people mentioned in the article, that's a different kind of effort. Yeah, it's an effort they are probably thinking about 24/7. Defining 'knowledge work' is challenging because so much of the 'work' happens when the person is not sitting at the computer/desk. Creative work is similar. Instead of saying so and so worked 4 hours/day, we…

I think it's virtually certain that, if they are indeed top figures in their fields, it's guaranteed that they are deeply involved in their work, and that means their subconscious minds are processing that stuff non-stop. But the subconscious is a funny thing, because it doesn't seem to require "effort" to operate, however you may define that notion.

It's the fully conscious, purposeful, organized work that requires "effort" and consumes "energy". Not even sure how to define these things properly, but everyone seems to understand them intuitively. Anyway, to be successful at the highest levels, it seems like you have to be awfully protective of this "energy" thing.

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

#208

Post by ggggtez » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:37 PM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #197

TheCowboy wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much aggression here. Relax. Working longer hours isn't equivalent to working harder. Plenty of unsuccessful entrepreneurs worked long hours and worked hard, and there are examples of people/businesses doing productive work with more balanced workdays. 99% of the people in the world live in a way to not be successful, but to have a balanced life with happiness? It should be obvious that for 99% of people,…

It's pretty clear that doing the 80 hour week is something that works well if you're, say, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. A difficult job, to be sure, but not top-notch in the grand scheme of things. You're not inventing quantum mechanics, you're figuring out ways for people to share more cat pictures. But if you are operating at the top of the pyramid of knowledge, like some of the people mentioned in the article, t…

>you're figuring out ways for people to share more cat pictures

Ahem, it's called "changing the world".

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

#209

Post by MaysonL » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:45 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #144

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many f…

Success, especially in science, which is what the article is about, comes from working on the right problem, and concentrating on it, more than from long hours or strenuous effort.

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

#210

Post by uptownfunk » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:45 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #144

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many f…

People who are successful and don't work hard are probably more an exception than the rule. Or maybe they're working hard and not in the office?

Higher likelihood of being successful if you work hard than not.

That said, these type of clikbaity articles are making me wonder where HN is going and if we have any measures in place to de-clickbait-ize the stories to prevent something like this from occuring..