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

31–40 of 169 posts

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

#31

Post by juanuys »

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.

And then he finds that the xylophone works in hall A and not hall B, and for the latter he has to get a slightly newer xylophone with more keys. Oh, and he has to learn a new scale invented by the xylophone's makers.

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

#32

Post by weinzierl »

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

> 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?

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

#33

Post by darawk »

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 everyone, but extraordinarily few of the people that had access to computers at that time went on to found multibillion dollar companies. The idea that the fact that he had access to computers somehow debunks the story of his merit is absurd to me.

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

#34

Post by silvestrov »

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…

> 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.

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

#35

Post by badlucklottery »

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…

>Lots of people had access to computers at that time.

More or less unfettered access during middle school in the late 60s?: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/24/bill-gates-got-what-he-neede...

"Lots" isn't a scientific term but I still don't think it fits here. He was probably one of a few people at the time to have a few years of in-depth experience before leaving high school.

I'd call it a "myth of omission". It's technically true but the missing details are very, very important to the whole picture. That doesn't mean he didn't work hard or have a knack for it though.

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

#37

Post by ianmcgowan »

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

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

#38

Post by torh »

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…

I feel that something is lacking in this study. The environment. Maybe the elite players had better support at home, maybe an only child? By the time these players, both elite and average, was picked out for this study, their life had already been clearly defined by their environment.

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

#39

Post by scandinavegan »

buster wrote: post #7

I'd think the key point here is focus. Short periods of very focused work is much better then a whole day of unfocused work. I guess that's true. And since you can't work hard and focused for eight hours, the elite players split it up in two time periods with some relaxation in between.

Short-term focus is why I fell in love with and still use Leo Babauta's GTD-related idea of MITs (Most Important Tasks). See links at bottom.

Each morning I set 3 tasks (sometimes 4 or 5 if I absolutely have to and they're small) that would make me feel good about the day if I finish. I write them in an otherwise empty text document, order them by importance, and start working on the first one.

These tasks can be large or small, sometimes even just "send this email" that will take 15 minutes to write, but is really important to send off. This also works great when working from home, because even if the environment is different, I can still feel productive if I at least finish those 3 things.

If I finish the 3 things early, I assess my energy level and either finish the day with organizing emails or reading up on stuff or other low-effort tasks, or I tackle one last MIT if I feel up for it. The point is to prioritize short-term focus of the 3 MITs instead of looking at the potentially endless list of todos I could keep picking from all through the day.

MIT: https://zenhabits.net/purpose-your-day-most-important-task/

Zen to Done: https://zenhabits.net/zen-to-done-ztd-the-ultimate-simple-pr...

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

#40

Post by MaximumYComb »

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…

"Lots" is an ambiguous term to use for how many people had access to computers in 1975, especially the type of access that you would let you become proficient at software development. I think you'll find an unusually high number of rich people in that list.
Post reply on HN