31–40 of 49 posts
My concern is that "better at generating new ideas" != ("better at generating good/relevant ideas" || "better at accomplishing things") I tend to be more creative when I'm letting myself drift, but I need to focus in order to execute. As with most things, balance is the key.
The study results were interesting, but I find them hard to apply in a directed effort towards achievement. I just finished reading The Power of Full Engagement , and I find Loehr and Schwartz provide a more practical, workable model. Their idea, strongly supported by thousands of case studies, is that to maximize success (whether in academics, tennis, the corporate world, etc.) one must practice deliberate spurts of…
http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/
In particular note Ravi Vakil's 500+ page book-in-progress on algebraic geometry, as well as a blog -- he is constantly soliciting and incorporating advice from people who are reading the book. (Remind you of any advice you see often on HN?)
The study results were interesting, but I find them hard to apply in a directed effort towards achievement. I just finished reading The Power of Full Engagement , and I find Loehr and Schwartz provide a more practical, workable model. Their idea, strongly supported by thousands of case studies, is that to maximize success (whether in academics, tennis, the corporate world, etc.) one must practice deliberate spurts of…
I highly recommend this over Hartshorne: http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/ In particular note Ravi Vakil's 500+ page book-in-progress on algebraic geometry, as well as a blog -- he is constantly soliciting and incorporating advice from people who are reading the book. (Remind you of any advice you see often on HN?)
Thank you.
My concern is that "better at generating new ideas" != ("better at generating good/relevant ideas" || "better at accomplishing things") I tend to be more creative when I'm letting myself drift, but I need to focus in order to execute. As with most things, balance is the key.
Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation does not imply causation.
> The scientists measured the success of 60 undergraduates in various fields, from the visual arts to science. They asked the students if they'd ever won a prize at a juried art show or been honored at a science fair.
Art shows and science fairs, obviously the best / only indicators of success.
Man, either the article is terrible or it's shocking that this passes as "research".
The radio fundamentally changed how people thought. Verity shows and spoken word programs allowed people to close their eyes and visualize an environment inspired by the voice not demanded; this change opened the proverbial “box” of grand visions and ideas. They visualized how to work smarter and productivity became a new form perspiration, the world had evolved yet again.
I don't think people have an attention span problem (normally), I think we have evolved to the point where relevant context to our interests are essential to engagement. We see that in every form of professional life, how is the process different for children? Why do some VC's pass on a group, only for another VC to select them? Why has social communication gone from town squares to computing masterpieces in our pocket?
It all comes back to vision. Entrepreneurs of today, would find themselves in front of the family radio 100 years ago, dreaming of a more productive world and how to accomplish it. We have learned its more effective to visualize and build in bursts, than it is to just stay focused for an arbitrary amount of time. We utilize input from infinite sources that capture our attention, whether they're directly relevant to the subject we are creating, we create flexible work environments surrounded by an eclectic group of people to cultivate inspiration, focused on one task.
When people feel comfortable, essential and free to be individually themselves, you can turn an “attention deficit hyperactive” person into a solar flare focused energy that fuels the world we call business.
The study results were interesting, but I find them hard to apply in a directed effort towards achievement. I just finished reading The Power of Full Engagement , and I find Loehr and Schwartz provide a more practical, workable model. Their idea, strongly supported by thousands of case studies, is that to maximize success (whether in academics, tennis, the corporate world, etc.) one must practice deliberate spurts of…
I highly recommend this over Hartshorne: http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/ In particular note Ravi Vakil's 500+ page book-in-progress on algebraic geometry, as well as a blog -- he is constantly soliciting and incorporating advice from people who are reading the book. (Remind you of any advice you see often on HN?)
There's no way they're a teacher. None. You cannot do this in the education system. There's a law against it, or something. Maybe they're on the run, a renegade teacher, like the professor-version of Archibald Tuttle.