Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deep Work and the 30-Hour Method for Learning a New Skill (2018)

azeria-labs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: Deep Work and the 30-Hour Method for Learning a New Skill (2018)

#41

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

magneticnorth wrote: post #7

Interesting that this is currently #1 on HN, but (as of right now) 100% of the comments are dismissive & derogatory. How does this happen? Is it just easier to leave a negative comment than to say something meaningful if you enjoyed the article?

Mine[0] wasn't "dismissive or derogatory." In fact, I clearly complimented the author.

I just mentioned that I have a personal aspect (not actually an advantage, at times), that sort of gives me the same thing.

I realize that people that are heavily invested in orthodoxies can sometimes consider all "non-positive" feedback to be "derogatory," but that's on them.

There's a lot of really good, decent, intelligent, skilled people in this world, and the vast majority of them manage to be that way without any mentoring from me. I applaud and support them; but I also won't insist that they meet my personal bars, and will push back, if they insist that I meet theirs (not all the time -sometimes, they have every right to expect me to meet their bar. This is not one of those times).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23846545

Re: Deep Work and the 30-Hour Method for Learning a New Skill (2018)

#42

Post by tinkertamper »

coldtea wrote: post #21
magneticnorth wrote: post #7

Interesting that this is currently #1 on HN, but (as of right now) 100% of the comments are dismissive & derogatory. How does this happen? Is it just easier to leave a negative comment than to say something meaningful if you enjoyed the article?

> How does this happen? Is it just easier to leave a negative comment than to say something meaningful if you enjoyed the article? For one, posts are often upvoted based on their title/subject, and only afterwards are read and evaluated for their content.

What is that based on? Anecdotally the folks around me right now agree a common flow is:

1. See hn link.

2. Go directly to comments.

3. Top comment is seen as counter argument to the article.

4. Discuss on premise defined by top comment (not article).

Unless there’s a way to safe for sure (ex HN weighs in with analytic data) it’s all speculation.

Re: Deep Work and the 30-Hour Method for Learning a New Skill (2018)

#43

Post by mrkstu »

have_faith wrote: post #25
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #18

It's a nice site, and she does seem to be quite qualified. I applaud her drive to "give back." That said, I have found that I don't really need this, myself. That's mostly because I'm a bit "on the spectrum," and tend to drop into what I call my "fugue state." When I am in this state, I can churn out a vast amount of really good code, with almost no working documentation, as I can keep a fairly complex system in my h…

Sounds very similar to Hyperfocus[1] from the AD(H)D world which is something I became very interested in for a while. There are certain subjects that can sustain a state of hyperfocus for me and certain subjects that make me question if I'd had enough sleep. On the surface this sounds a bit psuedo-sciency as if asked anyone would say "yeah I also have things that interest me or don't..." but there's certainly someth…

My main problem is guiding hyperfocus to the thing that needs to get done right now.

I have a weird anxiety avoidance that makes me willing to do almost anything, including very hard things, if it isn't the thing that is necessary. I can hyperfocus on just about anything else.

I've slowly learned to redirect back to the necessary thing, but its been a decades long path to overcome the tendency.

Re: Deep Work and the 30-Hour Method for Learning a New Skill (2018)

#44

Post by catwind7 »

vp8989 wrote: post #31

The sad thing is that the way the software industry is structured, it creates environments where juniors are doing the deep work and people with more experience are doing shallow logistical work. We have it totally backwards.

this seems a bit like a false dichotomy - I don't think that's how the software industry is structured. Maybe it's how companies with dev teams in _certain_ industries are structured. I've even had managers in the past who did deep work in addition to doing some of the more logistical work of project planning / story breakdown and it's almost a basic expectation that a senior engineer be hands on with the most complex, business-critical systems

I agree if companies don't have non-management tracks for experienced engineers. That does result in the environment you're talking about in about the worst way where your most experienced eng's are unhappy / hate managing and inexperienced eng's are stuck with bad managers

Re: Deep Work and the 30-Hour Method for Learning a New Skill (2018)

#45

Post by Buttons840 »

I read this article years ago and have logged about 1,800 hours using this system.

Like many, when it comes to personal projects, I want to accomplish something and enjoy myself. The problem is that those are often at odds with each other: accomplishing something worthwhile requires hard work that isn't always enjoyable.

I've modified the system slightly to a "20-Hour Method" but the idea is the same.

I decide on something I would like to learn or work on and focus on it for 20 hours. Remarkably, I felt the weight of this decision for the first time, I knew my decision would direct a significant amount of time and effort. I never felt this before, because I knew my decisions would only last until the first small obstacle.

This system is how I balance the trade-off between doing what I enjoy and pushing through the hard times. It's not a motivational trick to me. It is the objective way I have decided to balance the trade-off between hard work and constant enjoyment. With few exceptions, I know that the only way out is through, so I do the hard work, and when 20-Hours rolls around, I often find I do want to continue, even though I hated some parts along the way.

Re: Deep Work and the 30-Hour Method for Learning a New Skill (2018)

#46

Post by _y5hn »

jonpurdy wrote: post #27
commandlinefan wrote: post #22

"The importance of deep work" seems so fundamental that you'd think everybody would be aware of it by now - yet open offices are nearly universal (or at least were before this corona virus panic started). Is it that the people making the decisions genuinely don't understand "deep work", or that they think everybody can do their "deep work" for four years in college and be done with deep work for the rest of their liv…

In my experience, the people making those decisions are aware of the benefits of deep work. But optimizing for it has commonly been a lower priority than other things like the ability to drop in and interrupt developers since that directly benefits them immediately.

I just got confirmation that one of the true reasons was "control", ie. being able to have an eye on every worker. Many managers feel out of touch in the modern workplace, so it's not just employees who are frustrated. The next "fix" in the eternal swing of the pendulum is of course: easier access and overview on workers.

The problem is, nobody else care about your "deep work", or benefit much, except yourself. The pendulum always swings too far, and turn back..

Re: Deep Work and the 30-Hour Method for Learning a New Skill (2018)

#47

Post by fouc »

Topgamer7 wrote: post #15
ericsoderstrom wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's often the case with HN posts. I think people find an article valuable they simply upvote, but if people don't find an article valuable they leave a comment explaining why.

I find it more likely its either up-vote stuffing, or direct intervention from a HN moderator.

There's only a handful of HN moderators and it's unlikely they have the time to worry about that.

Re: Deep Work and the 30-Hour Method for Learning a New Skill (2018)

#49

Post by [deleted] »

wittyreference wrote: post #35
magneticnorth wrote: post #7

Interesting that this is currently #1 on HN, but (as of right now) 100% of the comments are dismissive & derogatory. How does this happen? Is it just easier to leave a negative comment than to say something meaningful if you enjoyed the article?

"I agree" adds little to the conversation. "I disagree and here's why" adds more, and is more emotionally satisfying to write. Though it's not uncommon to see posts of the "I agree, and here's an anecdote as to why" variety getting heavily upvoted, but those are harder to write, and so less frequent.

[deleted]

Re: Deep Work and the 30-Hour Method for Learning a New Skill (2018)

#50

Post by sbuttgereit »

burkaman wrote: post #14
magneticnorth wrote: post #7

Interesting that this is currently #1 on HN, but (as of right now) 100% of the comments are dismissive & derogatory. How does this happen? Is it just easier to leave a negative comment than to say something meaningful if you enjoyed the article?

Positive comments that don't "add any value" are heavily discouraged on HN. Unless you have some deep expertise or experience that you can use to expand on the article, it's usually best to not comment. Negative comments that don't add value are not viewed the same way for some reason.

It's also much, much easier to be against something than to be for something.

All you need to do is find some flaw or imperfection, comment on it, and so long as you're not wrong... you'll at least be counted amongst those making valid observations; even if what you're pointing out isn't fatal to the proposition or fails to win the big picture case.

Making a positive assertion however is much more difficult. You have to not only find a valid observation but then be convincing that the supporting observation makes a compelling case in favor of the proposition; perhaps with supporting evidence, etc.

So a flaw can stand on its own and be factually true, but a supporting argument must be part of a larger framework of support to have meaning. And I'm not so sure this is wrong by itself. Positive statements and assertions should have solid foundations to win the day.

Where I think we go wrong is we allow the negative arguments win the day for an opposing position. We let the ease of someone making a negative argument confuse us into thinking that person's opposing proposition is right and is so doing we fall into the trap of false alternatives. Current public discourse, speaking in the US, has taken this problem to the extreme. Activists come out against one thing or another, often times with legitimate complaints and gain public support in their opposition... but then get away with translating that shared opposition into support for a different idea without having ever had to make the positive argument in favor of it.

A critic can be correct in making a criticism... but that doesn't make them right.

Post reply on HN