One point about these guys is they were men of means. They were hyper-rich for the time, had vast properties and many servants and such.
Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
51–60 of 304 posts
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#52> Scientists who spent 25 hours in the workplace were no more productive than those who spent five. Anecdotally this is a concept I've run into in many areas of life, the most overt one being school, I suppose because it's so easily quantified. You can do a moderately acceptable amount of work on any given assignment and get a C+, work hard for a B/A or work your hands to the bone for an A+, but at the end of the day…
Yes but in the universe of knowledge work, what is work and what is not-work?
Do we count work as "being in the office/lab"? Or do we count work as thinking about the problem?
If one were building a company like Tesla for example, I would count going to the gym and thinking of the problem domain while running on a treadmill as work. I would also count thinking of the problem while going for a walk as work.
If one has really set one's teeth into a nasty problem, things like going to a party, or social calls like seeing friends not engaged in the problem, isn't relaxing, it's frustrating.
I think we should redefine the parameters of this conversation into time that depletes the body and time that replenishes it.
Being in front of a computer for long periods is hard on the eyes, it can be hard physically especially if the ergonomics aren't perfect. Being at the office for long periods can be draining as well because unlike being at home there aren't places to go that are replenishing on demand.
If one has a good sit/stand desk and spends a lot of time coding while standing, 10 minutes lying on a bed is incredibly replenishing for example.
The other dimension here is that perhaps it is alienated work that is inherently depleting. Working for someone else, or on something one does not really want to be working on is draining.
Working on something you care about is invigorating and I can't see how spending less time in that state can possibly be more productive than more time in a productive, non-depleting state.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point, otherwise cheating would be a valid strategy (ethics aside).
But cheating is a valid strategy.. Colluding when everyone else is competing is exactly what intelligent people do. Not following the rules because they're stupid is what intelligent people do. It's not mutually exclusive to understand the fundamentals and cheat. The idea that we should compete with our peers for a chance at higher education is like a dystopian hunger games novel.
It is a valid strategy when you end up learning as much as a person not cheating. But in general, this is not the case because students see cheating as an alternative to hard work.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#54And then on the flipside there is Musk, Jobs, Gates and countless others who work(ed) all the time. All I'm saying is I see a lot of emulation-of-success articles posted here...
Those people are not scientists. Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors. Jobs dropped out of University. And Gates is probably closest to a scientist, although I'm not aware of any research by him.
>"Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors."
Three of the most important scientific papers in modern history—uncovering the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion and the special theory of relativity—were written about a hundred years ago by a man who could only sign them "Mr." when first writing them. About 80 years before that, another physicist who had no formal schooling past the age of 14 was pioneering advances in humanity's understanding of electricity and magnetism.
Science isn't restricted to or based on credentialed people. If you look at the history of science, credentials and recognition often follow groundbreaking scientific work.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those people are not scientists. Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors. Jobs dropped out of University. And Gates is probably closest to a scientist, although I'm not aware of any research by him.
> "Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors." Three of the most important scientific papers in modern history—uncovering the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion and the special theory of relativity—were written about a hundred years ago by a man who could only sign them "Mr." when first writing them. About…
A hundred years ago you could reach the frontier in theoretical physics without a decade of intensive study. That's no longer true.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those people are not scientists. Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors. Jobs dropped out of University. And Gates is probably closest to a scientist, although I'm not aware of any research by him.
> "Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors." Three of the most important scientific papers in modern history—uncovering the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion and the special theory of relativity—were written about a hundred years ago by a man who could only sign them "Mr." when first writing them. About…
[deleted]
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
>who work(ed) all the time. Except as executives, their work is different than a skill workers' work. I mean, they don't have a manager busting their ass about TPS reports, they made their life their work. So a two hour lunch meeting that is 50% bs'ing is 'work.' Leaving at three to go golfing with a few guys, one of whom who is vendor, is 'work.' Going to the birthday party of a partner's kid is 'work.' Staying late…
> Except as executives, their work is a little different than skill workers. This, which is addressed in the first chapter of "Deep Work" by Cal Newport. The concept of long periods of uninterrupted concentration and singular focus applies to researchers, programmers, artists, and other occupations. But an entrepreneur does not require "deep work" (though can certainly apply it).
There is some deep work for the executive / entrepreneur which is to figure out what to build or where the market is going.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a business perspective it is probably better to burn though many people at 80 hours a week, rather than fewer 20hr week employees (er, or slaves as history goes). Since it is a low skill job and anyone can do it the employee longevity likely doesn't matter. An employee that has picked cotton for 1 month isn't likely to be that much worse than an employee that has picked for 1 year. Of course this is my anecdote,…
If the amount of experience is irrelevant why not use more employees for shorter periods of time?
What is the administrative cost per employee?
In most business you will have a point where the cost per employee align with the output per employee and you try to peg production there. Also getting too many employees can lead to second and third order effects that have to be managed, like transportation of employees and parking.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#59> Scientists who spent 25 hours in the workplace were no more productive than those who spent five. Anecdotally this is a concept I've run into in many areas of life, the most overt one being school, I suppose because it's so easily quantified. You can do a moderately acceptable amount of work on any given assignment and get a C+, work hard for a B/A or work your hands to the bone for an A+, but at the end of the day…
> I suppose because it's so easily quantified. I wonder what's being quantified.. intelligence or obedience. This would be like rating a strong-man competition by how much time was spent in the gym and how much unnecessary pain was self-inflicted. It's like there's a culture of "pain enthusiasts". They do things like talk about running until it hurts, they tend to get injured often, and of course they have nothing to…
Given that students are almost always graded on how well they do on assignments/exams rather than how long they studied, your strong-man competition analogy doesn't make much sense.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#60> Scientists who spent 25 hours in the workplace were no more productive than those who spent five. Anecdotally this is a concept I've run into in many areas of life, the most overt one being school, I suppose because it's so easily quantified. You can do a moderately acceptable amount of work on any given assignment and get a C+, work hard for a B/A or work your hands to the bone for an A+, but at the end of the day…
I agree about school. I see people constantly trying to use pattern matching and memorization to pass tests; always doing extra credit; putting too much effort into minor things; and exacerbating all of these problems by taking too many units in an effort to get out early. I don't know how they're not already burnt out.
Meanwhile I never specifically study for a test. I've just studied regularly every day, thought about these things regularly, let my subconscious do some heavy lifting, and built associations in my brain that help me derive equations or fill in gaps if needed. For my effort, I've got a ~3.9 GPA and all kinds of free time for dating, exercise, hobbies, and teaching myself useful skills in my field that university isn't teaching me.
I think the core problem for most people is that they are attached to the wrong outcome. Their goal is the high GPA. My goal is grokking material and making myself useful; high GPA is almost a given (and frankly redundant) after that, and the only difference between my 3.9 and a 4.0 is the tolerance for BS and busywork... and about a gazillion extra hours of work.
It is, of course, understandable, because people think High GPA -> Good Grad School -> $$$$. But I suspect, and your story confirms, that "Reasonably High GPA" + "An Actualized Human Being Who Is Not a Robot"[0] -> Good Grad School -> Richer Life + $$$$.
[0] - Not trying to denigrate those who take the other path, but I see them miss out on a lot of life and ultimately not be as developed and awesome as they could be. I'm saying these things not just about random strangers, but also about people I know and love. They've optimized primarily for passing tests.