Is full-time work bad for our brains? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#71

Post by Moshe_Silnorin » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 4:35 PM UTC

Kinnard wrote: post #66

Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the younger generation, I doubt it. Korea is a wonderful country full of extremely bright and nice people. But they're caught in an education arms race that is legitimately terrifying. Kids are schooled with incredible tenacity from 9 to 5 and then once they are finished school they attend night classes and weekend classes. I think putting a much higher weight on fluid intelligence over crystallized in…

I wonder what impact Korean reunification would have. I imagine it would create a large leisure class, supported by a new North Korean cheap-labor underclass, with which would come a leisure culture which could impact the overall culture. Some bad, with some good.

I sort of think tests of crystallized intelligence, after a certain point, are basicly very inefficient marshmallow tests, tests of diligence rather than valuable abilities. I suspect relying near-exclusively on tests of fluid intelligence would work much better and would allow Korean children to avoid throwing their leisure time on a pyre, as there are extremely limited returns to studying for general intelligence tests.

As much of this is a status game, I doubt an underclass would mitigate it at all.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#72

Post by a_small_island » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 4:36 PM UTC

ashark wrote: post #18

adrianN wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't matter. It will just lead to an increase in workload until you don't manage to finish all your tasks.

Yeah, I don't get the "results-based workplace so you can go home a lot and stuff LOL who needs a vacation policy!" because businesses that manage to pack in more results will outcompete those who can't, until the effect is at least as bad as a traditional 9-5 (haha, right, 8-6) with a vacation policy. It's at best a very vulnerable form of rents destined to be competed out of existence ( if it's actually more effici…

I've read your response a few times and still am unclear as to what you're saying.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#73

Post by maxwelljoslyn » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #49

jdc0589 wrote: post #27

My brain usually goes in to "prepare to shut-down" mode every day at about 3:30pm (having started work at ~9am). I tend to have slow mornings, and stay pretty busy/head-down for the last half of that time. The funny thing is, it doesn't really matter if I was busy working on hard technical challenges all day, or just reading articles/browsing the web; my brain shuts down the same time regardless.

"The 3pm crash" is well documented and extremely common. Personally, I set up my schedule so I am not trying to do intellectual work between 3 and 4. Eat a snack, walk to the Starbucks down the street, go to the gym, take a boring meeting - anything, and then resume programming when my body is ready (usually around 4/4:30). The Spanish have siestas. There is nothing wrong with you - this is human nature. It's in the…

The Chinese also practice the afternoon nap. Lunch break at work in China is two hours: one for eating, one for sleeping. White-collar workers all get this long of a break. As for blue-collar, I don't know if factory workers do, but it certainly applies to shop owners, street vendors, and many moped/tricycle drivers.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#74

Post by dclowd9901 » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

madaxe_again wrote: post #67

BjoernKW wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I agree with that I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today. It's almost as if everybody wakes up, reads Dilbert every morning thinking "Wow, that PHB guy certainly is a role model to aspire to." It's not as if these patterns can't be changed: The required technology has been available for more than a decade now. There are tried and tested approaches for organizing…

Because those of us who believe otherwise usually get beaten out and decide to not run businesses any more. My confounder doesn't like hiring, likes to have a huge pile of cash in the bank to no particular end, and sends people shitty emails if they're late in the morning. He's successfully killed off enthusiasm and passion for getting things done (mine included), and now people are either making time or leaving. We…

"confounder", ha.

In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage?

And how do employees get recognized for their contributions if there are no managers to track it?

It's a catch-22. My thought is that if companies simply paid people as much as they could, all of this would go away. You wouldn't even _need_ managers anymore. One of managers' more important roles, liaising between departments, could become their full time job, which would be better for everyone too (less overhead with employee reviews and bullshit like that).

How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#75

Post by stevenwiles » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 4:47 PM UTC

cubano wrote: post #64

I'm 50yo and am still learning new shit everyday...just a month ago I bit the bullet and learned enough javasc...excuse me ECMAScript, to be pretty damn dangerous :) Over the past weekend I learned docker and am now running containers all over the place...these aren't trivial things and the speed of which I'm picking stuff up is as fast, if not faster, then it has ever been for me. The point is I am 10 years older th…

Yep, I'm just like you. About to turn 60, been a daily hardcore drug user for most of my life, and I've been picking up new languages and technologies every day, all while working 60 hours a week.

I find it quite hurmorous indeed that there are those that would suggest that we are not intellectually capable.

Glad to know there is someone else like me out there. :)

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#76

Post by ashark » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

a_small_island wrote: post #72

ashark wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't get the "results-based workplace so you can go home a lot and stuff LOL who needs a vacation policy!" because businesses that manage to pack in more results will outcompete those who can't, until the effect is at least as bad as a traditional 9-5 (haha, right, 8-6) with a vacation policy. It's at best a very vulnerable form of rents destined to be competed out of existence ( if it's actually more effici…

I've read your response a few times and still am unclear as to what you're saying.

If results-based work actually gains employees any extra free time, companies that find a way to fit more work into that time (say, by assigning more tasks) will outcompete those that do not. Goodbye, glorious results-based-work free time.

Either that or results-based work doesn't actually help us get things done faster than traditional work (_i.e._ it's snake oil) and at best it'll limp along providing little benefit to anyone but the people selling books about it.

So either it will fail/stagnate because it doesn't improve productivity, or it will become the new norm and we'll just have enough results expected of us that the effect on workers is at best indistinguishable from traditional work (businesses that fail to fill up the free time with more work will, generally, lose to those that do)

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#77

Post by bpyne » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

It would be interesting to see a study controlling for the "sandwich years". My suspicion is that the sandwich years on top of 40+ hour/week employment causes a lot of cognitive degradation. But, 40+ hour/week employment without the sandwich years would see significantly less, if any, degradation.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#78

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

lj3 wrote: post #50

whack wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What did you deliver this week? This month? This quarter?", should be the only relevant question in the workplace, managers included. Unfortunately, there's another camp that (with credible arguments) claims that task-estimates are almost always meaningless. If you buy into that camp, and if someone under-delivers, it doesn't tell you anything about whether or not they are performing poorly. They could simply be t…

What if you judge a team based on the revenue it brought in vs the cost of the employees in the team? Since profit is the real measure of success, it makes sense to use that as the metric. Measuring individual contributions is problematic, no matter the system you use. Measuring based on the entire team is much easier.

[deleted]

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#79

Post by softawre » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

stevenwiles wrote: post #75

cubano wrote: post #64

I'm 50yo and am still learning new shit everyday...just a month ago I bit the bullet and learned enough javasc...excuse me ECMAScript, to be pretty damn dangerous :) Over the past weekend I learned docker and am now running containers all over the place...these aren't trivial things and the speed of which I'm picking stuff up is as fast, if not faster, then it has ever been for me. The point is I am 10 years older th…

Yep, I'm just like you. About to turn 60, been a daily hardcore drug user for most of my life, and I've been picking up new languages and technologies every day, all while working 60 hours a week. I find it quite hurmorous indeed that there are those that would suggest that we are not intellectually capable. Glad to know there is someone else like me out there. :)

What class of drugs? If you don't mind.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#80

Post by bostonpete » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

dclowd9901 wrote: post #74

madaxe_again wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those of us who believe otherwise usually get beaten out and decide to not run businesses any more. My confounder doesn't like hiring, likes to have a huge pile of cash in the bank to no particular end, and sends people shitty emails if they're late in the morning. He's successfully killed off enthusiasm and passion for getting things done (mine included), and now people are either making time or leaving. We…

"confounder", ha. In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage? And how do employees get recognized for their contributions if there are no managers to track it? It's a catch-22. My thought is that if companies simply paid people as much as they could, all of this would go away. You wouldn't even _need_ managers anymore. One of managers' more important roles, liaising between department…

> How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that.

I still don't see how that works. Your comment seems like it boils down to saying the company should pay the employee more than they're worth (i.e. worth to the business compared to others who could add the same value), but the company has all sorts of obligations to investors, other employees, etc. and spending money just because they can afford to do so today seems like an irresponsible way to run a business.