5 ms·

And 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 artic

And 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...

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>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 for a meeting where you sit quietly munching on a bagel and watch those below you sweat through a presentation is 'work.' They're human just like us and only have x amount of productive hours. Low key managerial tasks, networking, socializing, and sitting through meetings isn't exactly the same thing as sitting at the compiler agonizing over someone's legacy code and burning your brain out. If you're doing hard skill work that requires serious concentration, you simply can't do that for 8-12 hours a day. You can push 4-5 and then you're done and if you don't recognize your limits you're entering burn-out zone. Unlike a high level executive you can't take a 4 week 'working sabbatical' to a Greek island and work by answering emails on the beach when the stress catches up to you. You have your vacation days and that's it and you better hope its not crunch time when you do burn out. edit: grammar fixes
- wainstead 10y ago
  > 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).
  - sjg007 10y ago
    There is some deep work for the executive / entrepreneur which is to figure out what to build or where the market is going.
    - dilemma 10y ago
      Yes, it is required for the creative parts of the job which is building a coherent vision, strategy and planning.
meow_mix 10y ago
Musk might run a successful company but that's not really a science
amelius 10y ago
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.
- sarreph 10y ago
  > And Gates is probably closest to a scientist, although I'm not aware of any research by him. Gates' only research paper[0] is one on the Pancake Sorting algorithm[1] — which he wrote in his second year at Harvard. [0] - https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/papers/GP79.pdf https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/papers/GP79.pdf [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancake_sorting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancake_sorting
- Veen 10y ago
  The article isn't entirely focused on scientists either. Many writers and other creative professionals are discussed. I think with Jobs et al, for however long they work, it's likely they still only do a limited amount of focused creative work in that time. The rest is spent doing the every-day politicking, intuitive decision-making, and administrative stuff that goes along with being a CEO.
- xiaoma 10y ago
  >"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.
  - 10y ago
andruby 10y ago
Scientists and Entrepreneurs are two very different kinds of people. Creative thinkers vs Executers.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  Most scientists are NOT creative thinkers. They just extend what came before them. People like Einstein is the exception but people seem to think all scientists are like him and draw wrong conclusions. On the other hand, if you think entrepreneurs are just "executers" and not "creative thinkers" you are completely wrong. Most entrepreneurs are forced to think creatively every single day (otherwise they won't survive). Scientists don't need to because they have a stable job. If you're a scientist, some ambitious people want to become an Einstein but 99% of the population don't ever believe they can become one and just do mediocre research all their life. Unlike entrepreneurs where mediocre work will mean their business will fail and their family will starve, mediocre scientists can survive just fine, because they're paid by the research organization or the university they belong to.
chaostheory 10y ago
> Toulouse noted that Poincaré kept very regular hours. I feel that this is key. I remember an old post about someone's account about another phd candidate they worked with (my memory may be hazy). He noticed that whenever she made good progress, it didn't matter when during the day; she would take off and stop for the day (a lot of times before 2pm) for happy hour. His hours by contrast were less regular and he would work longer streaks, working much longer hours overall. If I remember correctly she finished her thesis a few months before he did. > The rest of the time, they were hiking mountains, taking naps, going on walks with friends, or just sitting and thinking. Their creativity and productivity, in other words, were not the result of endless hours of toil. Their towering creative achievements result from modest “working” hours. As others have noted, while you stop working consciously when you're 'relaxing'; you never really stop working subconsciously. Adam Grant and others (like Napoleon Hill) have elaborated on it, but I can only find his account https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_grant_the_surprising_habits_of_original_thinkers/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_grant_the_surprising_habits_o...
dnautics 10y ago
I would say a huge distinction is that for scientists the expected failure rate is in the 80%-90% range; so diminishing returns hit harder and sooner. Success is more contingent on keen observation and pivoting to a better ground idea. For Musk, Jobs and Gates, who are more like engineers, the expected failure rate is much much lower. There is still a 'fail fast' paradigm that is effective, but it's effective in a very different way.

And 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...

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>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 for a meeting where you sit quietly munching on a bagel and watch those below you sweat through a presentation is 'work.' They're human just like us and only have x amount of productive hours. Low key managerial tasks, networking, socializing, and sitting through meetings isn't exactly the same thing as sitting at the compiler agonizing over someone's legacy code and burning your brain out. If you're doing hard skill work that requires serious concentration, you simply can't do that for 8-12 hours a day. You can push 4-5 and then you're done and if you don't recognize your limits you're entering burn-out zone. Unlike a high level executive you can't take a 4 week 'working sabbatical' to a Greek island and work by answering emails on the beach when the stress catches up to you. You have your vacation days and that's it and you better hope its not crunch time when you do burn out. edit: grammar fixes

wainstead 10y ago
> 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).
- sjg007 10y ago
  There is some deep work for the executive / entrepreneur which is to figure out what to build or where the market is going.
  - dilemma 10y ago
    Yes, it is required for the creative parts of the job which is building a coherent vision, strategy and planning.

meow_mix 10y ago

Musk might run a successful company but that's not really a science

amelius 10y ago

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.

sarreph 10y ago
> And Gates is probably closest to a scientist, although I'm not aware of any research by him. Gates' only research paper[0] is one on the Pancake Sorting algorithm[1] — which he wrote in his second year at Harvard. [0] - https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/papers/GP79.pdf https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/papers/GP79.pdf [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancake_sorting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancake_sorting
Veen 10y ago
The article isn't entirely focused on scientists either. Many writers and other creative professionals are discussed. I think with Jobs et al, for however long they work, it's likely they still only do a limited amount of focused creative work in that time. The rest is spent doing the every-day politicking, intuitive decision-making, and administrative stuff that goes along with being a CEO.
xiaoma 10y ago
>"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.
- 10y ago

andruby 10y ago

Scientists and Entrepreneurs are two very different kinds of people. Creative thinkers vs Executers.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
Most scientists are NOT creative thinkers. They just extend what came before them. People like Einstein is the exception but people seem to think all scientists are like him and draw wrong conclusions. On the other hand, if you think entrepreneurs are just "executers" and not "creative thinkers" you are completely wrong. Most entrepreneurs are forced to think creatively every single day (otherwise they won't survive). Scientists don't need to because they have a stable job. If you're a scientist, some ambitious people want to become an Einstein but 99% of the population don't ever believe they can become one and just do mediocre research all their life. Unlike entrepreneurs where mediocre work will mean their business will fail and their family will starve, mediocre scientists can survive just fine, because they're paid by the research organization or the university they belong to.

chaostheory 10y ago

> Toulouse noted that Poincaré kept very regular hours. I feel that this is key. I remember an old post about someone's account about another phd candidate they worked with (my memory may be hazy). He noticed that whenever she made good progress, it didn't matter when during the day; she would take off and stop for the day (a lot of times before 2pm) for happy hour. His hours by contrast were less regular and he would work longer streaks, working much longer hours overall. If I remember correctly she finished her thesis a few months before he did. > The rest of the time, they were hiking mountains, taking naps, going on walks with friends, or just sitting and thinking. Their creativity and productivity, in other words, were not the result of endless hours of toil. Their towering creative achievements result from modest “working” hours. As others have noted, while you stop working consciously when you're 'relaxing'; you never really stop working subconsciously. Adam Grant and others (like Napoleon Hill) have elaborated on it, but I can only find his account https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_grant_the_surprising_habits_of_original_thinkers/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_grant_the_surprising_habits_o...

dnautics 10y ago

I would say a huge distinction is that for scientists the expected failure rate is in the 80%-90% range; so diminishing returns hit harder and sooner. Success is more contingent on keen observation and pivoting to a better ground idea. For Musk, Jobs and Gates, who are more like engineers, the expected failure rate is much much lower. There is still a 'fail fast' paradigm that is effective, but it's effective in a very different way.