8 ms·

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting d

They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too". This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. There are many famous athletes who worked long hours. Ask Michael Jordan. There are many famous entrepreneurs (actually I don't know of a single extremely successful entrepreneur who didn't work extremely hard) who worked long hours. Ask Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and really any successful entrepreneur who's changed how the world works. Just don't ask some nobody writer who writes for a blog who just needs to get more page views. They don't know what they are talking about. In fact, you know what? MOST successful people work very hard. Surprising right? Duh. It's your freedom to choose how to live your life, but don't tell others what to do based on your idiotic research clearly aimed at generating page views. That's irresponsible. Also, if you want to succeed, don't listen to these idiots. Statistically those who work harder succeed more. Period. That said, if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness, then go live your life whatever way you want. In fact that's how 99% of the world live their lives. But again, if you want to have huge success and achieve more than you ever wanted in life, work hard. Don't let these people ruin your life. You will really regret later.

TheCowboy 10y ago
There is so much aggression here. Relax. Working longer hours isn't equivalent to working harder. Plenty of unsuccessful entrepreneurs worked long hours and worked hard, and there are examples of people/businesses doing productive work with more balanced workdays. 99% of the people in the world live in a way to not be successful, but to have a balanced life with happiness? It should be obvious that for 99% of people, that isn't a choice they get to make. It's also a grotesque separation of success from balance/happiness that shows a profound lack of insight. The word "slacker" is only present in the title of the article itself. It's normal that the writer, who you railed against, doesn't get to pick their title. So it's important to read the actual content for the premise. The writer doesn't argue against putting in time. There is the idea that quality of working hours is also important.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  It's pretty clear that doing the 80 hour week is something that works well if you're, say, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. A difficult job, to be sure, but not top-notch in the grand scheme of things. You're not inventing quantum mechanics, you're figuring out ways for people to share more cat pictures. But if you are operating at the top of the pyramid of knowledge, like some of the people mentioned in the article, that's a different kind of effort. The 4 hours a day schedule, with plenty of breaks, seems to work best.
  - matwood 10y ago
    > But if you are operating at the top of the pyramid of knowledge, like some of the people mentioned in the article, that's a different kind of effort. Yeah, it's an effort they are probably thinking about 24/7. Defining 'knowledge work' is challenging because so much of the 'work' happens when the person is not sitting at the computer/desk. Creative work is similar. Instead of saying so and so worked 4 hours/day, we need to change the definition of work.
    - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
      I think it's virtually certain that, if they are indeed top figures in their fields, it's guaranteed that they are deeply involved in their work, and that means their subconscious minds are processing that stuff non-stop. But the subconscious is a funny thing, because it doesn't seem to require "effort" to operate, however you may define that notion. It's the fully conscious, purposeful, organized work that requires "effort" and consumes "energy". Not even sure how to define these things properly, but everyone seems to understand them intuitively. Anyway, to be successful at the highest levels, it seems like you have to be awfully protective of this "energy" thing.
      - trentmb 10y ago
        > Not even sure how to define these things properly, but everyone seems to understand them intuitively. Focused vs. diffuse thinking.
linkmotif 10y ago
Amen! I love all the nobodies who tell me how to be successful and accomplish my goals by straight chillin. I'm always thinking: "and you are...?" Everyone who tells me to take it easy is a nobody anonymous person who hasn't done anything and never will. And as you said, that's up to them. Everyone picks their course and I try to remember everyone is different. But I always wonder why they choose to evangelize. I don't evangelize at them. I think Dylan said it best: they just want to get you down in the hole that they're in. Most important thing in life is to love what you're doing. Work isn't work if you love it. But nothing valuable is easy. Eventually, usually very quickly, what you want to accomplish becomes very boring to accomplish. That feeling of reward may come very infrequently. It's very difficult to do anything new or different.
gaurav_v 10y ago
I broadly agree with you, but I think the issue is more subtle. Ambitious people will always work very hard; the danger of working hard is that it necessitates a degree of path-dependent myopia that can lead one to miss huge opportunities. The most ambitious people are quite concerned about this, and try to use leisure as a comparative advantage. The article is pretty fair in painting this portrait: the author admits that the scientists construct their lives around their work (Darwin worried about getting married, for instance), but points out that constructing their lives around their work involves the construction of leisure.
collyw 10y ago
I am willing to bet that starting with a million in the bank will make you more likely to succeed that working hard. Didn't Thomas Piketty's book come to a similar conclusion?
- ythn 10y ago
  All things equal, the person who works harder will usually come out on top (of course, there's always some RNG). Applies to all areas of life. Scenarios where you have an unfair advantage (money in the bank) are irrelevant here.
  - collyw 10y ago
    Sure I am not denying that (though a bit of good luck doesn't go wrong). It was mainly a response to the line: >In fact, you know what? MOST successful people work very hard. Surprising right? Duh. There is even a link on HN today to this article "Untalented rich still earn more, says Greening": http://www.bbc.com/news/education-39444993 http://www.bbc.com/news/education-39444993
yomly 10y ago
Agree but the danger is equating only hard work to success. i.e. successful? => works_hard? But works_hard? => successful? does not necessarily follow. In the words of Bezos: "You can work long, hard or smart, but at Amazon.com you can't choose two out of three"
- MaysonL 10y ago
  Very few people have the stamina, energy, and brain and emotional chemistry to perform on three out of three for very long.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
> MOST successful people work very hard. Surprising right? Duh. If you're going to complain about an author making unsubstantiated generalizations, you should probably avoid doing the same.
- exergy 10y ago
  I'm not OP, but this is an interesting moment to ask: would you not consider the "I worked harder than others, therefore I'm more successful" sentiment self evident? In my experience, people in my group whom I'd categorize as "successful" have often been confident in making peace/having passion for the vocation of their choice, and have paid their dues so to speak, in terms of research papers read, hours spent with their instrument, hours of training for sport etc.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > I'm not OP, but this is an interesting moment to ask: would you not consider the "I worked harder than others, therefore I'm more successful" sentiment self evident? No - I consider the sentiment very unscientific. I suspect that a significant percentage of people who think they put in above average effort fall below the average. That's assuming we can agree on a common definition of "hard work" - is physically toiling, clocking in hours, mental anguish, perseverance or a combination of the above?
    - ksk 10y ago
      Its rather odd that you chose to fight the battle of what is 'scientific' simply based on logical reasoning - which is flawed to begin with. Logical arguments serve no purpose here without practical proof.
  - gthtjtkt 10y ago
    > would you not consider the "I worked harder than others, therefore I'm more successful" sentiment self evident? Not at all. We can swap anecdotes about successful people all day, but the fact of the matter is that hard work guarantees nothing, and it's not a prerequisite for success.
mempko 10y ago
I'm curious why you think Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the rest "worked long hours". Being there for 16 hours a day is not the same as working 16 hours a day. There are days where I feel busy but get very little work done. I suspect because these guys ran these companies like kings in a fiefdom they had a lot of busy work. Let's not conflate time wasted to time worked. Also intellectual jobs most certainly require walks, sleeping, and leisure because creativity is a right-brain activity.
jes5199 10y ago
sure entrepreneurs work hard, but they produce very little of lasting cultural value. If you want a legacy, you have to be more creative.
ythn 10y ago
Yes but it's currently popular to speculate on the automated future where nobody works and everyone gets free money. Yet, I have a hard time believing that vision of the future. My vision of the future is one where people still need to work, and those that work harder will reap more than those who don't.
Pica_soO 10y ago
You can not control your sub-conscious, the one part that glues together the creative part of your work. You can feed it, you can walk it and you can hope that the digestion pours out something useful. This might look like slacking off to some ignorant person, in violent denial regarding creative work. Because, if break-troughs are not gained by mechanically grinding away for hours on logic riddles, till you level up to genius- it might be the "work hard, not smart" that's actually lacking off. One can treat this like a sport, can threat this like a craft. But then you still will never be a da Vinci, or a van Gogh - elevating a whole field by digressing and recombining . Just another speed-painter hoping that his great day shall come after the 1000x tourist portrait.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  > some ignorant person, in violent denial regarding creative work What an apt description of the tone of the top of this comment subthread.
gregmac 10y ago
> if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness What good is (your definition of) success if you do nothing but work and are unhappy? Or did you mean something else by this?
- squidlogic 10y ago
  Not OP so I can't say what is meant by "happiness" here, but maybe if you feel your life can serve a purpose other than your own pleasure/comfort you would be willing to experience less pleasure/comfort to achieve that goal. That's different than happiness, but maybe that's what he/she was getting at.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  Why would you not be happy if you achieve what you want in life? Sure it's a stressful journey, but if you ask me if i would pick between a life that actually served a purpose vs. a life I just lived because I lived, I would pick one that aimed to serve a purpose any day, no matter how stressful it is. You may think living a balanced "happy" life is happiness, but when you're at your deathbed and think back at your life, you will regret not having done all you could have done. Speaking of, check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I didn't believe in it when I was very young because I was down there in the pyramid, but now I realize that's not the case. You may say this is luxury for most people, and that is true. Most human population are not in a situation where they have the resources and ability to climb up all the way to the top of the hierarchy of needs, but I think anyone from HN community should be able to.
  - Sharlin 10y ago
    As far as I know, most people wish on their deathbeds that they'd have worked less, been with their loved ones more, and generally would have done more anything else than work. I get that there are extremely driven individuals who want to achieve great things - and some of them are even able to do so - but articles like this should be understood in the context of a culture where common people work themselves to death trying to achieve "success" defined by the surrounding culture rather than in their own terms.
camelNotation 10y ago
>That said, if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness, then go live your life whatever way you want. In fact that's how 99% of the world live their lives. Human beings have struggled for thousands of years to define what it means to live a good life and be "successful." Few (if any) ever associated success with the acquisition of wealth. Even the rich ones, like Marcus Aurelius, did not consider wealth to be an indicator of a good life. It's rather odd that you would do so with such flippancy and dismiss those that pursue other avenues of fulfillment as "not successful".
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  No. you define your own success. For most people it's a social thing so you look at people around you and define your success. That's why people buy home, buy cars, etc. That's fine but you should really have control over what you consider as "success". When I say success I mean having a clear goal of where you want to go and achieving it. If you want to be "cool" and just enjoy your life AND achieve what you want outside of your cool life, feel free to do so, and good luck. I'm just saying you can't win against people who have the same ability who decide to go all in.
  - linkmotif 10y ago
    > I'm just saying you can't win against people who have the same ability who decide to go all in. You're really killing it. <3. I'm loving it because people who say these pretty obvious things are just so few and far between. Instead of listening to John Carmack (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10882202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10882202) they choose to parrot these articles by random people who've never done anything except produce clickbait. Also I like people who say: "don't you need to exercise, go for walks, relax?" Of course! But these things must be deployed as part of your effort to achieve your goals. The odds are stacked so hard against you. You need stable finances and health, for one thing, to accomplish anything. Then you need patience, support from your friends and family, vision, a good idea... not to mention some talent, too. It's really hard. If you're not all in, you're not going anywhere in terms of producing something new and interesting. Which is fine, just don't try to sell people on the opposite.
iamacynic 10y ago
the "entrepreneur" narrative is swinging back to personal goals/development/balance, now that a bunch of people are failing in the 3rd wave (dotcom, the recovery, now post-crash). you're going to see a lot of this stuff. obviously what you said is true but the real golden goose is working reasonable hours AND making really good money. a lot of people find that place eventually, a lot don't. also i have a feeling the people who found a way to work 2 hours a day (or whatever) and make tons of money aren't really talking about it... for obvious reasons.
anotherhacker 10y ago
You're conflating knowledge work with manual work. Knowledge work requires the brain to wonder...to explore a problem and possible solutions freely. Michael Jordan wasn't trying to create anything new, he was trying to develop a physical skill. Physical skills are made via repetition. Things like stress and distraction destroy knowledge workers. This is something every experienced engineer knows.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  i'm not conflating anything more than what this article is doing. On the other hand, you are guilty of taking my words out of context. It's convenient to just take michael jordan and use it as an argument, isn't it? I also mentioned another "knowledge work" example. I'm not saying scientists should be working 18 hours a day. In fact when it comes to scientists and researchers I do agree that you should NOT work too hard because you will burn out, and most creative ideas come when you're taking a break. But it's not cool to take that example and tell the world you should "slack off" because it's "scientific". That's not how the world works. If you want to achieve something, you can't win against someone who go all in. Simple as that.
  - megalodon 10y ago
    You can't count productivity in hours. Someone who goes "all-in" 6 hours a day can certainly accomplish more than someone who says they go "all-in" 12 hours a day.
    - cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
      tell me where I even mentioned "hours". really.
- ksk 10y ago
  Creativity also applies to athletes. They have to come up with new solutions to solve problems all the time - such as coming up with a novel way to bypass the defense of the opposition and score, given a particular situation. Just because they combine their physicality with prior experience, knowledge and cognitive ability (which they can't use too much of given the "realtime" demand) doesn't make them any less creative. IMHO They're more creative than most people on here who are implementing CS ideas already explored decades ago.
pitt1980 10y ago
an idea to consider time might not be a very good dimension to compete along because it has a firm upper cap
paganel 10y ago
> That said, if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness, then go live your life whatever way you want. In fact that's how 99% of the world live their lives. Maybe you should re-phrase that as "about being financial successful". I for myself find a "balanced life with happiness" as very close to what being successful in life really means, for the simple fact that I've gone through periods when I would have given half of the world just not to be miserable anymore. The black hole of depression cannot be filled no matter how much money you have, and it can reach you even you're the most financially successful person in the world.
InclinedPlane 10y ago
> Also, if you want to succeed, don't listen to these idiots. Statistically those who work harder succeed more. Period. Here is the absolute crux of the problem. Putting in hours of toil is not how you get ahead in most fields. It's not an XP system, it's non-linear. More hours isn't better. More drudgery isn't better. You need to be putting in an appropriate amount of time but you also need to be using your time well. If you show up and you're just punching a time card you're not guaranteed any progress whatsoever. If you're working long hours chances are high that you're not putting in your best work, that a lot of the work you're doing is just rote, autopilot stuff, and that a lot of the time you're "working" you're merely being present in a work environment and not actually working. Concentrate first on understanding what you're working on at a deep level, being present/mindful in your work, being adventurous and curious, and accepting of feeling like you're struggling. That takes a lot of effort and a lot of courage, it's always a struggle to expand your mental horizons or to explore the unknown (to you and to humanity in general). But it doesn't necessarily take much time. If you use your time efficiently you can absolutely get ahead, far ahead, of others who are working more hours and making less progress. It's not a tradeoff, it's not a binary choice, it's a matter primarily of how effectively you use your time.
anigbrowl 10y ago
That said, if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness You seem to be using an extremely narrow definition of success. Perhaps you should articulate your premises more clearly.
dv_dt 10y ago
> There are many famous athletes who worked long hours. Ask Michael Jordan. Jordan also gets paid enough that he can hire a support infrastructure so that his long hours don't impinge on his down time. Did he get back after practice and then need to worry if his house is clean, or car needs to go into the mechanic, or do his bills, or even if his pantry and fridge are stocked with food? Likely no. Long hours for the extremely well paid don't have the same effect as the rest of us.
MaysonL 10y ago
Success, especially in science, which is what the article is about, comes from working on the right problem, and concentrating on it, more than from long hours or strenuous effort.
uptownfunk 10y ago
People who are successful and don't work hard are probably more an exception than the rule. Or maybe they're working hard and not in the office? Higher likelihood of being successful if you work hard than not. That said, these type of clikbaity articles are making me wonder where HN is going and if we have any measures in place to de-clickbait-ize the stories to prevent something like this from occuring..
datalus 10y ago
Steve Jobs had a shit personal life. No thanks.
agentgt 10y ago
> Also, if you want to succeed, don't listen to these idiots. Statistically those who work harder succeed more. Period. I'm mean I generally agree but one thing I really can't stand is people believing that success is entirely hard work. The reality is most of success is "standing on the shoulder of giants". People are generally successful if they are given a massive starting advantage. That starting advantage could be genetics (which can be argued easily since that is sort of hidden) and wealth (of which there is less denying). You mention Bill Bates. Bill and both Mark Zuckerburg went to Harvard. Both had(ve) affluent parents. Even Steve had some nice advantages as well. As well in the case of this article most scientist have/had affluent parents. Of course there are Cinderella exceptions. I don't know stat wise what it is but I'm guessing low. I just don't want to hear hard work always equals success when most board rooms are filled with the white good old boys network.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  I didn't say that. This is why it's hard to have civil discussion online because people take words out of context and use whatever interpretation they have. If you are one of the people who are in unfortunate situations, you can choose to live two different lives: either believe that you're done for and live a loser life, or try hard to get out of it. It's your choice, but there's plenty of evidence where people who came from the bottom rose to the top by working hard (and I mean "top" as in someone who's made world-changing achievements)
  - agentgt 10y ago
    > I didn't say that. This is why it's hard to have civil discussion online because people take words out of context and use whatever interpretation they have. How about I just agree and say you are right? Its pretty hard to have a civil discussion when you top level post and accuse HNers of commenting like lemmings. > This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. It sounds like you took a lot of: words out of context and use whatever interpretation they have to come up with your theory. And now your sort of playing king of the mountain on your original comment (being contentious with me and others) and not wanting a discussion. I even originally mostly agreed with you (see my original comment). > It's your choice, but there's plenty of evidence where people who came from the bottom rose to the top by working hard (and I mean "top" as in someone who's made world-changing achievements) Yeah we have had lots of female presidents. Yeah sure people can go up a few rungs with hard work (hence why I agreed with you) but extremely rare is the true Cinderalla story. It usually takes generations.... but I suppose even success is nebulous. Actually one could even argue you don't need hard work to be "successful" ... you just need to be happy (this is even based on your previous comments).
ksk 10y ago
I think this exposes the "religious" nature of humans in general, including plenty of people on HN. You see them using logical arguments to reason, instead of practical proofs (presumably in order to get away from personal bias). Surprisingly they end up with even more bias when using logical reasoning.
- bmer 10y ago
  I wouldn't say logical reasoning is at fault here, as much as analogical reasoning.
  - ksk 10y ago
    But it is, because it ignores the reality of the situation. "People don't like to be constantly shown ads, and so if you don't show ads too much they might respond to the ads. They also say they want more truth in advertising so you should refrain from over the top advertisements that promise the moon." sounds like a reasonable logical argument. Except that practically speaking its not how it works and contradictory things often get you results. The main problem is that we're dealing with humans and also that logical arguments don't work well in heavily interconnected contexts. As programmers we like to isolate and optimize and we will continue to run into a wall when we try to apply that in human contexts.

TheCowboy 10y ago

There is so much aggression here. Relax. Working longer hours isn't equivalent to working harder. Plenty of unsuccessful entrepreneurs worked long hours and worked hard, and there are examples of people/businesses doing productive work with more balanced workdays. 99% of the people in the world live in a way to not be successful, but to have a balanced life with happiness? It should be obvious that for 99% of people, that isn't a choice they get to make. It's also a grotesque separation of success from balance/happiness that shows a profound lack of insight. The word "slacker" is only present in the title of the article itself. It's normal that the writer, who you railed against, doesn't get to pick their title. So it's important to read the actual content for the premise. The writer doesn't argue against putting in time. There is the idea that quality of working hours is also important.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago
It's pretty clear that doing the 80 hour week is something that works well if you're, say, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. A difficult job, to be sure, but not top-notch in the grand scheme of things. You're not inventing quantum mechanics, you're figuring out ways for people to share more cat pictures. But if you are operating at the top of the pyramid of knowledge, like some of the people mentioned in the article, that's a different kind of effort. The 4 hours a day schedule, with plenty of breaks, seems to work best.
- matwood 10y ago
  > But if you are operating at the top of the pyramid of knowledge, like some of the people mentioned in the article, that's a different kind of effort. Yeah, it's an effort they are probably thinking about 24/7. Defining 'knowledge work' is challenging because so much of the 'work' happens when the person is not sitting at the computer/desk. Creative work is similar. Instead of saying so and so worked 4 hours/day, we need to change the definition of work.
  - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
    I think it's virtually certain that, if they are indeed top figures in their fields, it's guaranteed that they are deeply involved in their work, and that means their subconscious minds are processing that stuff non-stop. But the subconscious is a funny thing, because it doesn't seem to require "effort" to operate, however you may define that notion. It's the fully conscious, purposeful, organized work that requires "effort" and consumes "energy". Not even sure how to define these things properly, but everyone seems to understand them intuitively. Anyway, to be successful at the highest levels, it seems like you have to be awfully protective of this "energy" thing.
    - trentmb 10y ago
      > Not even sure how to define these things properly, but everyone seems to understand them intuitively. Focused vs. diffuse thinking.

linkmotif 10y ago

Amen! I love all the nobodies who tell me how to be successful and accomplish my goals by straight chillin. I'm always thinking: "and you are...?" Everyone who tells me to take it easy is a nobody anonymous person who hasn't done anything and never will. And as you said, that's up to them. Everyone picks their course and I try to remember everyone is different. But I always wonder why they choose to evangelize. I don't evangelize at them. I think Dylan said it best: they just want to get you down in the hole that they're in. Most important thing in life is to love what you're doing. Work isn't work if you love it. But nothing valuable is easy. Eventually, usually very quickly, what you want to accomplish becomes very boring to accomplish. That feeling of reward may come very infrequently. It's very difficult to do anything new or different.

gaurav_v 10y ago

I broadly agree with you, but I think the issue is more subtle. Ambitious people will always work very hard; the danger of working hard is that it necessitates a degree of path-dependent myopia that can lead one to miss huge opportunities. The most ambitious people are quite concerned about this, and try to use leisure as a comparative advantage. The article is pretty fair in painting this portrait: the author admits that the scientists construct their lives around their work (Darwin worried about getting married, for instance), but points out that constructing their lives around their work involves the construction of leisure.

collyw 10y ago

I am willing to bet that starting with a million in the bank will make you more likely to succeed that working hard. Didn't Thomas Piketty's book come to a similar conclusion?

ythn 10y ago
All things equal, the person who works harder will usually come out on top (of course, there's always some RNG). Applies to all areas of life. Scenarios where you have an unfair advantage (money in the bank) are irrelevant here.
- collyw 10y ago
  Sure I am not denying that (though a bit of good luck doesn't go wrong). It was mainly a response to the line: >In fact, you know what? MOST successful people work very hard. Surprising right? Duh. There is even a link on HN today to this article "Untalented rich still earn more, says Greening": http://www.bbc.com/news/education-39444993 http://www.bbc.com/news/education-39444993

yomly 10y ago

Agree but the danger is equating only hard work to success. i.e. successful? => works_hard? But works_hard? => successful? does not necessarily follow. In the words of Bezos: "You can work long, hard or smart, but at Amazon.com you can't choose two out of three"

MaysonL 10y ago
Very few people have the stamina, energy, and brain and emotional chemistry to perform on three out of three for very long.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

> MOST successful people work very hard. Surprising right? Duh. If you're going to complain about an author making unsubstantiated generalizations, you should probably avoid doing the same.

exergy 10y ago
I'm not OP, but this is an interesting moment to ask: would you not consider the "I worked harder than others, therefore I'm more successful" sentiment self evident? In my experience, people in my group whom I'd categorize as "successful" have often been confident in making peace/having passion for the vocation of their choice, and have paid their dues so to speak, in terms of research papers read, hours spent with their instrument, hours of training for sport etc.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > I'm not OP, but this is an interesting moment to ask: would you not consider the "I worked harder than others, therefore I'm more successful" sentiment self evident? No - I consider the sentiment very unscientific. I suspect that a significant percentage of people who think they put in above average effort fall below the average. That's assuming we can agree on a common definition of "hard work" - is physically toiling, clocking in hours, mental anguish, perseverance or a combination of the above?
  - ksk 10y ago
    Its rather odd that you chose to fight the battle of what is 'scientific' simply based on logical reasoning - which is flawed to begin with. Logical arguments serve no purpose here without practical proof.
- gthtjtkt 10y ago
  > would you not consider the "I worked harder than others, therefore I'm more successful" sentiment self evident? Not at all. We can swap anecdotes about successful people all day, but the fact of the matter is that hard work guarantees nothing, and it's not a prerequisite for success.

mempko 10y ago

I'm curious why you think Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the rest "worked long hours". Being there for 16 hours a day is not the same as working 16 hours a day. There are days where I feel busy but get very little work done. I suspect because these guys ran these companies like kings in a fiefdom they had a lot of busy work. Let's not conflate time wasted to time worked. Also intellectual jobs most certainly require walks, sleeping, and leisure because creativity is a right-brain activity.

jes5199 10y ago

sure entrepreneurs work hard, but they produce very little of lasting cultural value. If you want a legacy, you have to be more creative.

ythn 10y ago

Yes but it's currently popular to speculate on the automated future where nobody works and everyone gets free money. Yet, I have a hard time believing that vision of the future. My vision of the future is one where people still need to work, and those that work harder will reap more than those who don't.

Pica_soO 10y ago

You can not control your sub-conscious, the one part that glues together the creative part of your work. You can feed it, you can walk it and you can hope that the digestion pours out something useful. This might look like slacking off to some ignorant person, in violent denial regarding creative work. Because, if break-troughs are not gained by mechanically grinding away for hours on logic riddles, till you level up to genius- it might be the "work hard, not smart" that's actually lacking off. One can treat this like a sport, can threat this like a craft. But then you still will never be a da Vinci, or a van Gogh - elevating a whole field by digressing and recombining . Just another speed-painter hoping that his great day shall come after the 1000x tourist portrait.

wutbrodo 10y ago
> some ignorant person, in violent denial regarding creative work What an apt description of the tone of the top of this comment subthread.

gregmac 10y ago

> if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness What good is (your definition of) success if you do nothing but work and are unhappy? Or did you mean something else by this?

squidlogic 10y ago
Not OP so I can't say what is meant by "happiness" here, but maybe if you feel your life can serve a purpose other than your own pleasure/comfort you would be willing to experience less pleasure/comfort to achieve that goal. That's different than happiness, but maybe that's what he/she was getting at.
cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
Why would you not be happy if you achieve what you want in life? Sure it's a stressful journey, but if you ask me if i would pick between a life that actually served a purpose vs. a life I just lived because I lived, I would pick one that aimed to serve a purpose any day, no matter how stressful it is. You may think living a balanced "happy" life is happiness, but when you're at your deathbed and think back at your life, you will regret not having done all you could have done. Speaking of, check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I didn't believe in it when I was very young because I was down there in the pyramid, but now I realize that's not the case. You may say this is luxury for most people, and that is true. Most human population are not in a situation where they have the resources and ability to climb up all the way to the top of the hierarchy of needs, but I think anyone from HN community should be able to.
- Sharlin 10y ago
  As far as I know, most people wish on their deathbeds that they'd have worked less, been with their loved ones more, and generally would have done more anything else than work. I get that there are extremely driven individuals who want to achieve great things - and some of them are even able to do so - but articles like this should be understood in the context of a culture where common people work themselves to death trying to achieve "success" defined by the surrounding culture rather than in their own terms.

camelNotation 10y ago

>That said, if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness, then go live your life whatever way you want. In fact that's how 99% of the world live their lives. Human beings have struggled for thousands of years to define what it means to live a good life and be "successful." Few (if any) ever associated success with the acquisition of wealth. Even the rich ones, like Marcus Aurelius, did not consider wealth to be an indicator of a good life. It's rather odd that you would do so with such flippancy and dismiss those that pursue other avenues of fulfillment as "not successful".

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
No. you define your own success. For most people it's a social thing so you look at people around you and define your success. That's why people buy home, buy cars, etc. That's fine but you should really have control over what you consider as "success". When I say success I mean having a clear goal of where you want to go and achieving it. If you want to be "cool" and just enjoy your life AND achieve what you want outside of your cool life, feel free to do so, and good luck. I'm just saying you can't win against people who have the same ability who decide to go all in.
- linkmotif 10y ago
  > I'm just saying you can't win against people who have the same ability who decide to go all in. You're really killing it. <3. I'm loving it because people who say these pretty obvious things are just so few and far between. Instead of listening to John Carmack (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10882202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10882202) they choose to parrot these articles by random people who've never done anything except produce clickbait. Also I like people who say: "don't you need to exercise, go for walks, relax?" Of course! But these things must be deployed as part of your effort to achieve your goals. The odds are stacked so hard against you. You need stable finances and health, for one thing, to accomplish anything. Then you need patience, support from your friends and family, vision, a good idea... not to mention some talent, too. It's really hard. If you're not all in, you're not going anywhere in terms of producing something new and interesting. Which is fine, just don't try to sell people on the opposite.

iamacynic 10y ago

the "entrepreneur" narrative is swinging back to personal goals/development/balance, now that a bunch of people are failing in the 3rd wave (dotcom, the recovery, now post-crash). you're going to see a lot of this stuff. obviously what you said is true but the real golden goose is working reasonable hours AND making really good money. a lot of people find that place eventually, a lot don't. also i have a feeling the people who found a way to work 2 hours a day (or whatever) and make tons of money aren't really talking about it... for obvious reasons.

anotherhacker 10y ago

You're conflating knowledge work with manual work. Knowledge work requires the brain to wonder...to explore a problem and possible solutions freely. Michael Jordan wasn't trying to create anything new, he was trying to develop a physical skill. Physical skills are made via repetition. Things like stress and distraction destroy knowledge workers. This is something every experienced engineer knows.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
i'm not conflating anything more than what this article is doing. On the other hand, you are guilty of taking my words out of context. It's convenient to just take michael jordan and use it as an argument, isn't it? I also mentioned another "knowledge work" example. I'm not saying scientists should be working 18 hours a day. In fact when it comes to scientists and researchers I do agree that you should NOT work too hard because you will burn out, and most creative ideas come when you're taking a break. But it's not cool to take that example and tell the world you should "slack off" because it's "scientific". That's not how the world works. If you want to achieve something, you can't win against someone who go all in. Simple as that.
- megalodon 10y ago
  You can't count productivity in hours. Someone who goes "all-in" 6 hours a day can certainly accomplish more than someone who says they go "all-in" 12 hours a day.
  - cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
    tell me where I even mentioned "hours". really.
ksk 10y ago
Creativity also applies to athletes. They have to come up with new solutions to solve problems all the time - such as coming up with a novel way to bypass the defense of the opposition and score, given a particular situation. Just because they combine their physicality with prior experience, knowledge and cognitive ability (which they can't use too much of given the "realtime" demand) doesn't make them any less creative. IMHO They're more creative than most people on here who are implementing CS ideas already explored decades ago.

pitt1980 10y ago

an idea to consider time might not be a very good dimension to compete along because it has a firm upper cap

paganel 10y ago

> That said, if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness, then go live your life whatever way you want. In fact that's how 99% of the world live their lives. Maybe you should re-phrase that as "about being financial successful". I for myself find a "balanced life with happiness" as very close to what being successful in life really means, for the simple fact that I've gone through periods when I would have given half of the world just not to be miserable anymore. The black hole of depression cannot be filled no matter how much money you have, and it can reach you even you're the most financially successful person in the world.

InclinedPlane 10y ago

> Also, if you want to succeed, don't listen to these idiots. Statistically those who work harder succeed more. Period. Here is the absolute crux of the problem. Putting in hours of toil is not how you get ahead in most fields. It's not an XP system, it's non-linear. More hours isn't better. More drudgery isn't better. You need to be putting in an appropriate amount of time but you also need to be using your time well. If you show up and you're just punching a time card you're not guaranteed any progress whatsoever. If you're working long hours chances are high that you're not putting in your best work, that a lot of the work you're doing is just rote, autopilot stuff, and that a lot of the time you're "working" you're merely being present in a work environment and not actually working. Concentrate first on understanding what you're working on at a deep level, being present/mindful in your work, being adventurous and curious, and accepting of feeling like you're struggling. That takes a lot of effort and a lot of courage, it's always a struggle to expand your mental horizons or to explore the unknown (to you and to humanity in general). But it doesn't necessarily take much time. If you use your time efficiently you can absolutely get ahead, far ahead, of others who are working more hours and making less progress. It's not a tradeoff, it's not a binary choice, it's a matter primarily of how effectively you use your time.

anigbrowl 10y ago

That said, if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness You seem to be using an extremely narrow definition of success. Perhaps you should articulate your premises more clearly.

dv_dt 10y ago

> There are many famous athletes who worked long hours. Ask Michael Jordan. Jordan also gets paid enough that he can hire a support infrastructure so that his long hours don't impinge on his down time. Did he get back after practice and then need to worry if his house is clean, or car needs to go into the mechanic, or do his bills, or even if his pantry and fridge are stocked with food? Likely no. Long hours for the extremely well paid don't have the same effect as the rest of us.

MaysonL 10y ago

Success, especially in science, which is what the article is about, comes from working on the right problem, and concentrating on it, more than from long hours or strenuous effort.

uptownfunk 10y ago

People who are successful and don't work hard are probably more an exception than the rule. Or maybe they're working hard and not in the office? Higher likelihood of being successful if you work hard than not. That said, these type of clikbaity articles are making me wonder where HN is going and if we have any measures in place to de-clickbait-ize the stories to prevent something like this from occuring..

datalus 10y ago

Steve Jobs had a shit personal life. No thanks.

agentgt 10y ago

> Also, if you want to succeed, don't listen to these idiots. Statistically those who work harder succeed more. Period. I'm mean I generally agree but one thing I really can't stand is people believing that success is entirely hard work. The reality is most of success is "standing on the shoulder of giants". People are generally successful if they are given a massive starting advantage. That starting advantage could be genetics (which can be argued easily since that is sort of hidden) and wealth (of which there is less denying). You mention Bill Bates. Bill and both Mark Zuckerburg went to Harvard. Both had(ve) affluent parents. Even Steve had some nice advantages as well. As well in the case of this article most scientist have/had affluent parents. Of course there are Cinderella exceptions. I don't know stat wise what it is but I'm guessing low. I just don't want to hear hard work always equals success when most board rooms are filled with the white good old boys network.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
I didn't say that. This is why it's hard to have civil discussion online because people take words out of context and use whatever interpretation they have. If you are one of the people who are in unfortunate situations, you can choose to live two different lives: either believe that you're done for and live a loser life, or try hard to get out of it. It's your choice, but there's plenty of evidence where people who came from the bottom rose to the top by working hard (and I mean "top" as in someone who's made world-changing achievements)
- agentgt 10y ago
  > I didn't say that. This is why it's hard to have civil discussion online because people take words out of context and use whatever interpretation they have. How about I just agree and say you are right? Its pretty hard to have a civil discussion when you top level post and accuse HNers of commenting like lemmings. > This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic. It sounds like you took a lot of: words out of context and use whatever interpretation they have to come up with your theory. And now your sort of playing king of the mountain on your original comment (being contentious with me and others) and not wanting a discussion. I even originally mostly agreed with you (see my original comment). > It's your choice, but there's plenty of evidence where people who came from the bottom rose to the top by working hard (and I mean "top" as in someone who's made world-changing achievements) Yeah we have had lots of female presidents. Yeah sure people can go up a few rungs with hard work (hence why I agreed with you) but extremely rare is the true Cinderalla story. It usually takes generations.... but I suppose even success is nebulous. Actually one could even argue you don't need hard work to be "successful" ... you just need to be happy (this is even based on your previous comments).

ksk 10y ago

I think this exposes the "religious" nature of humans in general, including plenty of people on HN. You see them using logical arguments to reason, instead of practical proofs (presumably in order to get away from personal bias). Surprisingly they end up with even more bias when using logical reasoning.

bmer 10y ago
I wouldn't say logical reasoning is at fault here, as much as analogical reasoning.
- ksk 10y ago
  But it is, because it ignores the reality of the situation. "People don't like to be constantly shown ads, and so if you don't show ads too much they might respond to the ads. They also say they want more truth in advertising so you should refrain from over the top advertisements that promise the moon." sounds like a reasonable logical argument. Except that practically speaking its not how it works and contradictory things often get you results. The main problem is that we're dealing with humans and also that logical arguments don't work well in heavily interconnected contexts. As programmers we like to isolate and optimize and we will continue to run into a wall when we try to apply that in human contexts.