4 ms·

>Show me anything revolutionary that was done by a group of people that weren't obsessed to the point of neglecting the rest of their life. Newton invented cal

>Show me anything revolutionary that was done by a group of people that weren't obsessed to the point of neglecting the rest of their life. Newton invented calculus in a few months goofing off on his family farm while avoiding the plague. This "work yourself to death" mentality is moronic. It's about 1000x more moronic when you're working on some dumb ass app which makes life worse and which makes someone else rich, which is, realistically what most of you are working on.

hollerith 7y ago
>Newton invented calculus in a few months goofing off I'm not disputing your overall point, but I don't think the example of Newton helps your case. Newton accumulated writings at the time of his death run to about ten million words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Alchemy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Alchemy 10 million words on science, philosophy, religion and combating counterfeiting during his 33-year tenure with the Royal Mint is a lot even for a long life. (Newton lived to 84.) And Newton never had sex. (He boasted of the fact on his death bed.) And look at all the serious things he pursued after he invented calculus (intro to the same Wikipedia page): >Beyond his work on the mathematical sciences, Newton dedicated much of his time to the study of alchemy and biblical chronology, but most of his work in those areas remained unpublished until long after his death. . . . Newton served two brief terms as Member of Parliament for the University of Cambridge, in 1689–90 and 1701–02. He . . . spent the last three decades of his life in London, serving as Warden (1696–1700) and Master (1700–1727) of the Royal Mint, as well as president of the Royal Society (1703–1727). Given all he did after inventing calculus combined with the fact that he was ambitious and from a poor family, I'm inclined to think he worked his ass off when he was a student unless you can present strong evidence to the contrary.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  What, do you think sex-havers waste more time or something? I don't know what point you're trying to make here. The fact that Newton did a lot of stuff doesn't mean he burned himself out with Travis Bickle hours the way modern ding dongs do to excuse not having a life. Let's use another example of a great man who accomplished a lot without working real hard: Winston Churchill. A day drinker who was fond of long meals, boozy parties and who took a daily hour and a half long nap. Somehow he managed to take up painting, write a couple dozen encyclopediac books, ran many important government offices and defeated Hitler. I'll go out of my way to notice that the great ancient Greek and even Roman types were all unconscionably lazy by modern American standards, and Aristotle did his best work relaxing in a bath. Darwin was lazy as was da Vinci. Being lazy is civilized and normal. The insane "I must eat soylent and snort modafinil to maximize my productivity" calvinist mindset of contemporary American upper middle class strivers is the deviation from the mean of the human race. And don't try to tell me things are particularly amazing in current year because all these strivers are working bugman hours: this lifestyle is wretched and disgusting and our era is marked by stupidity, vice and lack of technical or cultural progress. Laziness is aristocratic; if people would relax and smell the roses more, well, most of them won't do anything like what Newton did, but they'll have more time to be thoughtful.
  - vosper 7y ago
    > Let's use another example of a great man who accomplished a lot without working real hard: Winston Churchill. A day drinker who was fond of long meals, boozy parties and who took a daily hour and a half long nap. Somehow he managed to take up painting, write a couple dozen encyclopediac books, ran many important government offices and defeated Hitler. I'm don't think taking naps and enjoying parties disqualify the possibility of also working hard. There's probably a difference between doing a lot of work, and feeling that you're "working hard" - I can't say whether Churchill experienced the latter, but he certainly accomplished the former.
  - AndrewKemendo 7y ago
    This concept of Churchill as a man not completely obsessed - specifically during his tenure as prime minister - is just wrong. He would dictate thousands of words a night and had a team of people who worked slavishly to interpret his volumes.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      What head of state, cabinet minister, CEO, or general does not have a team of people to "slavishly" whatever? Significant use of dictation would be entirely usual among the same groups back then. Churchill seemed to consider his writing relaxation and hobby as we might surf the net, and our parents watch 5 hours of evening TV. Modern celebs and influencers have a team to maintain the social feeds, sight unseen of the celeb or artist themselves. When he took time off he'd write letters and talk about having had loads of fun writing 2000 words, and laying 200 bricks a day, along with painting a little. Bricklaying was another of his hobbies that persisted until very late in life. Started with garden walls, he worked up to building a whole cottage or two.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
It's well documented that Newton had multiple nervous breakdowns in his life including a year long one.[1] [1]http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/his-personal-life http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/his-personal-life
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  And ... ? That doesn't mean he lost his marbles because of stress or long hours. More likely he lost his marbles for the same reason bodybuilders and professional strong men (two more classes of lazy over achievers) are more prone to shoulder injury than people who play the trombone. Look, I clicked on your profile and know where you're coming from: you were in the military. I used to be a cop. People with this sort of background pride themselves on being able to deal with extreme stress which would paralyze most people. It's a useful superpower, but it is not useful to be this lit up all the time; you have to relax at some point.
waterhouse 7y ago
The line between "playing with ideas" and "working on ideas" is blurred for those who find those ideas fascinating (who, I believe, are heavily overrepresented among top scientists). If you define "work" to mean "making yourself do something you don't intrinsically enjoy", then, yeah, many of them probably didn't work hard. But if you count the hours they spent thinking about their scientific or mathematical ideas, then I think you'll find that's often a very high number among the greats like Newton.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  This is one part of the distinction. Work usually involves locking oneself up on a sterile, isolating work environment. This is good for the menial parts of scientific work. But there is a creative side to science. This is the seemingly lazy part where you need relax and let your mind wander. If you enjoy the problem you are trying to solve, your thoughts just naturally revolve around it even when you are not technically at work. And it is a different, probably less structured process from focussing on a certain path to a solution. And that is why it is so important.

hollerith 7y ago

>Newton invented calculus in a few months goofing off I'm not disputing your overall point, but I don't think the example of Newton helps your case. Newton accumulated writings at the time of his death run to about ten million words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Alchemy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Alchemy 10 million words on science, philosophy, religion and combating counterfeiting during his 33-year tenure with the Royal Mint is a lot even for a long life. (Newton lived to 84.) And Newton never had sex. (He boasted of the fact on his death bed.) And look at all the serious things he pursued after he invented calculus (intro to the same Wikipedia page): >Beyond his work on the mathematical sciences, Newton dedicated much of his time to the study of alchemy and biblical chronology, but most of his work in those areas remained unpublished until long after his death. . . . Newton served two brief terms as Member of Parliament for the University of Cambridge, in 1689–90 and 1701–02. He . . . spent the last three decades of his life in London, serving as Warden (1696–1700) and Master (1700–1727) of the Royal Mint, as well as president of the Royal Society (1703–1727). Given all he did after inventing calculus combined with the fact that he was ambitious and from a poor family, I'm inclined to think he worked his ass off when he was a student unless you can present strong evidence to the contrary.

scottlocklin 7y ago
What, do you think sex-havers waste more time or something? I don't know what point you're trying to make here. The fact that Newton did a lot of stuff doesn't mean he burned himself out with Travis Bickle hours the way modern ding dongs do to excuse not having a life. Let's use another example of a great man who accomplished a lot without working real hard: Winston Churchill. A day drinker who was fond of long meals, boozy parties and who took a daily hour and a half long nap. Somehow he managed to take up painting, write a couple dozen encyclopediac books, ran many important government offices and defeated Hitler. I'll go out of my way to notice that the great ancient Greek and even Roman types were all unconscionably lazy by modern American standards, and Aristotle did his best work relaxing in a bath. Darwin was lazy as was da Vinci. Being lazy is civilized and normal. The insane "I must eat soylent and snort modafinil to maximize my productivity" calvinist mindset of contemporary American upper middle class strivers is the deviation from the mean of the human race. And don't try to tell me things are particularly amazing in current year because all these strivers are working bugman hours: this lifestyle is wretched and disgusting and our era is marked by stupidity, vice and lack of technical or cultural progress. Laziness is aristocratic; if people would relax and smell the roses more, well, most of them won't do anything like what Newton did, but they'll have more time to be thoughtful.
- vosper 7y ago
  > Let's use another example of a great man who accomplished a lot without working real hard: Winston Churchill. A day drinker who was fond of long meals, boozy parties and who took a daily hour and a half long nap. Somehow he managed to take up painting, write a couple dozen encyclopediac books, ran many important government offices and defeated Hitler. I'm don't think taking naps and enjoying parties disqualify the possibility of also working hard. There's probably a difference between doing a lot of work, and feeling that you're "working hard" - I can't say whether Churchill experienced the latter, but he certainly accomplished the former.
- AndrewKemendo 7y ago
  This concept of Churchill as a man not completely obsessed - specifically during his tenure as prime minister - is just wrong. He would dictate thousands of words a night and had a team of people who worked slavishly to interpret his volumes.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    What head of state, cabinet minister, CEO, or general does not have a team of people to "slavishly" whatever? Significant use of dictation would be entirely usual among the same groups back then. Churchill seemed to consider his writing relaxation and hobby as we might surf the net, and our parents watch 5 hours of evening TV. Modern celebs and influencers have a team to maintain the social feeds, sight unseen of the celeb or artist themselves. When he took time off he'd write letters and talk about having had loads of fun writing 2000 words, and laying 200 bricks a day, along with painting a little. Bricklaying was another of his hobbies that persisted until very late in life. Started with garden walls, he worked up to building a whole cottage or two.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

It's well documented that Newton had multiple nervous breakdowns in his life including a year long one.[1] [1]http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/his-personal-life http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/his-personal-life

scottlocklin 7y ago
And ... ? That doesn't mean he lost his marbles because of stress or long hours. More likely he lost his marbles for the same reason bodybuilders and professional strong men (two more classes of lazy over achievers) are more prone to shoulder injury than people who play the trombone. Look, I clicked on your profile and know where you're coming from: you were in the military. I used to be a cop. People with this sort of background pride themselves on being able to deal with extreme stress which would paralyze most people. It's a useful superpower, but it is not useful to be this lit up all the time; you have to relax at some point.

waterhouse 7y ago

The line between "playing with ideas" and "working on ideas" is blurred for those who find those ideas fascinating (who, I believe, are heavily overrepresented among top scientists). If you define "work" to mean "making yourself do something you don't intrinsically enjoy", then, yeah, many of them probably didn't work hard. But if you count the hours they spent thinking about their scientific or mathematical ideas, then I think you'll find that's often a very high number among the greats like Newton.

gmueckl 7y ago
This is one part of the distinction. Work usually involves locking oneself up on a sterile, isolating work environment. This is good for the menial parts of scientific work. But there is a creative side to science. This is the seemingly lazy part where you need relax and let your mind wander. If you enjoy the problem you are trying to solve, your thoughts just naturally revolve around it even when you are not technically at work. And it is a different, probably less structured process from focussing on a certain path to a solution. And that is why it is so important.