6 ms·

Seems like a bit of a tail wagging the dog situation. How do we know the more relaxed/organized schedule leads to success, and not that success leads to a more

Seems like a bit of a tail wagging the dog situation. How do we know the more relaxed/organized schedule leads to success, and not that success leads to a more relaxed/organized schedule? This reminds me of some other advice I remember reading: No level of hard work or organization will substitute for talent and opportunity, and nearly all success stories to the contrary are missing key facts. ie Myth: Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team. Reality: Michael Jordan was put onto the junior team with players his own age/size so he could get more play time, instead of being prematurely promoted to the highest level of play. Myth: Bill Gates is a college drop out who found success in a technical field purely based on personal merit. Reality: Gates' private high school gave him more access to computers than Harvard, and continuing at Harvard would have been a waste of time given his level of experience in the field. The lesson is that you need to figure out what you're good at and where you have opportunity, and then work hard in those areas. Just working hard is a recipe for failure for most people.

DavidPiper 7y ago
Kudos for debunking two myths knew about and believed at face value. I agree with the talent + opportunity + hard work combination, and I would say that enjoyment is also necessary for the hard work not to become (self-)destructive in the long term.
- varvar 7y ago
  The myths are promoted as means to raise hope in the "little man" and to attract new blood (workers) to the specific industries, thinking they can also become as big as the stars of that industry, starting with very little. This is very deceptive, and probably gets people into trouble more often than not, changing their long term orbits based on fantasies built on selective factology about what is enough for success.
  - scythe 7y ago
    >The myths are promoted as means to raise hope in the "little man" and to attract new blood (workers) to the specific industries, thinking they can also become as big as the stars of that industry, starting with very little. Why invoke conspiracy when mere venality will suffice? Optimism sells. Hollywood has warmed its benches with a never-ending stream of would-be stars and filmmakers despite the fact that the image of the struggling Hollywood hopeful is as cliche as that of the morally intermittent lawyer. Perhaps one of the strangest things about our psychology-and-PR-dominated world is that psychology is so subtle and powerful that it affects us even when it is not affecting us, making us see ghosts in the shadows of folklore. What would be so nice is a list of criteria for determining when a meme may have been designed for cultural impact. Surely cui bono is not enough -- it implicates nearly everything!
    - mikojan 7y ago
      You are making this out to be a conspiracy. It's perfectly possible people are just unconsciously working together towards this end. Let's say I grow up in a poor working-class environment. Years later I find myself CEO of a multi-national corporation and the people working for me are poor working-class people. - And most companies are set up like this. There's very few people at the top and they have all the power while the subordniate masses have none. You give orders. They take orders. - One way to justify my own place in this system is to convince myself that my sucesses have some special property rather than just coincidence: "You can make it if you work hard like me." And if you're a media company one might suspect that because of this you would tend to tell stories of individual endeavor. And one might suspect the same would be true for a marketing company.
      - amw 7y ago
        There's a difference between "conspiracy" and "class solidarity among the wealthy". You're totally right that it's probably silly to attribute this to all management/ownership explicitly collaborating together on a scheme they're keeping secret from the workers, but I'd argue that the comment you're responding to is also totally right to point out that things can structurally support each other in a way that ultimately ends up being a small group of rich people working to keep a larger group of poor people poor, simply because all the small incentives for the individual decisions can support the larger structural whole. We can still attribute that as "wealthy people promulgate a narrative to inspire false hope" in a meaningful way, as long as we don't take it from an individualist frame.
Swizec 7y ago
Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard. But crucially, at the peak of the game, both talent and hard work are just the cost of entry. The rest is luck and opportunity. For example: Phelps won the Olympics by a knuckle. That’s a difference so subtle it’s down to chaotic systems and butterfly wings for that particular race. Overall everyone at that level is hugely talented and incredibly hardworking
- ivalm 7y ago
  > Phelps won the Olympics by a knuckle. To be fair, Phelps has 23 Olympic gold medals. Some victories were closer than others but he really did have an era of true dominance.
- tapland 7y ago
  But most importantly for your example: genetically superior for the task. =/
  - tempestn 7y ago
    Which is basically another form of talent.
- weinzierl 7y ago
  > That’s a difference so subtle it’s down to chaotic systems and butterfly wings for that particular race. I don't know much about swimming but in bicycle races and skiing close results seem to be very common. Now if it really is "down to chaotic systems and butterfly wings" I wonder why we don't see much more variance amongst the winners?
  - rorykoehler 7y ago
    Cycling is much more tactical. Trying to win by a large distance reduces your odds of winning.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
darawk 7y ago
> Myth: Bill Gates is a college drop out who found success in a technical field purely based on personal merit. Reality: Gates' private high school gave him more access to computers than Harvard, and continuing at Harvard would have been a waste of time given his level of experience in the field. In what sense is that a myth? He is a college dropout. Lots of people had access to computers at that time. True, not everyone, but extraordinarily few of the people that had access to computers at that time went on to found multibillion dollar companies. The idea that the fact that he had access to computers somehow debunks the story of his merit is absurd to me.
- silvestrov 7y ago
  > In what sense is that a myth? That Harvard provided a better education than his High School and that leaving Hardvard is someting only loosers do.
  - darawk 7y ago
    Nobody goes to Harvard for the education. They go for the degree. The thing he abandoned was the credential - and that his high school did not give him.
    - zumu 7y ago
      You really go for the connections, which he clearly didn't need.
    - eagerToLearn 7y ago
      I've always wondered. Do you think someone studying Medicine or Mech. Eng. at Harvard wouldn't get a higher quality education than what many public colleges provide ?
      - ta0987 7y ago
        One of my professors at an ivy would occasionally at the end of a lecture jokingly say something like, "ok here's what I think about all this, this five minutes is what you're paying 30 grand a year for so pay attention, everything else I've said today you could have read in the textbook. Nobody actually uses this algorithm, if you need it you're already overloaded, people just buy more capacity before utilization gets this high." At the undergrad level I think the main benefit of a high end school is simply being grouped with other high end students and so getting a curriculum tailored for you. As if the Honors and AP classes in high school were only available in a few schools that were selective and more expensive. I don't think this is completely true but I think there is a lot of truth to it... you go to fancy schools for the other fancy students as much as anything else. Point being, at the undergrad level Harvard isn't better because it's Haaaard-vard, it's better because their curriculum is more advanced, which they can do because they have sufficient concentration of high-talent students who can handle it.
torh 7y ago
I feel that something is lacking in this study. The environment. Maybe the elite players had better support at home, maybe an only child? By the time these players, both elite and average, was picked out for this study, their life had already been clearly defined by their environment.
deepGem 7y ago
"Just working hard is a recipe for failure for most people." It is quite impossible to just work hard unless you are forced to. I mean there has to be some spark, some excitement about the work you are doing. Which typically means you have some inkling to do take on this task, which you may not be good at but with hard work you will make progress and eventually good at the task, and this self fulfilling cycle continues. I am not however certain that this process will equip you to spot good opportunities. You can be really good at what you do and not even realize how many opportunities in that same space have gone by. You may be very content with your status quo. There could be multiple reasons for not spotting opportunities. So I wouldn't say that just working hard is a sure recipe for failure.
- mysticmode 7y ago
  You put it nicely and this is exactly what I've been thinking. As you said there has to be some spark within you to do that stuff that you are wanting to do. Rest of the part is about enjoying the process of doing that. I personally believe that there is no clear-cut rule or path for success and it differs from person to person. So, this way - I wonder how people could come up with such an outrageous article saying that x will lead you to success if you do it this way?!
koonsolo 7y ago
You are correct, but I think you have to make a distinction between being successful, and being the best in your craft. Those two not always align, and the article talks about the second one. If you look at top athletes, where being the best in your craft is priority, talent, quality of training and rest are the most important factors. I agree that the same is true for mental work. Look at the daily schedules of famous writers and scientists. 6 hours is a full day of work, with a lot of resting and walking. But if you move into the realm of successful people, all those things that you mention come into play. They can also handle more work hours because management is not as intensive as serious mental work on 1 topic.
jonathanstrange 7y ago
There is a false dichotomy here. Talented people who have seized the right opportunity can get overwhelmed or disorganized like everyone else. I've always assumed that all those tips for getting organized, getting this done, etc., are primarily intended for talented people who otherwise already know what they're doing. > No level of hard work or organization will substitute for talent and opportunity I find that very doubtful. A certain level of talent is needed, there is no doubt about that. Beyond that level, though, it seems to me that focus and continuous dedication (aka, hard work) in combination with being at the right place with right people at the right time are the most decisive success factors in any endeavour. Bill Gates is the perfect example. He has been working like crazy in his early years, was basically on the job all the time.
- babygoat 7y ago
  Why doubtful? Bill Gates is incredibly talented, and being in the right place at the right time is more or less the definition of opportunity.
  - sk84life 7y ago
    Well, offtopic a bit but.. People say you never know what they have to sacrifice for they success. Listening lately news about Bill and he's circles of friends.. I can honestly say I am not surprised why these certain billionaires are never prosecuted of anything..
    - dullgiulio 7y ago
      What are you trying to imply? Microsoft paid hefty fines for its monopolistic behavior...
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        I suspect: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-... GP shouldn't insinuate vaguely, IMO.
adriand 7y ago
> Seems like a bit of a tail wagging the dog situation. How do we know the more relaxed/organized schedule leads to success, and not that success leads to a more relaxed/organized schedule? That's a facile rhetorical question. You could similarly ask, "How do we know that good food and exercise lead to healthy human beings, rather than that already-healthy human beings have access to good food and exercise?" The answer, of course, would be research. All the students were working the same amount. Their work habits were different. Furthermore, although I can understand why success might lead to more relaxation (for instance, by making students feel less stressed about their future prospects), I don't see how it would lead to more discipline or a focus on deliberate practice. Successful people tend to do the same things they've always done, for the obvious reason that they are successful doing it. If they were undisciplined and successful, what motivation would they have for becoming disciplined? In addition to the data and the research (and Newport has illuminated many more results than this one), two anecdotes come to mind. The first is from The Effective Executive by Peter Drucker, where he brings forward some examples: > [Consider] Harry Hopkins, President Roosevelt’s confidential adviser in World War II. A dying, indeed almost a dead man for whom every step was torment, he could only work a few hours every other day or so. This forced him to cut out everything but truly vital matters. He did not lose effectiveness thereby; on the contrary, he became, as Churchill called him once, “Lord Heart of the Matter” and accomplished more than anyone else in wartime Washington. The second is from my personal life. Having children forced me to concentrate my efforts and create a much more disciplined work life. I'm more successful and focused than ever. Although this is just an anecdote, this phenomenon is commonly reported by other people in demanding technical or executive roles.
- ipoopatwork 7y ago
  > The answer, of course, would be research. All the students were working the same amount. Their work habits were different. The proper research here would have been to make the student change their habit and see if they became better musicians as a result. This article isn't research, it's writing down a fact and then trying to extract conclusions when none can be made.
hibbelig 7y ago
> How do we know the more relaxed/organized schedule leads to success, and not that success leads to a more relaxed/organized schedule? In the article, they looked at university students, prior to success. Of course this meant they had to predict the future, and they did this by asking the professors and by self-selection: The assumption was that music students who study to become teachers are average performers whereas music students who study to become performers and whose professors think they are great are also in fact going to be great.
- LudwigNagasena 7y ago
  So students that know they are not going to be great study to become teachers. Very smart of them.
Kye 7y ago
See also: writers/musicians/artists/etc who talk about the hard work behind their success while omitting the part where their partner provided for them while they focused on that instead of working for someone else to pay the bills. They might have made it anyway, but there's a good chance all the stress and worry from providing for themselves in the modern economy would have taken all their focus and energy for starting a creative career. I've seen too many independent ambitions crushed under unpredictable automated schedules, wage theft, repair and medical bills, and cascading overdraft fees.
- wreath 7y ago
  or the support from the state in some cases (Sweden?)
Spooky23 7y ago
The “elite” people in this story aren’t relaxing more, they have their shit together and plan. They report that they work the same but probably actually work more because they are dedicating blocks of time. Working smart, hard is how you get value from hard work. Good luck and timing manner, but fortune favors the bold.
imgabe 7y ago
> The lesson is that you need to figure out what you're good at and where you have opportunity, and then work hard in those areas. Just working hard is a recipe for failure for most people. You are right, but too often what people take from this is that the hard work doesn't matter and the people who succeed only did so because of random talent and/or opportunity. No, if you have talent and opportunity but don't work hard, you still won't succeed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisdhoover 7y ago
  Life is so much more complicated. One could be born into success. Luck is a factor. Understanding and exploiting risk is a factor. Persistence is a factor - you could continue to fail until succeed, or you could continue to fail until you teach yourself what is needed to succeed. You could have brilliant ideas but no capital and still fail even though you work hard and are talented. Reducing to success to two or three factors may be true in some cases but those two or three factors may be different in the larger set of successful cases.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  But the people who are really successful in a field don't find it hard work to do that. They genuinely enjoy it, and find it extremely satisfying to do what the rest of us would consider to be a gruelling schedule. There's also a cohort of people who are insanely talented in a field but don't really enjoy it that much, and find it hard work. One of my best friends is an incredibly talented artist, but burnt out doing commercial work in his 20's and rarely puts pencil to paper these days. I consider it a criminal waste of talent, but it's his life ;) Then there's the cohort of people who are a bit talented in the field, but have decided for whatever reason (usually parents) that this is what they'll do with their life, and hard work is how they're going to do it. Watching them beat their heads against the brick wall is horrifying. In the end, we need to avoid survivor bias. For every person who says "I did this, and you can too!" look for other people who did the same and yet didn't succeed. Learn from them, too.
shantly 7y ago
> The lesson is that you need to figure out what you're good at and where you have opportunity, and then work hard in those areas. Just working hard is a recipe for failure for most people. It took me way too long to realize that I should focus most of my effort on things that are so easy for me that I'm taken aback when others find them difficult.
InvisibleCities 7y ago
Bill Gates is the epitome of a no-talent ass-clown who owes 100% his financial success to his personal family connections (his mother was personal friends with John Akers and John Opel of IBM due to their work on the United Way board together, and she leveraged this connection to get a fledgling Microsoft a sweetheart deal to develop the OS for the IBM PC) and his willingness to mercilessly steal the source code of people far smarter than him. Seeing this vicious bastard praised on a "hacker" forum is mind-boggling to me.
- undulation 7y ago
  Is there any good reading or critical biography of this? Assuming your account isn't a gross exaggeration of Gates' misdeeds, this sounds like it would make good reading
paulddraper 7y ago
> No level of hard work or organization will substitute for talent and opportunity You need look no further than a literal lottery to learn that obvious truth. Could anyone with enough hard work and organization make $100M? That said, it's not a very useful statement; you can't control what you can't control.

DavidPiper 7y ago

Kudos for debunking two myths knew about and believed at face value. I agree with the talent + opportunity + hard work combination, and I would say that enjoyment is also necessary for the hard work not to become (self-)destructive in the long term.

varvar 7y ago
The myths are promoted as means to raise hope in the "little man" and to attract new blood (workers) to the specific industries, thinking they can also become as big as the stars of that industry, starting with very little. This is very deceptive, and probably gets people into trouble more often than not, changing their long term orbits based on fantasies built on selective factology about what is enough for success.
- scythe 7y ago
  >The myths are promoted as means to raise hope in the "little man" and to attract new blood (workers) to the specific industries, thinking they can also become as big as the stars of that industry, starting with very little. Why invoke conspiracy when mere venality will suffice? Optimism sells. Hollywood has warmed its benches with a never-ending stream of would-be stars and filmmakers despite the fact that the image of the struggling Hollywood hopeful is as cliche as that of the morally intermittent lawyer. Perhaps one of the strangest things about our psychology-and-PR-dominated world is that psychology is so subtle and powerful that it affects us even when it is not affecting us, making us see ghosts in the shadows of folklore. What would be so nice is a list of criteria for determining when a meme may have been designed for cultural impact. Surely cui bono is not enough -- it implicates nearly everything!
  - mikojan 7y ago
    You are making this out to be a conspiracy. It's perfectly possible people are just unconsciously working together towards this end. Let's say I grow up in a poor working-class environment. Years later I find myself CEO of a multi-national corporation and the people working for me are poor working-class people. - And most companies are set up like this. There's very few people at the top and they have all the power while the subordniate masses have none. You give orders. They take orders. - One way to justify my own place in this system is to convince myself that my sucesses have some special property rather than just coincidence: "You can make it if you work hard like me." And if you're a media company one might suspect that because of this you would tend to tell stories of individual endeavor. And one might suspect the same would be true for a marketing company.
    - amw 7y ago
      There's a difference between "conspiracy" and "class solidarity among the wealthy". You're totally right that it's probably silly to attribute this to all management/ownership explicitly collaborating together on a scheme they're keeping secret from the workers, but I'd argue that the comment you're responding to is also totally right to point out that things can structurally support each other in a way that ultimately ends up being a small group of rich people working to keep a larger group of poor people poor, simply because all the small incentives for the individual decisions can support the larger structural whole. We can still attribute that as "wealthy people promulgate a narrative to inspire false hope" in a meaningful way, as long as we don't take it from an individualist frame.

Swizec 7y ago

Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard. But crucially, at the peak of the game, both talent and hard work are just the cost of entry. The rest is luck and opportunity. For example: Phelps won the Olympics by a knuckle. That’s a difference so subtle it’s down to chaotic systems and butterfly wings for that particular race. Overall everyone at that level is hugely talented and incredibly hardworking

ivalm 7y ago
> Phelps won the Olympics by a knuckle. To be fair, Phelps has 23 Olympic gold medals. Some victories were closer than others but he really did have an era of true dominance.
tapland 7y ago
But most importantly for your example: genetically superior for the task. =/
- tempestn 7y ago
  Which is basically another form of talent.
weinzierl 7y ago
> That’s a difference so subtle it’s down to chaotic systems and butterfly wings for that particular race. I don't know much about swimming but in bicycle races and skiing close results seem to be very common. Now if it really is "down to chaotic systems and butterfly wings" I wonder why we don't see much more variance amongst the winners?
- rorykoehler 7y ago
  Cycling is much more tactical. Trying to win by a large distance reduces your odds of winning.
  - jacquesm 7y ago

darawk 7y ago

> Myth: Bill Gates is a college drop out who found success in a technical field purely based on personal merit. Reality: Gates' private high school gave him more access to computers than Harvard, and continuing at Harvard would have been a waste of time given his level of experience in the field. In what sense is that a myth? He is a college dropout. Lots of people had access to computers at that time. True, not everyone, but extraordinarily few of the people that had access to computers at that time went on to found multibillion dollar companies. The idea that the fact that he had access to computers somehow debunks the story of his merit is absurd to me.

silvestrov 7y ago
> In what sense is that a myth? That Harvard provided a better education than his High School and that leaving Hardvard is someting only loosers do.
- darawk 7y ago
  Nobody goes to Harvard for the education. They go for the degree. The thing he abandoned was the credential - and that his high school did not give him.
  - zumu 7y ago
    You really go for the connections, which he clearly didn't need.
  - eagerToLearn 7y ago
    I've always wondered. Do you think someone studying Medicine or Mech. Eng. at Harvard wouldn't get a higher quality education than what many public colleges provide ?
    - ta0987 7y ago
      One of my professors at an ivy would occasionally at the end of a lecture jokingly say something like, "ok here's what I think about all this, this five minutes is what you're paying 30 grand a year for so pay attention, everything else I've said today you could have read in the textbook. Nobody actually uses this algorithm, if you need it you're already overloaded, people just buy more capacity before utilization gets this high." At the undergrad level I think the main benefit of a high end school is simply being grouped with other high end students and so getting a curriculum tailored for you. As if the Honors and AP classes in high school were only available in a few schools that were selective and more expensive. I don't think this is completely true but I think there is a lot of truth to it... you go to fancy schools for the other fancy students as much as anything else. Point being, at the undergrad level Harvard isn't better because it's Haaaard-vard, it's better because their curriculum is more advanced, which they can do because they have sufficient concentration of high-talent students who can handle it.

torh 7y ago

I feel that something is lacking in this study. The environment. Maybe the elite players had better support at home, maybe an only child? By the time these players, both elite and average, was picked out for this study, their life had already been clearly defined by their environment.

deepGem 7y ago

"Just working hard is a recipe for failure for most people." It is quite impossible to just work hard unless you are forced to. I mean there has to be some spark, some excitement about the work you are doing. Which typically means you have some inkling to do take on this task, which you may not be good at but with hard work you will make progress and eventually good at the task, and this self fulfilling cycle continues. I am not however certain that this process will equip you to spot good opportunities. You can be really good at what you do and not even realize how many opportunities in that same space have gone by. You may be very content with your status quo. There could be multiple reasons for not spotting opportunities. So I wouldn't say that just working hard is a sure recipe for failure.

mysticmode 7y ago
You put it nicely and this is exactly what I've been thinking. As you said there has to be some spark within you to do that stuff that you are wanting to do. Rest of the part is about enjoying the process of doing that. I personally believe that there is no clear-cut rule or path for success and it differs from person to person. So, this way - I wonder how people could come up with such an outrageous article saying that x will lead you to success if you do it this way?!

koonsolo 7y ago

You are correct, but I think you have to make a distinction between being successful, and being the best in your craft. Those two not always align, and the article talks about the second one. If you look at top athletes, where being the best in your craft is priority, talent, quality of training and rest are the most important factors. I agree that the same is true for mental work. Look at the daily schedules of famous writers and scientists. 6 hours is a full day of work, with a lot of resting and walking. But if you move into the realm of successful people, all those things that you mention come into play. They can also handle more work hours because management is not as intensive as serious mental work on 1 topic.

jonathanstrange 7y ago

There is a false dichotomy here. Talented people who have seized the right opportunity can get overwhelmed or disorganized like everyone else. I've always assumed that all those tips for getting organized, getting this done, etc., are primarily intended for talented people who otherwise already know what they're doing. > No level of hard work or organization will substitute for talent and opportunity I find that very doubtful. A certain level of talent is needed, there is no doubt about that. Beyond that level, though, it seems to me that focus and continuous dedication (aka, hard work) in combination with being at the right place with right people at the right time are the most decisive success factors in any endeavour. Bill Gates is the perfect example. He has been working like crazy in his early years, was basically on the job all the time.

babygoat 7y ago
Why doubtful? Bill Gates is incredibly talented, and being in the right place at the right time is more or less the definition of opportunity.
- sk84life 7y ago
  Well, offtopic a bit but.. People say you never know what they have to sacrifice for they success. Listening lately news about Bill and he's circles of friends.. I can honestly say I am not surprised why these certain billionaires are never prosecuted of anything..
  - dullgiulio 7y ago
    What are you trying to imply? Microsoft paid hefty fines for its monopolistic behavior...
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      I suspect: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-... GP shouldn't insinuate vaguely, IMO.

adriand 7y ago

> Seems like a bit of a tail wagging the dog situation. How do we know the more relaxed/organized schedule leads to success, and not that success leads to a more relaxed/organized schedule? That's a facile rhetorical question. You could similarly ask, "How do we know that good food and exercise lead to healthy human beings, rather than that already-healthy human beings have access to good food and exercise?" The answer, of course, would be research. All the students were working the same amount. Their work habits were different. Furthermore, although I can understand why success might lead to more relaxation (for instance, by making students feel less stressed about their future prospects), I don't see how it would lead to more discipline or a focus on deliberate practice. Successful people tend to do the same things they've always done, for the obvious reason that they are successful doing it. If they were undisciplined and successful, what motivation would they have for becoming disciplined? In addition to the data and the research (and Newport has illuminated many more results than this one), two anecdotes come to mind. The first is from The Effective Executive by Peter Drucker, where he brings forward some examples: > [Consider] Harry Hopkins, President Roosevelt’s confidential adviser in World War II. A dying, indeed almost a dead man for whom every step was torment, he could only work a few hours every other day or so. This forced him to cut out everything but truly vital matters. He did not lose effectiveness thereby; on the contrary, he became, as Churchill called him once, “Lord Heart of the Matter” and accomplished more than anyone else in wartime Washington. The second is from my personal life. Having children forced me to concentrate my efforts and create a much more disciplined work life. I'm more successful and focused than ever. Although this is just an anecdote, this phenomenon is commonly reported by other people in demanding technical or executive roles.

ipoopatwork 7y ago
> The answer, of course, would be research. All the students were working the same amount. Their work habits were different. The proper research here would have been to make the student change their habit and see if they became better musicians as a result. This article isn't research, it's writing down a fact and then trying to extract conclusions when none can be made.

hibbelig 7y ago

> How do we know the more relaxed/organized schedule leads to success, and not that success leads to a more relaxed/organized schedule? In the article, they looked at university students, prior to success. Of course this meant they had to predict the future, and they did this by asking the professors and by self-selection: The assumption was that music students who study to become teachers are average performers whereas music students who study to become performers and whose professors think they are great are also in fact going to be great.

LudwigNagasena 7y ago
So students that know they are not going to be great study to become teachers. Very smart of them.

Kye 7y ago

See also: writers/musicians/artists/etc who talk about the hard work behind their success while omitting the part where their partner provided for them while they focused on that instead of working for someone else to pay the bills. They might have made it anyway, but there's a good chance all the stress and worry from providing for themselves in the modern economy would have taken all their focus and energy for starting a creative career. I've seen too many independent ambitions crushed under unpredictable automated schedules, wage theft, repair and medical bills, and cascading overdraft fees.

wreath 7y ago
or the support from the state in some cases (Sweden?)

Spooky23 7y ago

The “elite” people in this story aren’t relaxing more, they have their shit together and plan. They report that they work the same but probably actually work more because they are dedicating blocks of time. Working smart, hard is how you get value from hard work. Good luck and timing manner, but fortune favors the bold.

imgabe 7y ago

> The lesson is that you need to figure out what you're good at and where you have opportunity, and then work hard in those areas. Just working hard is a recipe for failure for most people. You are right, but too often what people take from this is that the hard work doesn't matter and the people who succeed only did so because of random talent and/or opportunity. No, if you have talent and opportunity but don't work hard, you still won't succeed.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
chrisdhoover 7y ago
Life is so much more complicated. One could be born into success. Luck is a factor. Understanding and exploiting risk is a factor. Persistence is a factor - you could continue to fail until succeed, or you could continue to fail until you teach yourself what is needed to succeed. You could have brilliant ideas but no capital and still fail even though you work hard and are talented. Reducing to success to two or three factors may be true in some cases but those two or three factors may be different in the larger set of successful cases.
marcus_holmes 7y ago
But the people who are really successful in a field don't find it hard work to do that. They genuinely enjoy it, and find it extremely satisfying to do what the rest of us would consider to be a gruelling schedule. There's also a cohort of people who are insanely talented in a field but don't really enjoy it that much, and find it hard work. One of my best friends is an incredibly talented artist, but burnt out doing commercial work in his 20's and rarely puts pencil to paper these days. I consider it a criminal waste of talent, but it's his life ;) Then there's the cohort of people who are a bit talented in the field, but have decided for whatever reason (usually parents) that this is what they'll do with their life, and hard work is how they're going to do it. Watching them beat their heads against the brick wall is horrifying. In the end, we need to avoid survivor bias. For every person who says "I did this, and you can too!" look for other people who did the same and yet didn't succeed. Learn from them, too.

shantly 7y ago

> The lesson is that you need to figure out what you're good at and where you have opportunity, and then work hard in those areas. Just working hard is a recipe for failure for most people. It took me way too long to realize that I should focus most of my effort on things that are so easy for me that I'm taken aback when others find them difficult.

InvisibleCities 7y ago

Bill Gates is the epitome of a no-talent ass-clown who owes 100% his financial success to his personal family connections (his mother was personal friends with John Akers and John Opel of IBM due to their work on the United Way board together, and she leveraged this connection to get a fledgling Microsoft a sweetheart deal to develop the OS for the IBM PC) and his willingness to mercilessly steal the source code of people far smarter than him. Seeing this vicious bastard praised on a "hacker" forum is mind-boggling to me.

undulation 7y ago
Is there any good reading or critical biography of this? Assuming your account isn't a gross exaggeration of Gates' misdeeds, this sounds like it would make good reading

paulddraper 7y ago

> No level of hard work or organization will substitute for talent and opportunity You need look no further than a literal lottery to learn that obvious truth. Could anyone with enough hard work and organization make $100M? That said, it's not a very useful statement; you can't control what you can't control.