10 ms·

A simple math equation can transform your productivity

143 points by productivetom 5y ago

tpoacher 5y ago
I have a similar "math" equation; who knows, I might write a blogpost about it one day. It relates Boyle's law to productivity. It goes something like this: Boyle's law, or the ideal gas equation is: PV = nRT Pressure, Volume, and Temperature. n is the number of 'moles' of the substance in question R is a constant which is specific to the gas in question (whose pressure, volume and temperature one might fluctuate) I find that this equation also describes nicely 'academic' work (or software work, or this kind of work) and for the sake of using the same letters, even though other letters might have been better, hahah we'll define P = Professionalism (i.e. Quality of output, or personal standards of quality) V = Volume (or amount) of work that can / is expected to be done n = Number of projects one is undertaking at the same time R = A 'constant' unique to the individual T = time available / allocated for the work First, let's define R exactly. It is a constant, unique to the individual (under constant circumstances), describing the quality that can be expected, for a single unit of work (on a single project), for a unit of time allocated. While R is a 'constant', this does not mean that it cannot change - indeed it can change due to circumstances ... but that means that your R has changed. E.g. burnout, psychology etc. Or motivation on the other end. But for the purposes of studying your work output as a closed system, it is a constant. And this is a very important part of this realisation. So the main parts of the system, are P, V, and T. In boyle's law, this says that, given constant pressure, an accompanying increase in temperature must be accompanied by an increase in volume. Or given constant volume, increase in temperature must be accompanied by an increase in pressure, etc. When it comes to work: An increase in volume of work, must necessarily lead to: - either an increase in time allocated for the work - or a reduction in expected quality. This, btw, was the insight that kickstarted this analogy, because there's a famous dilbert comic effectively saying the same thing (let me try and find it quickly...) https://assets.amuniversal.com/fa5edf906d5101301d7a001dd8b71c47 https://assets.amuniversal.com/fa5edf906d5101301d7a001dd8b71... So. Let's examine keeping the other variables constant. Expected professionalism / quality of output needs to improve. This necessarily means that - Volume of work needs to be reduced, given for the same deadline. - Time allocated needs to go up for the same amount of work Let's examine time. The deadline has been pushed forward: - Volume necessarily must go down, or - Quality must go down. The other directions also lead to nice insights. You just got an extension. If you choose to use up this allocated time, you can choose to: - Try to improve quality of already existing material (i.e. procrastination, lol) - Try to improve amount of work at the same quality Your volume has gone down (an unexpected project is now off the table). Do you: - Choose to finish things up on time - Improve the quality, but stick to the same deadline (i.e. Parkinson's Law / Procrastination) :p Your boss has told you that you can afford to not be so nitpicky. Do you - Do more work at a lower quality. - Finish things up faster. etc etc Now. Let's attack n When talking about Boyle's law, there are two versions (kinda). PV = cT vs PV = nRT the difference being, in the latter case, we assume we're dealing with n moles of the same gas, whereas the former is general enough to assume generic volume, which may be of a mixture of gases Therefore If one is talking about n 'projects', which can be interpreted to all carry more or less the same volume of required work e.g. "how many experiments do I need to conduct for my PhD" then PV=nRT is appropriate. otherwise you should be a bit more generic and treat 'volume' as a more generic "amount of work" situation however, the n offers another insight into this work model. meaning "One way to improve quality / reduce workload / save time, is to stop bloody accepting every project you're offered" (guilty as charged ) which could totally also mean personal projects, such as learning monads for absolutely fuck all reason or conversely the case of increasing n - "by all means take up more projects, as long as you feel you can handle the increase in volume, or the increase in time you will have to spend, or the reduction in quality on all your other projects" or something like that now, here's where it all comes together. I would like to believe, that in any reasonable employment, one is hired for their (perceived) R at least as perceived at the time of interview :p which, can be considered a "constant" in closed system terms. however the system is not really 'closed'. E.g. burnout will invariably reduce your R. This means that for the same expectation of quality, and allocated time, you will be able to produce less volume of work (or alternatively, for the same deliverables, you'll only be able to do less work) UNFORTUNATELY, for someone like me, this is an emotionally negative path which risks reducing your R even further in a vicious cycle of psychological negativity therefore, what we tend to consider first, is increasing T as a counterbalance i.e. "I'll work more hours than I should" problem is, this is not sustainable, and often serves to reduce your R even further, compounding the problem Furthermore, if you have made the mistake of creating false expectations in your bosses about a high R but this high R comes (possibly unbeknownst to them) from an artificially inflated T, rather than from a genuinely organically high R constant then this will lead to more V, or possibly a higher expectation of P ... even when time T is suddenly unavoidably low etc etc ... I'm sure you can think of similar scenarios / cautionary tales In any case, what PV=nRT has done for me is the following: If my bosses ask me to increase V, with no increase in T, I am now unashamedly willing to reduce my P rather than steal T from personal time and suffer consequences that at the end of the day make things worse by 'opening' the system and affecting my R and in fact, people seem to expect this I have battled with my psychological aversion of low P for a while, but this thought helps me do it without suffering the negative thoughts so much. "It will not reflect badly on me if my quality drops. I should simply point out it's a natural cause of the reduction of the other variables in a closed system" And my employer should NOT expect me to change my R In other words, they should not expect me to: "Do better work (without giving me the right ammunition to do so)" "Increase my workload (without giving me the time and resources required for it" "Finish this quickly" (without helping me mitigate my workload, or expecting the same effort and quality) And also, it has made me a bit more pragmatic about saying no to projects, even though they could benefit me (genuinely or not). Or at least, it has taken away much of the guilt for not doing those projects even though they're on my list etc. That is all.
- tpoacher 5y ago
  btw! I forgot the best part! How does technical debt fit into the whole PV=nRT framework. The story goes like this. "We have n tasks. Unit tests are an extra task. We don't have time for n+1 tasks" In reality, technical debt is not an additive, it's a modifier. It applies a modifier a to the current task, and a modifier b to all related tasks after it. So it's more like having E[n] = 1 * a + (n-1) * b, where a > 1, and 0 < b < 1 E.g. if writing a unit test makes your task double, but your remaining tasks now take half the time, then you didn't really make n into n+1 with unit tests, you made n become 2 + (n-2)/2 So, for the above (admittedly unrealistic) modifiers, if you have 8 projects to do, and you're thinking should I do unit tests In your mind you may be thinking, fukit, I can't afford to do 16 tasks instead of 8 (i.e. 8 tasks plus 8 unit tests) But because geometric processes are so hard to reason with, it's hard to see the benefit, but the benefit is massive! octave:16> f = @(n) 2 * n; octave:17> g = @(n) 4 - 2 .^ (2-n); octave:18> [ f(1:8); g(1:8) ] ans = 2.0000 4.0000 6.0000 8.0000 10.0000 12.0000 14.0000 16.0000 2.0000 3.0000 3.5000 3.7500 3.8750 3.9375 3.9688 3.9844 Not only is it not 16, but actually it will save you so much time, that you'll spend even less than the original 8 time units! (assuming related tasks and compounding effect paid from technical debt)
ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
This title is very misleading. I'm a fan of the message, but not the clickbait.
rob_c 5y ago
The rest of us spell it mathS...
- boc 5y ago
  I don't go on British message boards and "correct" their spelling. Try to extend the same courtesy here.
  - doovd 5y ago
    How can you "correct" English from England?
    - starwind 5y ago
      idk but I won't correct English from Britain if you won't correct American from America
    - Flankk 5y ago
      While you're in front of your old english dictionary, look up dialect.
      - doovd 5y ago
        Relax, it was a joke
  - rob_c 5y ago
    Then I will then attack your use of equation to include addition and subtraction. Not a single differential, exponent or integral? Please ..
- productivetom 5y ago
  The takeaway from the article is the same either way :)
  - rob_c 5y ago
    That some people think numbers are magical equations?
decebalus1 5y ago
I'm sorry, but this sounds like some hardcore NXIVM science..
- melissalobos 5y ago
  I am not very familiar with the cult, but this just seems like regular self-help advice. Could someone explain how this relates to a sex cult(based on the wikipedia article)?
  - decebalus1 5y ago
    > In 1998, Raniere and Nancy Salzman founded NXIVM, a personal development company offering "Executive Success Programs" (ESP) and a range of techniques for self-improvement The leader used all sorts of mathy pseudologic to make connections between equations and human feelings. It managed to gain some pretty smart members in spite of the bullshit. https://artvoice.com/2019/05/27/guest-view-keith-mathematical-genius-or-gibberish/ https://artvoice.com/2019/05/27/guest-view-keith-mathematica...
    - melissalobos 5y ago
      Cool, thank you! I appreciate the explanation.
jaqalopes 5y ago
I was never a strong math student but this is the kind of math I can get behind--not strictly logical, but also analogical. It tells a story, and the significance is partly up to the reader. For the specific case of "when we operate at a fraction we compromise output" I find it to be extremely true in my own life. This is about more than focus, it's about intention, and beginning with the end in mind. When I approach a task with an "ugh guess I have to do this" attitude, I inevitably slack off, take too many breaks, and end up with a worse experience than if I had simply begun with the attitude of "this is what I will do now and I will use the powers available to me to do it correctly and as quickly as is reasonable." I suspect most people could benefit from something like the author's post-it by their desk to remind them at every moment of the very real power they have to create better outcomes in everything they do.
sdenton4 5y ago
Let us learn from Ron Swanson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6hZ9KdG1QU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6hZ9KdG1QU "Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
- dpicco 5y ago
- starwind 5y ago
  It’s a good feeling. Sense of accomplishment and pride. Damnit… I just love it so much.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
zwieback 5y ago
I thought that was yesterdays thinking, last I heard "mindfulness" as-in forcing your brain to fully concentrate on just one thing is not good for our brains and they are not good at it. I was shoving a sandwich in my mouth while I was reading the article.
axiosgunnar 5y ago
> Ozan Varol is a rocket scientist turned law professor > "If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn't the output be a larger number?" Glad this guy isn't building rockets anymore :-)
- boringg 5y ago
  Seriously. Yeesh.
- ksubedi 5y ago
  I think you missed the whole point there. (Or maybe you only got a fraction of the point ;)
- erwincoumans 5y ago
  Indeed. And even if you don't involve fractions, and multiply with either 0 or 1, the output won't be a larger number.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  It gets better! > and bestselling author > Click here to download a free copy of his eBook
- LeonB 5y ago
  Several comments take issue with that same quote but fail to grasp the context: it was his naive dream-self who had this thought. > But in the dream, I was staring at this equation as a mathematical beginner, completely befuddled by the result. How could that be? If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn’t the result be greater than each part? When people share stories online and forums such as HN take parts out of context to insult the author, it’s a horrible experience.
RedShift1 5y ago
> Dreams are written in disappearing ink. Beautiful writing.
yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
This is meta, but I'm not a fan of this trend of adding a pull quote to add emphasis to a sentence that was never really lost in the text to begin with, e.g., A short sentence. A second short sentence. > A second short sentence.
- function_seven 5y ago
  Pull quotes in general usually irritate me. I'm sure there's a place for them, when done correctly. But usually I'll see things like you pointed out. Or worse, the pull quote will come from a paragraph far above it (and so no longer relevant to the section I'm currently in), or far below it (so way out of context; I haven't even got to that part yet!)
  - maininformer 5y ago
    They are very useful for skimming; I usually only read pull quotes first and then the actual article.
  - josho 5y ago
    I think they made sense in a world filled with paper magazines. You could quickly pickup a magazine flip through pages and see if anything caught your eye, if so then you buy the magazine. On the internet it only makes sense if people scroll through an article to decide if it's worth reading. Does anyone do that? I generally don't. The scroll bar tells me how long the article is, and the heading and subheading usually tells me if it's something I care about.
    - openknot 5y ago
      Pull quotes could still make sense for long articles (1600-2000+ words, which take 10+ minutes to read), especially in online magazines. For these lengthy articles, a reader could be interested from the heading and subheading, but then stop reading or skim a section due to the length. I do skim through articles that are a time commitment to read to decide if it's worth reading in full, but I generally look for section headings (e.g. that would let an article be split into multiple shorter articles). If there aren't any, pull quotes are decent strings to look for; and if not, it's manual skimming to better understand the structure (e.g. the first sentence of each paragraph).
jodrellblank 5y ago
> "When people meet a great leader, they often say, “She made me feel like I was the only person in the room.” Imagine giving that type of complete attention to everything you do—and making that thing the only thing in the room." "Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." ― Alan Watts. (In the sense that physically doing nothing else, but secretly thinking about other things, is also distraction).
- dalmo3 5y ago
  > Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes But if you're ascribing a higher meaning to the act is it still Zen? Maybe true Zen would be not even knowing it existed in the first place.
  - lanstin 5y ago
    If you are peeling the potatoes and have a bit of whole-hearted potato peeling and then immediately go off "wow, I was really focused there, what Zen potato peeling!" for a minute, well, those thoughts are not Zen spirituality. It's a common problem with reading or listening to stories about whole-hearted activity - one fills up with "Zen thoughts" for a while.
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      Huh, so being in the zone while programming is the definition of Zen.
      - lanstin 5y ago
        It is a good example of absorption when the objects and subjects drop away leaving just the action. However, as the Sutra’s say: “to encounter the absolute is not yet enlightenment.” One can argue with family in the same zone of full attention and ease of effortless action.
  - mynameisash 5y ago
mempko 5y ago
Another great saying I always use 'Productivity is waste'.
Centmo 5y ago
He must be one of the few that can recognize numbers and language while dreaming. https://www.inverse.com/science/can-you-read-in-your-dreams https://www.inverse.com/science/can-you-read-in-your-dreams
- epolanski 5y ago
  I doubt anyone who read the intro believes the dream happened.
erwincoumans 5y ago
His math literally doesn't add up. If you multi-task you need to ADD multiple multiplications, one for each task. For example, if you perfectly divide all attention, time and effort in two tasks, you ideally get: 0.5 * 0.2 + 0.5 * 0.15 (given that the value of the first task is 0.2 and the value of the second task is 0.15) One important point is likely, that there is overhead in multitasking, so the actual formula becomes 0.45 * 0.2 + 0.45 * 0.15 + 0.1 * 0 where 0.1 of the time is wasted in useless (value = 0) overhead (of switching tasks, getting into the zone and so on). You may or may not enjoy spending time in this 'useless' overhead...
- devnull255 5y ago
  Unless you consider the result of two tasks performed simultaneously a product of two tasks rather than the sum of two tasks.
- deetz 5y ago
  it makes sense if you read it as: I'm working at 80% of my capacity for 20% of the time, I get 16% of my possible productivity
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  Multitask repetitive or time consuming tasks only. When I was in college I worked for a mom and pop type PC repair store. Doing PC re-imaging, I set up 6 stations and would kick off one refresh and while it was running, start up the next one and so on. Using disks to install took ages, so I figured out how to make bootable USB sticks, so I would have all 6 or occasionally more (by stealing bench seats) stations humming away while I was also doing part upgrades or builds on another station, only pausing to check up on progress. That is ideal multitasking, where you need to pay a small amount of attention to one arduous group of tasks and the remainder of your time is free to focus on fine detail high mental demand tasks with ease.
  - camillomiller 5y ago
    Well you were still concentrating on one task only: setting up computers. :)
_jal 5y ago
All the productivity cliches I needed I learned in Kindergarden.
- rob_c 5y ago
  Yup, sit down, keep quiet and don't disturb others and do as your told/asked.
  - mellavora 5y ago
    You forgot about naptime. Huge productivity boost, and a central part of most kindergarden curriculum's.
    - rob_c 5y ago
      I'm in the wrong job to have enough free time for that :P
damiankennedy 5y ago
I was thinking of something more like Drake's equation. P = T * Hbar * Cbar^Dh * E * (Po)^N P = Productivity T = Tiredness Hbar = 2PI/(HackerNews posts read) Cbar = 2PI/(speed of light) Dh = Disruptions per hour E = Environment Po = Productivity of people you work with N = Number of people you work with
- rob_c 5y ago
  Yeah that was my assumption as to what would have been an "equation", but then I suppose we don't work in HR...
armchairhacker 5y ago
Idk, I already know that 0.8 * 0.2 = 0.16 and i’m not very productive
poxwole 5y ago
Next Level Bullshit
- ddtaylor 5y ago
  I think "productivity tricks" and stuff like this are similar to regular diet and exercise. There is a vast market of people willing to sell you whatever you want to hear as it's much easier than, you know, just doing the thing you're supposed to do. Every time I see some "crazy new diet" or "8 minute abs" style thing I always mutter to myself: "anything but a conservative diet and regular exercise"
deltaonefour 5y ago
>As a result, our output suffers. What we produce becomes less than what we put in. We achieve only an iota of what we’re capable. This is assuming output is multiplicative. Output is usually additive if you're an employee as you only reap benefits in terms of salary. Thus it is in your best interest as an employee to apply 0.8. For an entrepreneur output is multiplicative because your output scales with customers. As an entrepreneur it is in your best interest to apply all your effort as when more customers use your product you gain more benefit.
kvhdude 5y ago
i dont know about this. i cant get on the treadmill/elliptical unless there is some soccer match or action film streaming on the tv.... I could focus on the pain of doing exercise but that seems to be counter productive...
- RedShift1 5y ago
  Focus on your breathing. Correct breathing takes effort but pays dividend in endurance.
- pjerem 5y ago
  I think it depends on your goals. If what you want is achieve better movement, you’d better turn off that TV. But if you just want to burn fat, well I’m not sure that focusing on it would change anything. Proprioception is a nice thing to exercise, though.
- ncfausti 5y ago
  Actually, next time, why not try focusing on the pain? I do this sometimes when I run. Instead of trying to ignore the pain, really focus on it, and sense what it is about it that’s discomforting, and when you realize that it’s not going to harm you in any significant way, it kind of loses its power over you and you sort of accept it and keep going.
deetz 5y ago
80% of 20% = 16% does that make your "feel" of the math better?
c1505 5y ago
This mentality seems like a recipe for procrastination. Yes it would great if I always could be at my optimal functioning for whatever task is at hand. This never happens and my brain tries to convince me that I am too tired, hungry, or whatever else before starting an important task. On the very important areas of my life, it is much more helpful that I do something each day to try to make progress. On the busiest or hardest days, this might just be watching 5 minutes of a video on that topic. That keeps up my habit of doing something and makes it less likely that I will forget things. If I am 100% productive at doing something that isn't important, the result on my life is no progress.
aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
And who said that "output" is multiplicative? What a useless, unscientific article...
playdead 5y ago
> If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn’t the result be greater than each part? I appreciate the metaphor, but... multiplication is not repeated addition.
ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
> If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn’t the result be greater than each part? Well, it is. 0.16 is bigger than 0.2 and 0.8, because it has 3 digits instead of 2, and 16 is bigger than 2 and 8. (and 4/25 is obviously bigger than 1/5 and 4/5 too) The problem actually is to (really) understand that the opposite is true. As soon as the denominators are different enough, we can't easily (just by looking at the numbers) compare two fractions like 26551/3690 and 26545/3689
zerop 5y ago
Reminded me of Buddha quotes on Live in the moment fully (mindfulness).
porb121 5y ago
one of the worst posts I've ever read cheers mate
Ostrogodsky 5y ago
And the rock keeps rolling down
slingnow 5y ago
This is some top-notch clickbait coupled with some serious fabrication. I have serious doubts this guy dreamt about this, but boy it made a really "gripping" introduction to this breakthrough on productivity! Also, first he's an astrophysicist, and then later, he's a rocket scientist. Which one is it? My money is on neither, but I'm sure he has a fancy degree.
sugarfreerussia 5y ago
Little's Lemma directly relates work in process to throughput. Replace customer with "work" and you have a simple equation to transform your productivity, not some millenial woo-woo resume-boosting nonsense like in this post. L = Lambda * W L = Avg. number of customers in system Lambda = Avg. customer arrival rate W = Avg. time customer spends in system
awb 5y ago
For those that aren’t resonating with this take on productivity (and procrastination), check out Tim Urban. Illustrated guide: https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/10/why-procrastinators-procrastinate.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/10/why-procrastinators-procrasti... And accompanying TED Talk: https://youtu.be/arj7oStGLkU https://youtu.be/arj7oStGLkU
mrintellectual 5y ago
This article takes clickbait to a new level.
jp57 5y ago
The phrase "math equation" triggers my lack-of-rigor alarm.
robbintt 5y ago
Although I am not a mathematician, and this article isn't actually about math, I had a realization in college that the entire number space really is stored between 0 and 1. In this space, 1 is actually 0 and 0 is infinity.
ncfausti 5y ago
If this post resonated with anyone, you might want to check out Deep Work by Cal Newport. Similar idea—in our distracted world, the ability to sit and focus on one thing is becoming increasingly important, and rare. I enjoyed it a lot.
sometimeshuman 5y ago
I start most days with 1 hour of manual labor required for my side business which doesn't require mental effort. Because I am not behind schedule, maximizing productivity is not the goal so I simultaneously listen to an educational podcast. Is there anyone that would argue that one would benefit, perhaps mentally, from not listening to a podcast when doing routine manual labor ? Maybe trying to work 2x speed first and then listening to the podcast 2x after ? Note I do not consider sweeping/cleaning mentioned in someone else example as routine labor since there is something unique about every cleaning operation.

143 points by productivetom 5y ago

I have a similar "math" equation; who knows, I might write a blogpost about it one day. It relates Boyle's law to productivity. It goes something like this: Boyle's law, or the ideal gas equation is: PV = nRT Pressure, Volume, and Temperature. n is the number of 'moles' of the substance in question R is a constant which is specific to the gas in question (whose pressure, volume and temperature one might fluctuate) I find that this equation also describes nicely 'academic' work (or software work, or this kind of work) and for the sake of using the same letters, even though other letters might have been better, hahah we'll define P = Professionalism (i.e. Quality of output, or personal standards of quality) V = Volume (or amount) of work that can / is expected to be done n = Number of projects one is undertaking at the same time R = A 'constant' unique to the individual T = time available / allocated for the work First, let's define R exactly. It is a constant, unique to the individual (under constant circumstances), describing the quality that can be expected, for a single unit of work (on a single project), for a unit of time allocated. While R is a 'constant', this does not mean that it cannot change - indeed it can change due to circumstances ... but that means that your R has changed. E.g. burnout, psychology etc. Or motivation on the other end. But for the purposes of studying your work output as a closed system, it is a constant. And this is a very important part of this realisation. So the main parts of the system, are P, V, and T. In boyle's law, this says that, given constant pressure, an accompanying increase in temperature must be accompanied by an increase in volume. Or given constant volume, increase in temperature must be accompanied by an increase in pressure, etc. When it comes to work: An increase in volume of work, must necessarily lead to: - either an increase in time allocated for the work - or a reduction in expected quality. This, btw, was the insight that kickstarted this analogy, because there's a famous dilbert comic effectively saying the same thing (let me try and find it quickly...) https://assets.amuniversal.com/fa5edf906d5101301d7a001dd8b71c47 https://assets.amuniversal.com/fa5edf906d5101301d7a001dd8b71... So. Let's examine keeping the other variables constant. Expected professionalism / quality of output needs to improve. This necessarily means that - Volume of work needs to be reduced, given for the same deadline. - Time allocated needs to go up for the same amount of work Let's examine time. The deadline has been pushed forward: - Volume necessarily must go down, or - Quality must go down. The other directions also lead to nice insights. You just got an extension. If you choose to use up this allocated time, you can choose to: - Try to improve quality of already existing material (i.e. procrastination, lol) - Try to improve amount of work at the same quality Your volume has gone down (an unexpected project is now off the table). Do you: - Choose to finish things up on time - Improve the quality, but stick to the same deadline (i.e. Parkinson's Law / Procrastination) :p Your boss has told you that you can afford to not be so nitpicky. Do you - Do more work at a lower quality. - Finish things up faster. etc etc Now. Let's attack n When talking about Boyle's law, there are two versions (kinda). PV = cT vs PV = nRT the difference being, in the latter case, we assume we're dealing with n moles of the same gas, whereas the former is general enough to assume generic volume, which may be of a mixture of gases Therefore If one is talking about n 'projects', which can be interpreted to all carry more or less the same volume of required work e.g. "how many experiments do I need to conduct for my PhD" then PV=nRT is appropriate. otherwise you should be a bit more generic and treat 'volume' as a more generic "amount of work" situation however, the n offers another insight into this work model. meaning "One way to improve quality / reduce workload / save time, is to stop bloody accepting every project you're offered" (guilty as charged ) which could totally also mean personal projects, such as learning monads for absolutely fuck all reason or conversely the case of increasing n - "by all means take up more projects, as long as you feel you can handle the increase in volume, or the increase in time you will have to spend, or the reduction in quality on all your other projects" or something like that now, here's where it all comes together. I would like to believe, that in any reasonable employment, one is hired for their (perceived) R at least as perceived at the time of interview :p which, can be considered a "constant" in closed system terms. however the system is not really 'closed'. E.g. burnout will invariably reduce your R. This means that for the same expectation of quality, and allocated time, you will be able to produce less volume of work (or alternatively, for the same deliverables, you'll only be able to do less work) UNFORTUNATELY, for someone like me, this is an emotionally negative path which risks reducing your R even further in a vicious cycle of psychological negativity therefore, what we tend to consider first, is increasing T as a counterbalance i.e. "I'll work more hours than I should" problem is, this is not sustainable, and often serves to reduce your R even further, compounding the problem Furthermore, if you have made the mistake of creating false expectations in your bosses about a high R but this high R comes (possibly unbeknownst to them) from an artificially inflated T, rather than from a genuinely organically high R constant then this will lead to more V, or possibly a higher expectation of P ... even when time T is suddenly unavoidably low etc etc ... I'm sure you can think of similar scenarios / cautionary tales In any case, what PV=nRT has done for me is the following: If my bosses ask me to increase V, with no increase in T, I am now unashamedly willing to reduce my P rather than steal T from personal time and suffer consequences that at the end of the day make things worse by 'opening' the system and affecting my R and in fact, people seem to expect this I have battled with my psychological aversion of low P for a while, but this thought helps me do it without suffering the negative thoughts so much. "It will not reflect badly on me if my quality drops. I should simply point out it's a natural cause of the reduction of the other variables in a closed system" And my employer should NOT expect me to change my R In other words, they should not expect me to: "Do better work (without giving me the right ammunition to do so)" "Increase my workload (without giving me the time and resources required for it" "Finish this quickly" (without helping me mitigate my workload, or expecting the same effort and quality) And also, it has made me a bit more pragmatic about saying no to projects, even though they could benefit me (genuinely or not). Or at least, it has taken away much of the guilt for not doing those projects even though they're on my list etc. That is all.

tpoacher 5y ago
btw! I forgot the best part! How does technical debt fit into the whole PV=nRT framework. The story goes like this. "We have n tasks. Unit tests are an extra task. We don't have time for n+1 tasks" In reality, technical debt is not an additive, it's a modifier. It applies a modifier a to the current task, and a modifier b to all related tasks after it. So it's more like having E[n] = 1 * a + (n-1) * b, where a > 1, and 0 < b < 1 E.g. if writing a unit test makes your task double, but your remaining tasks now take half the time, then you didn't really make n into n+1 with unit tests, you made n become 2 + (n-2)/2 So, for the above (admittedly unrealistic) modifiers, if you have 8 projects to do, and you're thinking should I do unit tests In your mind you may be thinking, fukit, I can't afford to do 16 tasks instead of 8 (i.e. 8 tasks plus 8 unit tests) But because geometric processes are so hard to reason with, it's hard to see the benefit, but the benefit is massive! octave:16> f = @(n) 2 * n; octave:17> g = @(n) 4 - 2 .^ (2-n); octave:18> [ f(1:8); g(1:8) ] ans = 2.0000 4.0000 6.0000 8.0000 10.0000 12.0000 14.0000 16.0000 2.0000 3.0000 3.5000 3.7500 3.8750 3.9375 3.9688 3.9844 Not only is it not 16, but actually it will save you so much time, that you'll spend even less than the original 8 time units! (assuming related tasks and compounding effect paid from technical debt)

ghostbrainalpha 5y ago

This title is very misleading. I'm a fan of the message, but not the clickbait.

rob_c 5y ago

The rest of us spell it mathS...

boc 5y ago
I don't go on British message boards and "correct" their spelling. Try to extend the same courtesy here.
- doovd 5y ago
  How can you "correct" English from England?
  - starwind 5y ago
    idk but I won't correct English from Britain if you won't correct American from America
  - Flankk 5y ago
    While you're in front of your old english dictionary, look up dialect.
    - doovd 5y ago
      Relax, it was a joke
- rob_c 5y ago
  Then I will then attack your use of equation to include addition and subtraction. Not a single differential, exponent or integral? Please ..
productivetom 5y ago
The takeaway from the article is the same either way :)
- rob_c 5y ago
  That some people think numbers are magical equations?

decebalus1 5y ago

I'm sorry, but this sounds like some hardcore NXIVM science..

melissalobos 5y ago
I am not very familiar with the cult, but this just seems like regular self-help advice. Could someone explain how this relates to a sex cult(based on the wikipedia article)?
- decebalus1 5y ago
  > In 1998, Raniere and Nancy Salzman founded NXIVM, a personal development company offering "Executive Success Programs" (ESP) and a range of techniques for self-improvement The leader used all sorts of mathy pseudologic to make connections between equations and human feelings. It managed to gain some pretty smart members in spite of the bullshit. https://artvoice.com/2019/05/27/guest-view-keith-mathematical-genius-or-gibberish/ https://artvoice.com/2019/05/27/guest-view-keith-mathematica...
  - melissalobos 5y ago
    Cool, thank you! I appreciate the explanation.

jaqalopes 5y ago

I was never a strong math student but this is the kind of math I can get behind--not strictly logical, but also analogical. It tells a story, and the significance is partly up to the reader. For the specific case of "when we operate at a fraction we compromise output" I find it to be extremely true in my own life. This is about more than focus, it's about intention, and beginning with the end in mind. When I approach a task with an "ugh guess I have to do this" attitude, I inevitably slack off, take too many breaks, and end up with a worse experience than if I had simply begun with the attitude of "this is what I will do now and I will use the powers available to me to do it correctly and as quickly as is reasonable." I suspect most people could benefit from something like the author's post-it by their desk to remind them at every moment of the very real power they have to create better outcomes in everything they do.

sdenton4 5y ago

Let us learn from Ron Swanson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6hZ9KdG1QU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6hZ9KdG1QU "Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."

dpicco 5y ago
starwind 5y ago
It’s a good feeling. Sense of accomplishment and pride. Damnit… I just love it so much.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

zwieback 5y ago

I thought that was yesterdays thinking, last I heard "mindfulness" as-in forcing your brain to fully concentrate on just one thing is not good for our brains and they are not good at it. I was shoving a sandwich in my mouth while I was reading the article.

axiosgunnar 5y ago

> Ozan Varol is a rocket scientist turned law professor > "If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn't the output be a larger number?" Glad this guy isn't building rockets anymore :-)

boringg 5y ago
Seriously. Yeesh.
ksubedi 5y ago
I think you missed the whole point there. (Or maybe you only got a fraction of the point ;)
erwincoumans 5y ago
Indeed. And even if you don't involve fractions, and multiply with either 0 or 1, the output won't be a larger number.
MauranKilom 5y ago
It gets better! > and bestselling author > Click here to download a free copy of his eBook
LeonB 5y ago
Several comments take issue with that same quote but fail to grasp the context: it was his naive dream-self who had this thought. > But in the dream, I was staring at this equation as a mathematical beginner, completely befuddled by the result. How could that be? If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn’t the result be greater than each part? When people share stories online and forums such as HN take parts out of context to insult the author, it’s a horrible experience.

RedShift1 5y ago

> Dreams are written in disappearing ink. Beautiful writing.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

This is meta, but I'm not a fan of this trend of adding a pull quote to add emphasis to a sentence that was never really lost in the text to begin with, e.g., A short sentence. A second short sentence. > A second short sentence.

function_seven 5y ago
Pull quotes in general usually irritate me. I'm sure there's a place for them, when done correctly. But usually I'll see things like you pointed out. Or worse, the pull quote will come from a paragraph far above it (and so no longer relevant to the section I'm currently in), or far below it (so way out of context; I haven't even got to that part yet!)
- maininformer 5y ago
  They are very useful for skimming; I usually only read pull quotes first and then the actual article.
- josho 5y ago
  I think they made sense in a world filled with paper magazines. You could quickly pickup a magazine flip through pages and see if anything caught your eye, if so then you buy the magazine. On the internet it only makes sense if people scroll through an article to decide if it's worth reading. Does anyone do that? I generally don't. The scroll bar tells me how long the article is, and the heading and subheading usually tells me if it's something I care about.
  - openknot 5y ago
    Pull quotes could still make sense for long articles (1600-2000+ words, which take 10+ minutes to read), especially in online magazines. For these lengthy articles, a reader could be interested from the heading and subheading, but then stop reading or skim a section due to the length. I do skim through articles that are a time commitment to read to decide if it's worth reading in full, but I generally look for section headings (e.g. that would let an article be split into multiple shorter articles). If there aren't any, pull quotes are decent strings to look for; and if not, it's manual skimming to better understand the structure (e.g. the first sentence of each paragraph).

jodrellblank 5y ago

> "When people meet a great leader, they often say, “She made me feel like I was the only person in the room.” Imagine giving that type of complete attention to everything you do—and making that thing the only thing in the room." "Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." ― Alan Watts. (In the sense that physically doing nothing else, but secretly thinking about other things, is also distraction).

dalmo3 5y ago
> Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes But if you're ascribing a higher meaning to the act is it still Zen? Maybe true Zen would be not even knowing it existed in the first place.
- lanstin 5y ago
  If you are peeling the potatoes and have a bit of whole-hearted potato peeling and then immediately go off "wow, I was really focused there, what Zen potato peeling!" for a minute, well, those thoughts are not Zen spirituality. It's a common problem with reading or listening to stories about whole-hearted activity - one fills up with "Zen thoughts" for a while.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    Huh, so being in the zone while programming is the definition of Zen.
    - lanstin 5y ago
      It is a good example of absorption when the objects and subjects drop away leaving just the action. However, as the Sutra’s say: “to encounter the absolute is not yet enlightenment.” One can argue with family in the same zone of full attention and ease of effortless action.
- mynameisash 5y ago

mempko 5y ago

Another great saying I always use 'Productivity is waste'.

Centmo 5y ago

He must be one of the few that can recognize numbers and language while dreaming. https://www.inverse.com/science/can-you-read-in-your-dreams https://www.inverse.com/science/can-you-read-in-your-dreams

epolanski 5y ago
I doubt anyone who read the intro believes the dream happened.

erwincoumans 5y ago

His math literally doesn't add up. If you multi-task you need to ADD multiple multiplications, one for each task. For example, if you perfectly divide all attention, time and effort in two tasks, you ideally get: 0.5 * 0.2 + 0.5 * 0.15 (given that the value of the first task is 0.2 and the value of the second task is 0.15) One important point is likely, that there is overhead in multitasking, so the actual formula becomes 0.45 * 0.2 + 0.45 * 0.15 + 0.1 * 0 where 0.1 of the time is wasted in useless (value = 0) overhead (of switching tasks, getting into the zone and so on). You may or may not enjoy spending time in this 'useless' overhead...

devnull255 5y ago
Unless you consider the result of two tasks performed simultaneously a product of two tasks rather than the sum of two tasks.
deetz 5y ago
it makes sense if you read it as: I'm working at 80% of my capacity for 20% of the time, I get 16% of my possible productivity
BizarroLand 5y ago
Multitask repetitive or time consuming tasks only. When I was in college I worked for a mom and pop type PC repair store. Doing PC re-imaging, I set up 6 stations and would kick off one refresh and while it was running, start up the next one and so on. Using disks to install took ages, so I figured out how to make bootable USB sticks, so I would have all 6 or occasionally more (by stealing bench seats) stations humming away while I was also doing part upgrades or builds on another station, only pausing to check up on progress. That is ideal multitasking, where you need to pay a small amount of attention to one arduous group of tasks and the remainder of your time is free to focus on fine detail high mental demand tasks with ease.
- camillomiller 5y ago
  Well you were still concentrating on one task only: setting up computers. :)

_jal 5y ago

All the productivity cliches I needed I learned in Kindergarden.

rob_c 5y ago
Yup, sit down, keep quiet and don't disturb others and do as your told/asked.
- mellavora 5y ago
  You forgot about naptime. Huge productivity boost, and a central part of most kindergarden curriculum's.
  - rob_c 5y ago
    I'm in the wrong job to have enough free time for that :P

damiankennedy 5y ago

I was thinking of something more like Drake's equation. P = T * Hbar * Cbar^Dh * E * (Po)^N P = Productivity T = Tiredness Hbar = 2PI/(HackerNews posts read) Cbar = 2PI/(speed of light) Dh = Disruptions per hour E = Environment Po = Productivity of people you work with N = Number of people you work with

rob_c 5y ago
Yeah that was my assumption as to what would have been an "equation", but then I suppose we don't work in HR...

armchairhacker 5y ago

Idk, I already know that 0.8 * 0.2 = 0.16 and i’m not very productive

poxwole 5y ago

Next Level Bullshit

ddtaylor 5y ago
I think "productivity tricks" and stuff like this are similar to regular diet and exercise. There is a vast market of people willing to sell you whatever you want to hear as it's much easier than, you know, just doing the thing you're supposed to do. Every time I see some "crazy new diet" or "8 minute abs" style thing I always mutter to myself: "anything but a conservative diet and regular exercise"

deltaonefour 5y ago

>As a result, our output suffers. What we produce becomes less than what we put in. We achieve only an iota of what we’re capable. This is assuming output is multiplicative. Output is usually additive if you're an employee as you only reap benefits in terms of salary. Thus it is in your best interest as an employee to apply 0.8. For an entrepreneur output is multiplicative because your output scales with customers. As an entrepreneur it is in your best interest to apply all your effort as when more customers use your product you gain more benefit.

kvhdude 5y ago

i dont know about this. i cant get on the treadmill/elliptical unless there is some soccer match or action film streaming on the tv.... I could focus on the pain of doing exercise but that seems to be counter productive...

RedShift1 5y ago
Focus on your breathing. Correct breathing takes effort but pays dividend in endurance.
pjerem 5y ago
I think it depends on your goals. If what you want is achieve better movement, you’d better turn off that TV. But if you just want to burn fat, well I’m not sure that focusing on it would change anything. Proprioception is a nice thing to exercise, though.
ncfausti 5y ago
Actually, next time, why not try focusing on the pain? I do this sometimes when I run. Instead of trying to ignore the pain, really focus on it, and sense what it is about it that’s discomforting, and when you realize that it’s not going to harm you in any significant way, it kind of loses its power over you and you sort of accept it and keep going.

deetz 5y ago

80% of 20% = 16% does that make your "feel" of the math better?

c1505 5y ago

This mentality seems like a recipe for procrastination. Yes it would great if I always could be at my optimal functioning for whatever task is at hand. This never happens and my brain tries to convince me that I am too tired, hungry, or whatever else before starting an important task. On the very important areas of my life, it is much more helpful that I do something each day to try to make progress. On the busiest or hardest days, this might just be watching 5 minutes of a video on that topic. That keeps up my habit of doing something and makes it less likely that I will forget things. If I am 100% productive at doing something that isn't important, the result on my life is no progress.

aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago

And who said that "output" is multiplicative? What a useless, unscientific article...

playdead 5y ago

> If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn’t the result be greater than each part? I appreciate the metaphor, but... multiplication is not repeated addition.

ReleaseCandidat 5y ago

> If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn’t the result be greater than each part? Well, it is. 0.16 is bigger than 0.2 and 0.8, because it has 3 digits instead of 2, and 16 is bigger than 2 and 8. (and 4/25 is obviously bigger than 1/5 and 4/5 too) The problem actually is to (really) understand that the opposite is true. As soon as the denominators are different enough, we can't easily (just by looking at the numbers) compare two fractions like 26551/3690 and 26545/3689

zerop 5y ago

Reminded me of Buddha quotes on Live in the moment fully (mindfulness).

porb121 5y ago

one of the worst posts I've ever read cheers mate

Ostrogodsky 5y ago

And the rock keeps rolling down

slingnow 5y ago

This is some top-notch clickbait coupled with some serious fabrication. I have serious doubts this guy dreamt about this, but boy it made a really "gripping" introduction to this breakthrough on productivity! Also, first he's an astrophysicist, and then later, he's a rocket scientist. Which one is it? My money is on neither, but I'm sure he has a fancy degree.

sugarfreerussia 5y ago

Little's Lemma directly relates work in process to throughput. Replace customer with "work" and you have a simple equation to transform your productivity, not some millenial woo-woo resume-boosting nonsense like in this post. L = Lambda * W L = Avg. number of customers in system Lambda = Avg. customer arrival rate W = Avg. time customer spends in system

awb 5y ago

For those that aren’t resonating with this take on productivity (and procrastination), check out Tim Urban. Illustrated guide: https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/10/why-procrastinators-procrastinate.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/10/why-procrastinators-procrasti... And accompanying TED Talk: https://youtu.be/arj7oStGLkU https://youtu.be/arj7oStGLkU

mrintellectual 5y ago

This article takes clickbait to a new level.

jp57 5y ago

The phrase "math equation" triggers my lack-of-rigor alarm.

robbintt 5y ago

Although I am not a mathematician, and this article isn't actually about math, I had a realization in college that the entire number space really is stored between 0 and 1. In this space, 1 is actually 0 and 0 is infinity.

ncfausti 5y ago

If this post resonated with anyone, you might want to check out Deep Work by Cal Newport. Similar idea—in our distracted world, the ability to sit and focus on one thing is becoming increasingly important, and rare. I enjoyed it a lot.

sometimeshuman 5y ago

I start most days with 1 hour of manual labor required for my side business which doesn't require mental effort. Because I am not behind schedule, maximizing productivity is not the goal so I simultaneously listen to an educational podcast. Is there anyone that would argue that one would benefit, perhaps mentally, from not listening to a podcast when doing routine manual labor ? Maybe trying to work 2x speed first and then listening to the podcast 2x after ? Note I do not consider sweeping/cleaning mentioned in someone else example as routine labor since there is something unique about every cleaning operation.