4 ms·

There are some people out there (including a former boss of mine), who actually sincerely believe that "hours spent pushing keyboard buttons and staring at a sc

There are some people out there (including a former boss of mine), who actually sincerely believe that "hours spent pushing keyboard buttons and staring at a screen" will directly translate to professional success. I like this article because it shows clearly that this is NOT true - the path to success is more about having a lifestyle that enables consistent productivity. Futhermore, the article mentions a fair amount of other examples (Lubbock, Poincaré, the violinists) who also work shorter hours.

eesmith 4y ago
You cannot use cherry-picked examples to conclude how to improve your chances of success. I don't know enough about the other people to comment. I do know the characterization of Darwin is distressingly wrong. I don't know how anyone with a reasonable understanding of Darwin's life can characterize him as a slacker. Even watching a documentary like https://youtu.be/MCOc7Xqj-kQ?list=PL7UadKoCkgW219C8ZH-Md9X_5Kn3Wugsx&t=4452 https://youtu.be/MCOc7Xqj-kQ?list=PL7UadKoCkgW219C8ZH-Md9X_5... ("Evolution - Part 1 of 7 - Darwin's Dangerous Idea (PBS Documentary)") shows Darwin worked hard. (Link to his brother asking "why must you work so hard at your horrid little mollusks", following a scene where Darwin starts coughing during a walk, and before the scene where he undergoes cold water treatment, prescribed by his doctor to help treat the consequences of "excessive mental exertion." Again, walks and hiking in the mountains were part of how Darwin worked. I'll cherry-pick the other end of the spectrum - Paul Erdős. "He devoted his waking hours to mathematics, even into his later years" (quoting Wikipedia) and used Ritalin and Benzedrine because not using them impacted his mathematical performance. He would be up at all hours of the day and night. Or Von Neumann, "The fact he was constantly working on all kinds of intellectual, academic and advisery affairs probably meant he could not be a very attentive husband. ... His work habits were rather methodical, after waking up and having breakfast at the Nassau Club, he would visit the Institute for Advanced Study and begin work for the day. He would continue working for the entirety of the day, including after going home at five. Even if he was entertaining guests or hosting a party he could still spend some time in his work room working away, still following the conversation in the other room where guests were. Although he went to bed at a reasonable time he would awaken late in the night, two or three in the morning by which time his brain had thought through problems he had in the previous day and begin working again and writing things down." (Again, quoting Wikipedia.) Or cherry-picking an example of getting a Nobel Prize without "having a lifestyle that enables consistent productivity" - Kary Mullis. Don't base your understanding on cherry-picking, because you can get almost any conclusion you want that way.
- achenet 4y ago
  good point about cherry picking. I'm not familiar with Kary Mullis, but Erdos is indeed a good example of someone who rose to the top of their field via obsessive work, although I would like to point out that much of Erdos's work was done socially, whereas the examples given in the article refer to solitary work time. The article does give non-anecdotal evidence, however - the correlation of hours worked by scientists and productivity, as well as the study of violinists. Of course, you could rightfully claim that for the violin players, sleeping was also a part of their work - there is a fair amount of evidence (detailed in the book Sleep by M. Walker, which, while I've seen some critiques of it, I still consider to be a decent source) supporting the hypothesis that sleep aids learning, and so for a violinist, getting enough sleep would be necessary to learning the skills for their job. However, to once again use my former boss as an example, not everyone understands that hiking and walking and in von Neummann's case sleeping/dreaming are an integral part of productivity - my former boss would sleep less than 5 hours a day, and he was proud of this fact. Furthermore, while I think you are right in saying that the article overly focuses on one path to success (some people got successful by spending relatively little time at their desks), the message that long hours spent toiling away at a desk are not necessary for productivity, and indeed, can harm it, is very useful. There are a large number of highly productive creative people who work 4 hours a day max. Looking at the study of research scientists mentioned in the article, it would seem that they are the majority, and as such a confused grad student/developer looking to be more productive may actually benefit from working less, not more, which is a counter-intuitive/surprising (to my mind at least) truth. :)
  - eesmith 4y ago
    > as well as the study of violinists That's an off-shoot of Ericsson's "deliberate practice" work. More specifically, I think it was four hours of "deliberate practice" per day was the max. But work is more than "deliberate practice". As to the physics work, note that it cites Van Zelst and Kerr in the 1950s. Why no more recent research? Has it been reproduced? > and in von Neummann's case sleeping/dreaming And shaving. https://www.representations.org/thoughts-while-shaving/ https://www.representations.org/thoughts-while-shaving/ > my former boss as an example Remember that Darwin had no boss. > my former boss would sleep less than 5 hours a day, and he was proud of this fact. Oh, that reminds me of another example - Edison. Quoting https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/thomas-edison-and-the-cult-of-sleep-deprivation/370824/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/thomas-ed... "He reportedly slept a mere three to four hours at night, “regarding sleep as a waste of time, ‘a heritage from our cave days,'” as James Maas tells us in his 1997 productivity bestseller Power Sleep (public library)"' (See more from that Atlantic piece for Edison's views on sleep.) > Looking at the study of research scientists mentioned in the article, it would seem that they are the majority .... how many research scientists do you think there are? How many do you think were mentioned in the article?

eesmith 4y ago

You cannot use cherry-picked examples to conclude how to improve your chances of success. I don't know enough about the other people to comment. I do know the characterization of Darwin is distressingly wrong. I don't know how anyone with a reasonable understanding of Darwin's life can characterize him as a slacker. Even watching a documentary like https://youtu.be/MCOc7Xqj-kQ?list=PL7UadKoCkgW219C8ZH-Md9X_5Kn3Wugsx&t=4452 https://youtu.be/MCOc7Xqj-kQ?list=PL7UadKoCkgW219C8ZH-Md9X_5... ("Evolution - Part 1 of 7 - Darwin's Dangerous Idea (PBS Documentary)") shows Darwin worked hard. (Link to his brother asking "why must you work so hard at your horrid little mollusks", following a scene where Darwin starts coughing during a walk, and before the scene where he undergoes cold water treatment, prescribed by his doctor to help treat the consequences of "excessive mental exertion." Again, walks and hiking in the mountains were part of how Darwin worked. I'll cherry-pick the other end of the spectrum - Paul Erdős. "He devoted his waking hours to mathematics, even into his later years" (quoting Wikipedia) and used Ritalin and Benzedrine because not using them impacted his mathematical performance. He would be up at all hours of the day and night. Or Von Neumann, "The fact he was constantly working on all kinds of intellectual, academic and advisery affairs probably meant he could not be a very attentive husband. ... His work habits were rather methodical, after waking up and having breakfast at the Nassau Club, he would visit the Institute for Advanced Study and begin work for the day. He would continue working for the entirety of the day, including after going home at five. Even if he was entertaining guests or hosting a party he could still spend some time in his work room working away, still following the conversation in the other room where guests were. Although he went to bed at a reasonable time he would awaken late in the night, two or three in the morning by which time his brain had thought through problems he had in the previous day and begin working again and writing things down." (Again, quoting Wikipedia.) Or cherry-picking an example of getting a Nobel Prize without "having a lifestyle that enables consistent productivity" - Kary Mullis. Don't base your understanding on cherry-picking, because you can get almost any conclusion you want that way.

achenet 4y ago
good point about cherry picking. I'm not familiar with Kary Mullis, but Erdos is indeed a good example of someone who rose to the top of their field via obsessive work, although I would like to point out that much of Erdos's work was done socially, whereas the examples given in the article refer to solitary work time. The article does give non-anecdotal evidence, however - the correlation of hours worked by scientists and productivity, as well as the study of violinists. Of course, you could rightfully claim that for the violin players, sleeping was also a part of their work - there is a fair amount of evidence (detailed in the book Sleep by M. Walker, which, while I've seen some critiques of it, I still consider to be a decent source) supporting the hypothesis that sleep aids learning, and so for a violinist, getting enough sleep would be necessary to learning the skills for their job. However, to once again use my former boss as an example, not everyone understands that hiking and walking and in von Neummann's case sleeping/dreaming are an integral part of productivity - my former boss would sleep less than 5 hours a day, and he was proud of this fact. Furthermore, while I think you are right in saying that the article overly focuses on one path to success (some people got successful by spending relatively little time at their desks), the message that long hours spent toiling away at a desk are not necessary for productivity, and indeed, can harm it, is very useful. There are a large number of highly productive creative people who work 4 hours a day max. Looking at the study of research scientists mentioned in the article, it would seem that they are the majority, and as such a confused grad student/developer looking to be more productive may actually benefit from working less, not more, which is a counter-intuitive/surprising (to my mind at least) truth. :)
- eesmith 4y ago
  > as well as the study of violinists That's an off-shoot of Ericsson's "deliberate practice" work. More specifically, I think it was four hours of "deliberate practice" per day was the max. But work is more than "deliberate practice". As to the physics work, note that it cites Van Zelst and Kerr in the 1950s. Why no more recent research? Has it been reproduced? > and in von Neummann's case sleeping/dreaming And shaving. https://www.representations.org/thoughts-while-shaving/ https://www.representations.org/thoughts-while-shaving/ > my former boss as an example Remember that Darwin had no boss. > my former boss would sleep less than 5 hours a day, and he was proud of this fact. Oh, that reminds me of another example - Edison. Quoting https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/thomas-edison-and-the-cult-of-sleep-deprivation/370824/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/thomas-ed... "He reportedly slept a mere three to four hours at night, “regarding sleep as a waste of time, ‘a heritage from our cave days,'” as James Maas tells us in his 1997 productivity bestseller Power Sleep (public library)"' (See more from that Atlantic piece for Edison's views on sleep.) > Looking at the study of research scientists mentioned in the article, it would seem that they are the majority .... how many research scientists do you think there are? How many do you think were mentioned in the article?