3 ms·

Better question, does being awake 20 as opposed to 16 hours per day result in getting 25% more accomplished? I tend to put proud claims of little sleep in the

Better question, does being awake 20 as opposed to 16 hours per day result in getting 25% more accomplished? I tend to put proud claims of little sleep in the same category as those of "working" long hours. We've all met people who are at work for long hours, but whether they are actually working, much less producing is another story.

acuozzo 14y ago
> Better question, does being awake 20 as opposed to 16 hours per day result in getting 25% more accomplished? In some cases, it does. My hobby, digital film preservation, requires work that's long, tedious, and relatively-unskilled. I often clean dirt/dust using temporal fixes in PFClean and having an active well-rested mind doesn't help with this __at_all__, so sleeping an extra four hours won't improve my productivity.
- btilly 14y ago
  One of the downsides of being tired is that you become more distractible. Even work that's long, tedious, and relatively-unskilled doesn't get done if you started doing another random task.
stevoyoung 14y ago
Most of the time I do the whole get 4-5 hours of sleep. In fact, last night I went to bed at 3:30am and woke up at 6:00. I did have an hour nap during the day though. I normally like to go to bed earlier (12) and wake up earlier (4:30-5). I find my self a lot more productive early in the morning rather than late at night. For me, it's not about "get 25% more done". It's more about being able to still spend time with family when I need too and get work done while everyone else is still asleep. It's very much a work life balance tool for me. I can't go weeks on 4 hours though. If I do 4 hours consistently in about 10 days I crash and need a full 8 hours for a day or two.
kyllo 14y ago
In the short run, maybe. When it's crunch time at work or in school, sacrificing a few hours of sleep to work can pay off. But over any appreciable length of time, the sleep debt and stress accumulate, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, you run out of steam, and you burn out. It's like sprinting. You can't sprint a marathon, it isn't possible. Some people can run a marathon faster than others, but no one can run at their top speed for such a long distance. If you try, you will quickly run out of gas and need to rest. If you're in a game that resembles a 100m dash (like a tech startup or a Wall Street finance or making partner at a white shoe firm) then yes, you can sprint in the hopes of crossing the finish line and getting rich before you burn out. But for most career paths you need to pace yourself.
rayiner 14y ago
It doesn't matter if you do. If sleeping two hours less puts you just 15 minutes ahead of your competitors, then in winner-take-all fields it pays off. There is a reason for the quotes in the article from bankers. The model there is that you've got X number of years to get promoted or you're pushed out. The vast majority of people hired will not make managing director or one of the relatively permanent positions, and will take an enormous pay cut when they're kicked out. So the game becomes not about absolute productivity, but relative productivity.
- incision 14y ago
  >So the game becomes not about absolute productivity, but relative productivity. It certainly could be, but that's not what I take from the examples or experience. I think this particularly game is more often about perception, not any actual measure or productivity. The banker quote demonstrates it even. It's about "getting respect" not necessarily getting more done.

acuozzo 14y ago

> Better question, does being awake 20 as opposed to 16 hours per day result in getting 25% more accomplished? In some cases, it does. My hobby, digital film preservation, requires work that's long, tedious, and relatively-unskilled. I often clean dirt/dust using temporal fixes in PFClean and having an active well-rested mind doesn't help with this __at_all__, so sleeping an extra four hours won't improve my productivity.

btilly 14y ago
One of the downsides of being tired is that you become more distractible. Even work that's long, tedious, and relatively-unskilled doesn't get done if you started doing another random task.

stevoyoung 14y ago

Most of the time I do the whole get 4-5 hours of sleep. In fact, last night I went to bed at 3:30am and woke up at 6:00. I did have an hour nap during the day though. I normally like to go to bed earlier (12) and wake up earlier (4:30-5). I find my self a lot more productive early in the morning rather than late at night. For me, it's not about "get 25% more done". It's more about being able to still spend time with family when I need too and get work done while everyone else is still asleep. It's very much a work life balance tool for me. I can't go weeks on 4 hours though. If I do 4 hours consistently in about 10 days I crash and need a full 8 hours for a day or two.

kyllo 14y ago

In the short run, maybe. When it's crunch time at work or in school, sacrificing a few hours of sleep to work can pay off. But over any appreciable length of time, the sleep debt and stress accumulate, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, you run out of steam, and you burn out. It's like sprinting. You can't sprint a marathon, it isn't possible. Some people can run a marathon faster than others, but no one can run at their top speed for such a long distance. If you try, you will quickly run out of gas and need to rest. If you're in a game that resembles a 100m dash (like a tech startup or a Wall Street finance or making partner at a white shoe firm) then yes, you can sprint in the hopes of crossing the finish line and getting rich before you burn out. But for most career paths you need to pace yourself.

rayiner 14y ago

It doesn't matter if you do. If sleeping two hours less puts you just 15 minutes ahead of your competitors, then in winner-take-all fields it pays off. There is a reason for the quotes in the article from bankers. The model there is that you've got X number of years to get promoted or you're pushed out. The vast majority of people hired will not make managing director or one of the relatively permanent positions, and will take an enormous pay cut when they're kicked out. So the game becomes not about absolute productivity, but relative productivity.

incision 14y ago
>So the game becomes not about absolute productivity, but relative productivity. It certainly could be, but that's not what I take from the examples or experience. I think this particularly game is more often about perception, not any actual measure or productivity. The banker quote demonstrates it even. It's about "getting respect" not necessarily getting more done.