4 ms·

> Four hours per day of work where you are in high focus is about normal. You will see that professionals across many creative fields only work 4 hours per day.

> Four hours per day of work where you are in high focus is about normal. You will see that professionals across many creative fields only work 4 hours per day. OK I'll bite. What are these fields? I think it is fanciful to call 4 hours per day 'normal'.

nitrogen 12y ago
Any office job ever. As much as 50% of the time in an 8 hour day can be spent chatting with coworkers or inadvertently zoning out.
- leoh 12y ago
  Or meetings. Poorly run meetings. Probably because people are tired.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Meetings can be incredibly useful (at least until we invent telepathy), but only if they're run well and held sparingly. Otherwise they turn into an easy way to look busy. As you suggest, efficient meetings aren't really possible when people are overworked. Even one-on-one conversations can fall apart when sleep deprived. I've had work-related conversations at the end of an overly long 8h day where neither one of us could form coherent sentences about the code we were discussing. In an ideal world, we would have left work two hours prior.
- twelvechairs 12y ago
  This is a completely different argument. This is "most people aren't efficient, therefore because I am I should be able to work less" where OP's was "creative people can't (and don't) work above 4 hours" (yet can somehow do so on their own side project). I'll agree with you in general on this one (though perhaps then you should be happy with s 'standard job' salary), but disagree with OP.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    This is a completely different argument. This is "most people aren't efficient, therefore because I am I should be able to work less" where OP's was "creative people can't (and don't) work above 4 hours" (yet can somehow do so on their own side project). Not quite; it's more like "most people aren't effective for more than four single-task focused hours per day, myself included, so everybody should be able to 'work' fewer hours." Working on a side project might use a different part of the brain or a different sort of willpower reserve, so it's entirely possible that someone will fall asleep after four hours of actual work, but could then go home and spend another two hours on something completely different.
    - twelvechairs 12y ago
      I agree that not every hour is super productive, but not that 4 hours is 'normal' as said above. Nor that you could be 100% productive in a 4 hour job timeslot. There's also productivity losses if you have 2 people working on a project half the time rather than 1. I agree people should probably work less and have more time for their own projects but there is nothing normal about this in other professions apart from the odd artist who may well hover around the poverty line.
      - e12e 12y ago
        When we're talking about programming/system engineering etc, there's the part where you might spend 4 hours doing "measurable" work -- ie: producing artefacts. Be that designs, code, documentation -- and in your "free time" your brain is still working on the problems in the background. I think part of the idea is that (to paraphrase Greenspun[1]) there's no point in keeping people from having fun while they're thinking. Like the new head of our CS department said: he doesn't really care if his professors spend most of their time in the office or at a cafe -- as long as they're comming up with new ideas and do research (the institute has a very high rate of publication for its size). [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html
        12y ago
ainla 12y ago
I've worked in two big Java/.NET consulting shops. They both were OK with 60% productive work. If you performed better, you were able to get bigger bonuses. If lower, then they started to work on your productivity (tutoring etc) or fired you. I usually showed up about 50% of the time and did some work from home. Worked great for me.
greggarious 12y ago
Most engineers don't consider meetings to be "work". It's pretty normal to only "work" for 4 hours (or even less) and spend the rest of your time on overhead - meetings etc.

nitrogen 12y ago

Any office job ever. As much as 50% of the time in an 8 hour day can be spent chatting with coworkers or inadvertently zoning out.

leoh 12y ago
Or meetings. Poorly run meetings. Probably because people are tired.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Meetings can be incredibly useful (at least until we invent telepathy), but only if they're run well and held sparingly. Otherwise they turn into an easy way to look busy. As you suggest, efficient meetings aren't really possible when people are overworked. Even one-on-one conversations can fall apart when sleep deprived. I've had work-related conversations at the end of an overly long 8h day where neither one of us could form coherent sentences about the code we were discussing. In an ideal world, we would have left work two hours prior.
twelvechairs 12y ago
This is a completely different argument. This is "most people aren't efficient, therefore because I am I should be able to work less" where OP's was "creative people can't (and don't) work above 4 hours" (yet can somehow do so on their own side project). I'll agree with you in general on this one (though perhaps then you should be happy with s 'standard job' salary), but disagree with OP.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  This is a completely different argument. This is "most people aren't efficient, therefore because I am I should be able to work less" where OP's was "creative people can't (and don't) work above 4 hours" (yet can somehow do so on their own side project). Not quite; it's more like "most people aren't effective for more than four single-task focused hours per day, myself included, so everybody should be able to 'work' fewer hours." Working on a side project might use a different part of the brain or a different sort of willpower reserve, so it's entirely possible that someone will fall asleep after four hours of actual work, but could then go home and spend another two hours on something completely different.
  - twelvechairs 12y ago
    I agree that not every hour is super productive, but not that 4 hours is 'normal' as said above. Nor that you could be 100% productive in a 4 hour job timeslot. There's also productivity losses if you have 2 people working on a project half the time rather than 1. I agree people should probably work less and have more time for their own projects but there is nothing normal about this in other professions apart from the odd artist who may well hover around the poverty line.
    - e12e 12y ago
      When we're talking about programming/system engineering etc, there's the part where you might spend 4 hours doing "measurable" work -- ie: producing artefacts. Be that designs, code, documentation -- and in your "free time" your brain is still working on the problems in the background. I think part of the idea is that (to paraphrase Greenspun[1]) there's no point in keeping people from having fun while they're thinking. Like the new head of our CS department said: he doesn't really care if his professors spend most of their time in the office or at a cafe -- as long as they're comming up with new ideas and do research (the institute has a very high rate of publication for its size). [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html
      - 12y ago

ainla 12y ago

I've worked in two big Java/.NET consulting shops. They both were OK with 60% productive work. If you performed better, you were able to get bigger bonuses. If lower, then they started to work on your productivity (tutoring etc) or fired you. I usually showed up about 50% of the time and did some work from home. Worked great for me.

greggarious 12y ago

Most engineers don't consider meetings to be "work". It's pretty normal to only "work" for 4 hours (or even less) and spend the rest of your time on overhead - meetings etc.