Hacker News Reader

I’m exactly the same way. Then I worked myself into a hospital bed.

My family shifted my priorities. Getting out of my own head to spend my time with them is more important.

I miss the obsessive all nighters sometimes, but the trade off is worth it.

I am very interested to hear what kinds of health conditions arose from constantly working (both as a case study and as a thing I can do to avoid myself)

Premature Atrial Fibrillation

I believe is what it was called. I worked as close to round the clock as possible for 3 full months once and was pretty sure I was having a heart attack.

Doctor told me that it wasn’t serious as long as I didn’t keep doing whatever I was doing.

Did the extra heartbeats ( Premature Atrial Fibrillation?) disappear once you reduced the number of hours?

Sorry that your were in that situation (working that much). I wonder if it was because you felt you had to, or:

>> I miss the obsessive all nighters

because you wanted to (eg working on one's own startup maybe)

I haven't been to hospital bed but I've also noticed that even fun and interesting things can burn you off. I have to consciously force myself to focus on things that give rest to my brain - playing Rocket League with my son, going for a walk without my phone, reading novels.

I met my first cofounder talking to them over beers. I met my fiancee over a shared love of mindless movies. I've mostly worked about 40 hours a week through my career so far. Now I'm in my mid-40s and I have what I believe to be my ideal job, I'm paid very well for it, and I have lots of time to play video games.

Your path suits you and you find it satisfying, and I'm happy for you, but it's quite unkind to dismiss other people's choices to drink beer and watch movies instead of working. There are many paths to happiness besides your own.

Exactly.

The parent comment doesn’t strike me as particularly dismissive of anyones choices.

Yeah. I'm fine with people choosing their path in life. I was only referring to their own statements and attitudes. Not trying to come up with some universal code of conduct or anything here.

You're defending against something that OP never said. You're making a trade off with your time. We all do every day.

> didn't achieve as much, because they just wanted to turn off and tune out. Drink some beer. Watch some mindless movies.

You can read in a bit of judgment here.

It's their own judgement. They say they wish they were where I'm at.

But sure, we can say they achieved just as much (and possibly more) because they achieved contentedness or happiness or whatever, which is great for them, and they are just confused?

Maybe, at the same time, the comment didn't say it was important to achieve much, mainly just noticed that they didn't? Was my interpretation

cognition junkie. i feel a similar way about how i'm "hardwired". i have a reserved, yet intense curiosity, something i discovered through my courses in uni. once i found something that peaked my curiosity, i finally found confidence in myself. previously, in other schooling settings, despite high-marks, i never felt intelligent or like i was even learning anything.

tangentially, i have a friend who is a musician that was never "traditionally" smart. i suppose he was just never interested in any of the material, so he never really gave much of an effort. once he found music and discovered that he could orchestrate things on his computer, he fell into a rabbithole that he'll never come out of. learning really is all about engagement, something which sounds so obviously trite but so rarely ever implemented in early american education, at least in my experience.

> I've known plenty of people way smarter than me that didn't achieve as much, because they just wanted to turn off and tune out. Drink some beer. Watch some mindless movies.

Cognition can be painful in a psyche impacted by a history of high stress. Read about substance P neurotransmitters and depression; chemical messages for physical pain are high in depressed patients, and yet there's nothing to indicate that there should be pain. Block the substance P neurotransmitters and you get an antidepressant.

So, I think there are repressive forces in addition to what you're describing above. Modeling the problem this way, it's easier to be optimistic and figure out societal machinery to promote more problem solving by addressing forces like stress; instead of TV watching and etc., since these habits are side-effects of other problems.

Thanks, this explains a lot for me. I love thinking about things and learning things, but doing it too much is just exhausting. I still have hobbies that are technical, but the parent poster's description sounds like a recipe for burnout for me.

Through meditation, I've come to see that my own habit of thinking 24/7 was actually a means of escape for me. A way of numbing feelings and avoiding silence. In the years since I started to practice meditation my mind has become a lot more quiet and I no longer think about work things obsessively, I can switch off much more easily and conversely it's made me a lot better at knowing what is and isn't important to work on.

I do envy the people who seem to be able to stay on 24/7 without burning out, but part of me also wonders if there's still a limit to that and perhaps my limit is lower.

I used to envy people like this, but now I don't because the world wouldn't be as fun without them.

Instead, I feed off the endless energy they emit and try to make the most use of it. Perhaps some day I can figure out a cool trick to be a constant emitter, just like GGP.

For me, I think the traits that drive my success, in order, are curiosity, tenacity and intelligence. People always tell me I'm smart, and I know for sure my intelligence is above average, but I meet so many people who are far smarter than me. On the curiosity scale though, as a man in my mid-30s, I still annoy the hell out of everyone around me with curious questions about everything. I have to moderate myself to keep from asking as many questions as a curious 6 year old. And I'd attribute a significant of my success in my programming career to my refusal to give up when I have to spend days troubleshooting, figuring our how to make undocumented code work, or nag people to get the access I need to certain systems.

My biggest generic life advice for people is "Cultivate curiosity".

The first thing I ask about when people want to know if they should get into programming is how tenacious they are.

I was the same. But constantly thinking at high cognition caused me stress. My brain needs more downtime. Now I always prioritize what I focus on and think about. This selective turn off has made me happier and de-stressed.

> So like the multi-billionaire CEO who's only in that position because he works 80hr/wk and never turns it off...

I do not believe this narrative that is only confirmed by billionaires themselves. They mostly rely on the work in others for their success, why working more hours would even have an impact?

They work to stay on top of the pile. Working for impact, or for the business or customers is a career limiting decision several levels below CEO with a few exceptions, usually original founders. Everyone else gets filtered out.

I was reading an interesting article about investment banking recently, it was quite clear that the further up the greasy pole bankers climb the less hours they work. The people at the top were only doing half the hours of those entering the profession.

Depends on what you define as work, or rather the difficulty and quality of it per hour.

Example: An accountant who works 8h/d does very taxing, mental work. They require high concentration and precision, it’s often quite boring stuff, but still, they have to get things right, quickly, constantly.

A manager or director might effectively work more hours, but those hours typically have a much more natural rhythm to them. The vast majority of it is communication or preparing for such. The hard part is making the right decisions, listening learning (broad sense), but it’s not detailed and constant.

We programmers tend to complain when we have too many meetings and purely conceptual/communicative work, because it doesn’t „feel“ like work and getting things done, right? There’s a hint there.

For me, 3-4h of highly concentrated programming and testing is much more taxing than a full day of communication/learning. Much more.

For me, 5-8 h highly concentrated programming is relaxation :-) (at least when working on my own things)

Interesting example with the accountant: constant precision required, although monotonous. Not easy

What about the effects of 'time spent on the problem' (ie compounding)? If you are only learning for learning sake, then getting to a "101" or "102" or "103" (to use American college level terminology)is fine I would assume. This might take 1-3 years of learning/study/doing.

But if you truly want to "master" something - then does "constantly thinking about problems" mean you will never benefit from the same 'compounding' effect as someone who has spent 3/5/10 years of their time on that problem?

Or - is all your "need for cognition" - mostly in one domain space (e.g. "Computer Science" or "database structure" etc)?

You should read Range, by David Epstein. I'm sure you'd find it enlightening.

Have you tried meditation?