Accomplish more by doing less (2007) | Hacker News Reader

Accomplish more by doing less (2007)

calnewport.com

91 pointsLordNibbler59 comments

If you have kids and your spouse also has a career, all this goes out the window, and you are stuck in survival mode for at least the first 5 years (assuming one kid). For example: extracurricular activities basically cease, and personal is winnowed down to getting the bare minimum of exercise if you are lucky. Still it’s probably good advice to trim professional projects if you can. However, many people don’t have the same flexibility to do this as an academic does, but can learn to say “no” to projects, which sometimes works.

Another solution is to not have kids, interestingly enough.

Sorry, horse has left the barn on that one.

Sure, I meant for other readers who have not (yet?) had kids.

What is the point of "productivity" if you're not accomplishing what is important in your life?

That's predicated on the false assumption that everyone finds kids important. Many certainly do not, like myself. I'd rather have more money and time than raise a child.

Simple question: If not your kids, who's going to be at your funeral?

This is a strange justification for having children, thinking of who'd be at one's funeral. I don't care, because I'd be dead, incapable of caring.

You say you don't care, so if not your kids who's going to be at your funeral?

I just said it doesn't matter, because I'm dead. But if I'm going to answer your question, friends and family would be there, just like everyone else's funeral. Even if I don't have kids, I will have other friends and family who do.

As someone with a kid, this seems like a very bad reason to have kids.

At my funeral, since I will be dead, the only ones who will (presumably) be suffering at that point will be the mourners, so arguably, the less people at one’s funeral, the less overall suffering there is.

Funeral's don't have to be about suffering - Death isn't the end of the story for many people of faith. Leaving a legacy to the next generation is quite possibly the most meaningful thing we are capable of doing, no?

In terms of the lens of the Regret Minimization Framework (for me) I would regret not having the family I'm leaving my legacy to at my funeral.

My wife? My friends? Honestly though I don't care who is at my funeral, I'll be dead

Another one is to have a stay at home mom.

Or dad.

Or a nanny.

A wrong but self-correcting strategy.

"These numerous seeds, however, have a tendency to transform into weeds."

Hit me the hardest.

Pink Floyd’s Time hit me like that.

“Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines”

And here I thought the Einstein principle was that you can instantly make any idea or quote sound more credible by liberally attributing it to Einstein.

Or Mark Twain

But not Jeffrey Epstein ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ewww I regret making this comment. Apologies to the community.

Please delete

"The Einstein principle is that you can instantly make any idea or quote sound more credible by liberally attributing it to Einstein. "

-- Mark Twain

If I want to achieve something then I find the joy in pursuing it, at which point I will naturally do it when I'm capable and will do other things when I'm not.

Letting my attention float around freely (within limits obviously) often looks like I have a low attention span. However, with a birds eye view on what I'm able to get done I look like I'm hyper focused.

And if I can't find the joy in a long term pursuit then it's very unlikely to be worth my time.

It's practically thermodynamics. Concentrate your energy on the smallest point possible if you wish to generate the highest temperature possible.

And if your energy is spent on a hundred different tasks, it's gonna take you that much longer to boil that pot of water.

This seems extremely straightforward and intuitive. Surely we do not need Einstin here to prove it for us.

Sometimes that point exists in a region of concepts that isn't touched by anyone directly, so you have no clue what its exact location is, hence you can't concentrate your energy on it. What you can do, however is identify the conceptually closest and well understood points. These points may end up being in vastly different fields, each requiring vastly different ways of thinking and/or computational paradigms. _IF_ you're resourceful enough to focus your attention on all of these neighboring points "virtually" at once, then you have a chance to interpolate the position the original concept and finally concentrate on it.

It's never the concept that's hard. It's the execution.

Is the execution hard no matter what, or because the concept is vague or being addressed at too broad a scope?

The way academics and VCs handle the stochastic nature of research and innovation (eg only a small fraction of ideas end up working) is to hire many people ready to devote all their energy to one or two projects. That way you have multiple projects, each with a dedicated and talented person leading it.

Then the seeds that grow into mighty oak trees survive, weeds are trimmed out and forgotten.

Note the Einstein was not that productive after he moved to Princeton. All his seeds became weeds after a certain age.

The Einstein Principle

Einstein’s push for general relativity highlights an important reality about accomplishment. We are most productive when we focus on a very small number of projects on which we can devote a large amount of attention

All Cal Newport's advice is pretty mundane and, frankly, feels almost exploitative these days. "Let's give those distracted folks some old-as-sin observation, but packaged as new", it looks like he is saying.

Deep Work = find a place with no distraction and work for a few hours with real focus.

Einstein Principle = focus on a few things.

Is there anyone in the world who thinks that in order to achieve excellent results (unprecedented, surprising, miraculous) from research and similar intellectual endeavors, it is better to divide attention and focus among many "projects"? I don't think so.

In other professions, better results would be accomplished by diffusing attention (think of the Director or VP level in large tech companies, which are the companies I know the most about).

I just looked over the "time block planner" of his. At first I though, neat idea, then I realized, it's just ruled lines, a one-dollar notebook will accomplish the same thing.

And let's throw in a name with high recognition value as a way to both validate the concept and attract more eyeballs. It's an argument from authority if there ever was one.

Most people read these things because it feels good to read them, not because it provides any lasting benefit.

It makes sense that these productivity entertainment books include the simplest, least controversial ideas only. Anything else would reduce the size of their TAM.

> he worked so hard that his marriage became strained and his hair turned white from the stress

yeah, so maybe don’t follow the Einstein principle?

The real issue is this obsession with abstract progress. Einstein was successful because he found something that he believed was important and meaningful. Prior to devoting yourself to some crazy project, I think it’s important to take time to reflect about whether or not the project is actually meaningful to you or if it’s just filler.

This is sort of what this article goes on to recommend, but I’d rather do it talking about meaning and significance in life than organizing everything around “productivity”.

The real issue is this line:

> It’s too risky. If you invest fully in one thing, and then it fails, you’re left empty.

If failure means your project and experience will be entirely sapped of meaning, it’s a good sign it’s not the right project for you. You’re not passionate about the work, you’re passionate about outcomes. Be passionate about the work and the outcomes will fall out naturally, and better yet, if you enjoy your work in itself, you won’t care too much about outcomes.

Reminds me of the 'Feynman Technique'...be as smart as Feynman..it tends to make progress easier

Einstein was smart and well-connected enough to know he was not on a dead end. He had the support of others who helped formulate some of the math. Others are not so fortunate or smart.

The Feynman technique is compatible because it does say to think real hard. Sometimes people are so busy and distracted they don't even get to focus and think real hard. You don't have to be a genius to apply more to a particularly important problem.

> It’s too risky. If you invest fully in one thing, and then it fails, you’re left empty.

Makes me think about marriage with the divorce rate these days

Not ever being married myself, I would think that marriage should be an incredible experience to learn about yourself and your partner. A failed result can always have a positive return if you can find something to learn out of it.

To forego opportunities due to fear of failure or commitment is to miss out on some absolutely amazing experiences in life(and some heartbreaking ones).

The "I would think that marriage should be an incredible experience to learn about yourself and your partner" is quite a bizarre statement.

Marrying somebody means inviting a third party, the State, in private affairs. Now, marriage can be convenient or recommended for religious and tax affairs, particular convictions, and for the protection of kids (then...).

But getting married to learn about yourself and your partner by, in essence, inviting a third party that in typical fashion would obfuscate instead of giving light, reminds me of the guy who wanted to be kicked in the genitals so that he could feel something brand new that day.

Thanks for the realization: married, two children and never thought about it this way.

Only difference is taxes and rights to decide if someone is incapable.

Relationship wise nothing changed. Children however change a lot.

In some states, marriage gives additional rights regarding children. It’s weird, but I think some areas give maternal grandparents more rights than a biological father if something happens to an unmarried mother.

> Marrying somebody means inviting a third party, the State, in private affairs. Now, marriage can be convenient or recommended for religious and tax affairs, particular convictions, and for the protection of kids (then...).

I would think that marriage rates would drop rock bottom if the incentives are removed.

See: most of Europe. Few of my friends and family under 40 are married here. Some are getting married now, but more as a celebration of their relationship than anything else.

I guess I was coming at it from a 'romantic way to express commitment to someone else'. I now realize I have the wrong audience here.

Do you really think by not being married the State isn't in your affairs? Now THAT is a bizarre statement.

I am 100% sure that if I broke up with my girlfriend or boyfriend, I would not need to sign any official documents. As far as I know, the procedure if we were married instead would be a bit more complicated (because of the involvement of the State).

If it were a "romantic way of expressing one's commitment to another person," it would be enough to throw a party with friends, read a couple of fashionable poems, sign a guest book instead of an official register, and not invite the State into private affairs.

As a child of a "failed result" this sounds like an incredibly shallow and self centered view of marriage and a family.

Yes, as an adult who does not know his father, and as a son of a mother who went through 3 divorces, I would say crawl out of whatever box you're in and go enjoy life.

I really hope your whole life isn't centered around the failures of your parents. Then again...sounds like you might be a good candidate to forego the whole marriage and/or relationship thing.

Was he striving to achieve a certain goal or was he exploring a vein? In the latter case there is no failure.

One of the many reasons dating can be so stressful. I wonder if 'traditional' values of married couples sticking together no-matter-what reduced this stress somewhat

I think the data actually shows the highly accomplished, focused, and productive folks have lower divorce rates. Whether that correlates to happier marriages may be another issue.

This reminds me of Oliver Burkeman’s book Four Thousand Hours which is pretty good antidote to the hyper-productive, outcome-oriented mindset you’re talking about.

There ought to be some qualifier like "works in mice"

"if you're Einstein"

What if you're not Einstein, though? Just saying..

This is an idiot fallacy.

You could say that what separates the einsteins from the idiots is a willingness to obsess over worthwhile projects.

And maybe the ability to locate worthwhile projects too, I suppose. That would be an important first step.

Better to embrace your own unique and [hopefully beautiful] nature full heatedly than obsess over someone else's ideas or what someone else did.

Looks like everything a human does can fall into one or the other sort of fallacy. I sometimes think we should have a fallacy named merely for being around: "the breathing fallacy" (the mother of all fallacies)

Would an "existence fallacy" predate this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com