There’s a higher tier incentive point, where a) upper management, and b) independent artists/thinkers/etc want to get more productive work out of people or themselves. The decision of whether to pay someone by the hour is partly about what you think will produce more output (where paying by the hour might be bad because it leads people to be stingy with their time, when what they need is open space to think)
But Google still puts a lot of optimization into providing lunch, exercise, and campuses that cause people to incidentally bump into each and have conversations as a way to squeeze extra value out of people in a given day and over the course of a given year. (and company management generally prefers legibility where possible, so if it were possible to get the benefits in a more measurable and compensate-able way, they’d have tried to do so)
Not, necessarily. Not every productive hour is made equally. If you trade part of your creativity for more productive hours then might not be a worthwhile trade.
This might seem like a nitpick but it matters. The idea of chasing productive hours leads to bad ideas like the Uberman sleep schedule that do sound seductive to rationalists.
It’s a reasoning error to equate “Is X possible to do” with ” Is X possible to do without paying any price”.
The implication I meant was “if it’s possible to keep working hours of the same productivity.” If you lose creativity and your profession is creative, the hours are no longer productive.
I’m specifically arguing the original point: “there are huge incentives to try to be more productive.” If, as Dony was originally asking, it were possible to just get into a mental state where you could work productively (including creatively) indefinitely, people would have found it.
A normal programmer is working productively in the sense most people see “working productively”. The proverbial 10x programmer on the other hand is much more productive even with the same number of productive working hours.
The thesis of deep work is that there’s much higher payoff to increasing quality of your work then quantity for a knowledge works.
One of the assumptions you seem to be making is that the time not spend working is not productively used. Creative ideas often come when there’s a bit of distance to the work while showering. Working 100 hours per week means that this distance is never really achieved and the benefits that get produced when your brain can process the problem in the background while your conscious mind doesn’t interfere don’t materialize.
I think I remember from a YCombinator source that they would tell founder who tried to work 100 hours, that they need to get better about prioritizing and not try use working that much as the solution to their challenges.
It’s easier to discover that you are working at the wrong thing when you have breaks in between that give you distance that allows reflection.
I think you think I’m making assumptions I’m not. I agree with all these points – this is why the world looks the way it does. I’m saying, if there weren’t the sorts of limits that you’re describing, we’d observe people working more, more often.
If, as Dony was originally asking, it were possible to just get into a mental state where you could work productively (including creatively) indefinitely, people would have found it.
Perhaps not indefinitely, but I do think there are people like this already? There are some people who are much more productive than others, even at similar intelligence levels. The simplest explanation is that these people have simply discovered a way to be productive for many hours in a day.
Personally, I know it’s at least possible to be productive for a long time (say 10 hours with a few breaks). I also think professional gamers are typically productive for this much most days.
I think the main issue is that it’s difficult to transfer insights and motivation to other people.
There’s a higher tier incentive point, where a) upper management, and b) independent artists/thinkers/etc want to get more productive work out of people or themselves. The decision of whether to pay someone by the hour is partly about what you think will produce more output (where paying by the hour might be bad because it leads people to be stingy with their time, when what they need is open space to think)
But Google still puts a lot of optimization into providing lunch, exercise, and campuses that cause people to incidentally bump into each and have conversations as a way to squeeze extra value out of people in a given day and over the course of a given year. (and company management generally prefers legibility where possible, so if it were possible to get the benefits in a more measurable and compensate-able way, they’d have tried to do so)
Thinkers and artists care about intellectual output. They don’t care about the numbers of hours they work.
Google purposefully doesn’t let people sleep at their office which is a policy that prevents people from working 100 hours per week.
Agreed. But if there was a way to work more productive hours, they would.
Not, necessarily. Not every productive hour is made equally. If you trade part of your creativity for more productive hours then might not be a worthwhile trade.
This might seem like a nitpick but it matters. The idea of chasing productive hours leads to bad ideas like the Uberman sleep schedule that do sound seductive to rationalists.
It’s a reasoning error to equate “Is X possible to do” with ” Is X possible to do without paying any price”.
The implication I meant was “if it’s possible to keep working hours of the same productivity.” If you lose creativity and your profession is creative, the hours are no longer productive.
I’m specifically arguing the original point: “there are huge incentives to try to be more productive.” If, as Dony was originally asking, it were possible to just get into a mental state where you could work productively (including creatively) indefinitely, people would have found it.
A normal programmer is working productively in the sense most people see “working productively”. The proverbial 10x programmer on the other hand is much more productive even with the same number of productive working hours.
The thesis of deep work is that there’s much higher payoff to increasing quality of your work then quantity for a knowledge works.
One of the assumptions you seem to be making is that the time not spend working is not productively used. Creative ideas often come when there’s a bit of distance to the work while showering. Working 100 hours per week means that this distance is never really achieved and the benefits that get produced when your brain can process the problem in the background while your conscious mind doesn’t interfere don’t materialize.
I think I remember from a YCombinator source that they would tell founder who tried to work 100 hours, that they need to get better about prioritizing and not try use working that much as the solution to their challenges.
It’s easier to discover that you are working at the wrong thing when you have breaks in between that give you distance that allows reflection.
I think you think I’m making assumptions I’m not. I agree with all these points – this is why the world looks the way it does. I’m saying, if there weren’t the sorts of limits that you’re describing, we’d observe people working more, more often.
Perhaps not indefinitely, but I do think there are people like this already? There are some people who are much more productive than others, even at similar intelligence levels. The simplest explanation is that these people have simply discovered a way to be productive for many hours in a day.
Personally, I know it’s at least possible to be productive for a long time (say 10 hours with a few breaks). I also think professional gamers are typically productive for this much most days.
I think the main issue is that it’s difficult to transfer insights and motivation to other people.