Working longer hours isn't equivalent to working harder. Plenty of unsuccessful entrepreneurs worked long hours and worked hard, and there are examples of people/businesses doing productive work with more balanced workdays.
99% of the people in the world live in a way to not be successful, but to have a balanced life with happiness? It should be obvious that for 99% of people, that isn't a choice they get to make. It's also a grotesque separation of success from balance/happiness that shows a profound lack of insight.
The word "slacker" is only present in the title of the article itself. It's normal that the writer, who you railed against, doesn't get to pick their title. So it's important to read the actual content for the premise. The writer doesn't argue against putting in time. There is the idea that quality of working hours is also important.
It's pretty clear that doing the 80 hour week is something that works well if you're, say, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. A difficult job, to be sure, but not top-notch in the grand scheme of things. You're not inventing quantum mechanics, you're figuring out ways for people to share more cat pictures.
But if you are operating at the top of the pyramid of knowledge, like some of the people mentioned in the article, that's a different kind of effort. The 4 hours a day schedule, with plenty of breaks, seems to work best.
> But if you are operating at the top of the pyramid of knowledge, like some of the people mentioned in the article, that's a different kind of effort.
Yeah, it's an effort they are probably thinking about 24/7. Defining 'knowledge work' is challenging because so much of the 'work' happens when the person is not sitting at the computer/desk. Creative work is similar.
Instead of saying so and so worked 4 hours/day, we need to change the definition of work.
I think it's virtually certain that, if they are indeed top figures in their fields, it's guaranteed that they are deeply involved in their work, and that means their subconscious minds are processing that stuff non-stop. But the subconscious is a funny thing, because it doesn't seem to require "effort" to operate, however you may define that notion.
It's the fully conscious, purposeful, organized work that requires "effort" and consumes "energy". Not even sure how to define these things properly, but everyone seems to understand them intuitively. Anyway, to be successful at the highest levels, it seems like you have to be awfully protective of this "energy" thing.
After about 10 years of consulting in the field of thermodynamics, my week of work has now settled to 25h. I simply cannot be efficient after 4 to 5h of intensive work in this field. What is interesting is that not a single customer complained about it.
Working longer hours isn't equivalent to working harder. Plenty of unsuccessful entrepreneurs worked long hours and worked hard, and there are examples of people/businesses doing productive work with more balanced workdays.
99% of the people in the world live in a way to not be successful, but to have a balanced life with happiness? It should be obvious that for 99% of people, that isn't a choice they get to make. It's also a grotesque separation of success from balance/happiness that shows a profound lack of insight.
The word "slacker" is only present in the title of the article itself. It's normal that the writer, who you railed against, doesn't get to pick their title. So it's important to read the actual content for the premise. The writer doesn't argue against putting in time. There is the idea that quality of working hours is also important.