Search Results
6/21/2025, 11:51:49 AM
>>16704072
> Absolutely every one of the points I mentioned could be 'high stakes' according to your definition.
No, it can't, and I already explained why for each one. Doing statistics or instrument maintenance does not have the same cognitive load as making sensitive decisions for the protocol of an expensive study that will take 6 months. Calibrating pipettes, making simple solutions for everyone to use or working out the planning for instrument use is not as taxing as figuring out how your results fit in with the hypothesis of your paper and the broader literature, and in what narrative this should be presented to your supervisor so he doesn't misunderstand something and send you to chase bigfoot.
What I'm trying to get at is this. There seem to be two schools of thought when it comes to demanding intellectual work. One is yours, that says that it's perfectly reasonable to do that for 10h/day and it's just a skill issue if you work less. You are not the only person I've heard say this. I don't want to disparage you, unironically.
The other one, which this anon seems to support (>>16703726, >>16703762), and which I also see in my own life, is that if you maximally focus for +-4h, that's essentially all the high quality output you can get in that day. You can still answer emails, sit in meetings, calibrate instruments, read papers or whatever for the next 4-6h, but that is grunt mindless work. The chance you produce anything of value after the first highly focused 4h becomes exponentially lower, and eventually approaches zero, especially if you try to do it for days/weeks on end. Let alone years.
So which one is it?
> Absolutely every one of the points I mentioned could be 'high stakes' according to your definition.
No, it can't, and I already explained why for each one. Doing statistics or instrument maintenance does not have the same cognitive load as making sensitive decisions for the protocol of an expensive study that will take 6 months. Calibrating pipettes, making simple solutions for everyone to use or working out the planning for instrument use is not as taxing as figuring out how your results fit in with the hypothesis of your paper and the broader literature, and in what narrative this should be presented to your supervisor so he doesn't misunderstand something and send you to chase bigfoot.
What I'm trying to get at is this. There seem to be two schools of thought when it comes to demanding intellectual work. One is yours, that says that it's perfectly reasonable to do that for 10h/day and it's just a skill issue if you work less. You are not the only person I've heard say this. I don't want to disparage you, unironically.
The other one, which this anon seems to support (>>16703726, >>16703762), and which I also see in my own life, is that if you maximally focus for +-4h, that's essentially all the high quality output you can get in that day. You can still answer emails, sit in meetings, calibrate instruments, read papers or whatever for the next 4-6h, but that is grunt mindless work. The chance you produce anything of value after the first highly focused 4h becomes exponentially lower, and eventually approaches zero, especially if you try to do it for days/weeks on end. Let alone years.
So which one is it?
Page 1