So, two people of equal intelligence, insight about automation, wealth, etc. are in a field...who is more successful? The one who works 10 hours a week or the one who works 70?
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the stories of great things being done by workaholics are absolutely overwhelming. Warren Buffett, Edison, Franklin, Jefferson, Einstein, Carmack ad nauseaum.
That's anecdotal, but then you dismiss the science behind long, targeted training to become good at things elsewhere in this forum.
I really hope that other folks don't use the current voting pattern in this thread as evidence that doing more work isn't helpful. Trust me (or don't), other people in your field are smart. They are automating tasks, etc. Working more is a battle-tested method of gaining an advantage (or at least staying even in fields where everyone is working as hard as they can).
"As I've pointed out elsewhere, the stories of great things being done by workaholics are absolutely overwhelming. Warren Buffett, Edison, Franklin, Jefferson, Einstein, Carmack ad nauseaum."
Anecdotes. I bet there are a lot of workaholics who are total failures and certainly not many workaholics become a Buffett, Edison, etc.
Warren Buffett is certainly not working for an hourly wage. He is fabulously wealthy because he found ways to leverage other people's hard work to make him rich as an investor. Number of hours worked has diminishing returns if not tied to a strategy to make each hour worked increasingly valuable.
So, two people of equal intelligence, wealth, ability to work long hours, etc. are in a field... who is more successful? The one who spends a lot of time doing repetitive tasks or the one who automates those.
As I am pointing out now, the stories of great things being done by people with insights about automation are absolutely overwhelming. Eli Whitney, Cyrus McCormick, Henry Ford, Jeff Bezos ad nauseaum.
That's anecdotal, but then you dismiss the science behind using automation and productivity enhancement to become good at things elsewhere in this forum.
Sure, if everything except hours worked are equal, working longer hours helps, but if everything except intelligence is equal, the more intelligent will win, and if everything except wealth is equal, the wealthier will win. In real life, all other things are never equal and assuming they are in order to prove your point is a strawman argument.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the stories of great things being done by workaholics are absolutely overwhelming. Warren Buffett, Edison, Franklin, Jefferson, Einstein, Carmack ad nauseaum.
That's anecdotal, but then you dismiss the science behind long, targeted training to become good at things elsewhere in this forum.
I really hope that other folks don't use the current voting pattern in this thread as evidence that doing more work isn't helpful. Trust me (or don't), other people in your field are smart. They are automating tasks, etc. Working more is a battle-tested method of gaining an advantage (or at least staying even in fields where everyone is working as hard as they can).