[HN Gopher] A Simple Math Equation Can Transform Your Productivity ___________________________________________________________________ A Simple Math Equation Can Transform Your Productivity Author : productivetom Score : 106 points Date : 2022-01-19 19:09 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (nextbigideaclub.com) (TXT) w3m dump (nextbigideaclub.com) | deetz wrote: | 80% of 20% = 16% does that make your "feel" of the math better? | RedShift1 wrote: | > Dreams are written in disappearing ink. | | Beautiful writing. | jodrellblank wrote: | > " _When people meet a great leader, they often say, "She made | me feel like I was the only person in the room." Imagine giving | that type of complete attention to everything you do--and making | that thing the only thing in the room._ " | | "Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while | one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the | potatoes." -- Alan Watts. | | (In the sense that physically doing nothing else, but secretly | thinking about other things, is also distraction). | b5n wrote: | I don't dislike Alan Watts, but by his own admission he is an | entertainer. If you're actually interested in zen the best | place to start is with the texts: | | Da Dao Wu Men The Great Way is gateless, | | Qian Chai You Lu Approached in a thousand ways. | | Tou De Ci Guan Once past this checkpoint | | Gan Kun Du Bu You stride through the universe. | | https://sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/mumonkan.htm | dalmo3 wrote: | > Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes | | But if you're ascribing a higher meaning to the act is it still | Zen? Maybe true Zen would be not even knowing it existed in the | first place. | lanstin wrote: | If you are peeling the potatoes and have a bit of whole- | hearted potato peeling and then immediately go off "wow, I | was really focused there, what Zen potato peeling!" for a | minute, well, those thoughts are not Zen spirituality. It's a | common problem with reading or listening to stories about | whole-hearted activity - one fills up with "Zen thoughts" for | a while. | mynameisash wrote: | I never really considered myself a 'true' zen practitioner, | but years ago I did regular zen retreats. It included sitting | meditation, walking meditation, a mindful lunch with other | practitioners, and... chores. (Maybe they used a different | word - I don't recall.) One time I spent our ~hour washing | dishes. Another time, sweeping the zendo. | | The point of it, beyond contributing to the greater | community, was to do these chores mindfully. There was no | higher spirituality to it; just be present. When washing | dishes, I was only focusing on washing, rinsing, drying, and | putting them away. When sweeping, I was _only_ sweeping the | floor to collect dirt. When I collected the dirt, I was only | collecting it. And so on. It sounds a bit silly, but it was a | tremendous practice to force yourself to only do one thing | and to _think_ about that thing while you 're doing it. | armchairhacker wrote: | Idk, I already know that 0.8 * 0.2 = 0.16 and i'm not very | productive | rob_c wrote: | The rest of us spell it mathS... | simplestats wrote: | But our way is easier to say with braces. | | (I'm not going anywhere with this...) | mocana wrote: | Learn from the article: If you focus on one Math at a time you | will do better in each of them. | boc wrote: | I don't go on British message boards and "correct" their | spelling. Try to extend the same courtesy here. | rob_c wrote: | Then I will then attack your use of equation to include | addition and subtraction. Not a single differential, exponent | or integral? Please .. | doovd wrote: | How can you "correct" English from England? | Flankk wrote: | While you're in front of your old english dictionary, look | up dialect. | starwind wrote: | idk but I won't correct English from Britain if you won't | correct American from America | productivetom wrote: | The takeaway from the article is the same either way :) | rob_c wrote: | That some people think numbers are magical equations? | zwieback wrote: | I thought that was yesterdays thinking, last I heard | "mindfulness" as-in forcing your brain to fully concentrate on | just one thing is not good for our brains and they are not good | at it. | | I was shoving a sandwich in my mouth while I was reading the | article. | mempko wrote: | Another great saying I always use 'Productivity is waste'. | Ostrogodsky wrote: | And the rock keeps rolling down | zerop wrote: | Reminded me of Buddha quotes on Live in the moment fully | (mindfulness). | slingnow wrote: | This is some top-notch clickbait coupled with some serious | fabrication. I have serious doubts this guy dreamt about this, | but boy it made a really "gripping" introduction to this | breakthrough on productivity! | | Also, first he's an astrophysicist, and then later, he's a rocket | scientist. Which one is it? My money is on neither, but I'm sure | he has a fancy degree. | c1505 wrote: | This mentality seems like a recipe for procrastination. Yes it | would great if I always could be at my optimal functioning for | whatever task is at hand. This never happens and my brain tries | to convince me that I am too tired, hungry, or whatever else | before starting an important task. | | On the very important areas of my life, it is much more helpful | that I do something each day to try to make progress. On the | busiest or hardest days, this might just be watching 5 minutes of | a video on that topic. That keeps up my habit of doing something | and makes it less likely that I will forget things. | | If I am 100% productive at doing something that isn't important, | the result on my life is no progress. | ghostbrainalpha wrote: | This title is very misleading. I'm a fan of the message, but not | the clickbait. | Centmo wrote: | He must be one of the few that can recognize numbers and language | while dreaming. | | https://www.inverse.com/science/can-you-read-in-your-dreams | ReleaseCandidat wrote: | > If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn't the result be | greater than each part? | | Well, it is. 0.16 is bigger than 0.2 and 0.8, because it has 3 | digits instead of 2, and 16 is bigger than 2 and 8. (and 4/25 is | obviously bigger than 1/5 and 4/5 too) | | The problem actually is to (really) understand that the opposite | is true. As soon as the denominators are different enough, we | can't easily (just by looking at the numbers) compare two | fractions like 26551/3690 and 26545/3689 | kvhdude wrote: | i dont know about this. i cant get on the treadmill/elliptical | unless there is some soccer match or action film streaming on the | tv.... I could focus on the pain of doing exercise but that seems | to be counter productive... | RedShift1 wrote: | Focus on your breathing. Correct breathing takes effort but | pays dividend in endurance. | pjerem wrote: | I think it depends on your goals. If what you want is achieve | better movement, you'd better turn off that TV. | | But if you just want to burn fat, well I'm not sure that | focusing on it would change anything. | | Proprioception is a nice thing to exercise, though. | poxwole wrote: | Next Level Bullshit | ddtaylor wrote: | I think "productivity tricks" and stuff like this are similar | to regular diet and exercise. There is a _vast_ market of | people willing to sell you whatever you want to hear as it 's | much easier than, you know, just doing the thing you're | supposed to do. Every time I see some "crazy new diet" or "8 | minute abs" style thing I always mutter to myself: "anything | but a conservative diet and regular exercise" | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | And who said that "output" is multiplicative? What a useless, | unscientific article... | yakshaving_jgt wrote: | This is meta, but I'm not a fan of this trend of adding a pull | quote to add emphasis to a sentence that was never really lost in | the text to begin with, _e.g._ , | | A short sentence. A second short sentence. | | > A second short sentence. | enobrev wrote: | function_seven wrote: | Pull quotes in general usually irritate me. I'm sure there's a | place for them, when done correctly. But usually I'll see | things like you pointed out. Or worse, the pull quote will come | from a paragraph far above it (and so no longer relevant to the | section I'm currently in), or far below it (so way out of | context; I haven't even got to that part yet!) | josho wrote: | I think they made sense in a world filled with paper | magazines. You could quickly pickup a magazine flip through | pages and see if anything caught your eye, if so then you buy | the magazine. | | On the internet it only makes sense if people scroll through | an article to decide if it's worth reading. Does anyone do | that? I generally don't. The scroll bar tells me how long the | article is, and the heading and subheading usually tells me | if it's something I care about. | maininformer wrote: | They are very useful for skimming; I usually only read pull | quotes first and then the actual article. | axiosgunnar wrote: | > Ozan Varol is a rocket scientist turned law professor | | > "If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn't the output be | a larger number?" | | Glad this guy isn't building rockets anymore :-) | ksubedi wrote: | I think you missed the whole point there. (Or maybe you only | got a fraction of the point ;) | erwincoumans wrote: | Indeed. And even if you don't involve fractions, and multiply | with either 0 or 1, the output won't be a larger number. | LeonB wrote: | Several comments take issue with that same quote but fail to | grasp the context: it was his naive dream-self who had this | thought. | | > But in the dream, I was staring at this equation as a | mathematical beginner, completely befuddled by the result. How | could that be? If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn't | the result be greater than each part? | | When people share stories online and forums such as HN take | parts out of context to insult the author, it's a horrible | experience. | boringg wrote: | Seriously. Yeesh. | MauranKilom wrote: | It gets better! | | > and bestselling author | | > Click here to download a free copy of his eBook | tpoacher wrote: | I have a similar "math" equation; who knows, I might write a | blogpost about it one day. | | It relates Boyle's law to productivity. It goes something like | this: | | Boyle's law, or the ideal gas equation is: PV = nRT | | Pressure, Volume, and Temperature. n is the number of 'moles' of | the substance in question R is a constant which is specific to | the gas in question (whose pressure, volume and temperature one | might fluctuate) | | I find that this equation also describes nicely 'academic' work | (or software work, or this kind of work) | | and for the sake of using the same letters, even though other | letters might have been better, hahah | | we'll define | | P = Professionalism (i.e. Quality of output, or personal | standards of quality) | | V = Volume (or amount) of work that can / is expected to be done | | n = Number of projects one is undertaking at the same time | | R = A 'constant' unique to the individual | | T = time available / allocated for the work | | First, let's define R exactly. It is a constant, unique to the | individual (under constant circumstances), describing the quality | that can be expected, for a single unit of work (on a single | project), for a unit of time allocated. | | While R is a 'constant', this does not mean that it cannot change | - indeed it can change due to circumstances ... but that means | that your R has changed. E.g. burnout, psychology etc. Or | motivation on the other end. | | But for the purposes of studying your work output as a closed | system, it is a constant. | | And this is a very important part of this realisation. | | So | | the main parts of the system, are P, V, and T. | | In boyle's law, this says that, given constant pressure, an | accompanying increase in temperature must be accompanied by an | increase in volume. Or given constant volume, increase in | temperature must be accompanied by an increase in pressure, etc. | | When it comes to work: | | An increase in volume of work, must necessarily lead to: - either | an increase in time allocated for the work - or a reduction in | expected quality. | | This, btw, was the insight that kickstarted this analogy, because | there's a famous dilbert comic effectively saying the same thing | (let me try and find it quickly...) | | https://assets.amuniversal.com/fa5edf906d5101301d7a001dd8b71... | | So. Let's examine keeping the other variables constant. | | Expected professionalism / quality of output needs to improve. | This necessarily means that - Volume of work needs to be reduced, | given for the same deadline. - Time allocated needs to go up for | the same amount of work | | Let's examine time. The deadline has been pushed forward: - | Volume necessarily must go down, or - Quality must go down. | | The other directions also lead to nice insights. | | You just got an extension. If you choose to use up this allocated | time, you can choose to: - Try to improve quality of already | existing material (i.e. procrastination, lol) - Try to improve | amount of work at the same quality | | Your volume has gone down (an unexpected project is now off the | table). Do you: - Choose to finish things up on time - Improve | the quality, but stick to the same deadline (i.e. Parkinson's Law | / Procrastination) :p | | Your boss has told you that you can afford to not be so nitpicky. | Do you - Do more work at a lower quality. - Finish things up | faster. | | etc etc | | Now. Let's attack n | | When talking about Boyle's law, there are two versions (kinda). | PV = cT vs PV = nRT the difference being, in the latter case, we | assume we're dealing with n moles of the same gas, whereas the | former is general enough to assume generic volume, which may be | of a mixture of gases | | Therefore | | If one is talking about n 'projects', which can be interpreted to | all carry more or less the same volume of required work | | e.g. "how many experiments do I need to conduct for my PhD" | | then PV=nRT is appropriate. | | otherwise you should be a bit more generic and treat 'volume' as | a more generic "amount of work" situation | | however, the n offers another insight into this work model. | | meaning | | "One way to improve quality / reduce workload / save time, is to | stop bloody accepting every project you're offered" | | (guilty as charged ) | | which could totally also mean personal projects, such as learning | monads for absolutely fuck all reason | | or | | conversely | | the case of increasing n - "by all means take up more projects, | as long as you feel you can handle the increase in volume, or the | increase in time you will have to spend, or the reduction in | quality on all your other projects" | | or something like that | | now, here's where it all comes together. | | I would like to believe, that in any reasonable employment, one | is hired for their (perceived) R | | at least as perceived at the time of interview :p | | which, can be considered a "constant" in closed system terms. | | however | | the system is not really 'closed'. | | E.g. burnout will invariably reduce your R. This means that for | the same expectation of quality, and allocated time, you will be | able to produce less volume of work (or alternatively, for the | same deliverables, you'll only be able to do less work) | | UNFORTUNATELY, for someone like me, this is an emotionally | negative path | | which risks reducing your R even further in a vicious cycle of | psychological negativity | | therefore, what we tend to consider first, is increasing T as a | counterbalance | | i.e. "I'll work more hours than I should" | | problem is, this is not sustainable, and often serves to reduce | your R even further, compounding the problem | | Furthermore, if you have made the mistake of creating false | expectations in your bosses about a high R | | but this high R comes (possibly unbeknownst to them) from an | artificially inflated T, rather than from a genuinely organically | high R constant | | then this will lead to more V, or possibly a higher expectation | of P ... even when time T is suddenly unavoidably low | | etc etc ... I'm sure you can think of similar scenarios / | cautionary tales | | In any case, what PV=nRT has done for me is the following: | | If my bosses ask me to increase V, with no increase in T, I am | now unashamedly willing to reduce my P | | rather than steal T from personal time and suffer consequences | that at the end of the day make things worse by 'opening' the | system and affecting my R | | and in fact, people seem to expect this | | I have battled with my psychological aversion of low P for a | while, but this thought helps me do it without suffering the | negative thoughts so much. | | "It will not reflect badly on me if my quality drops. I should | simply point out it's a natural cause of the reduction of the | other variables in a closed system" | | And my employer should NOT expect me to change my R | | In other words, they should not expect me to: | | "Do better work (without giving me the right ammunition to do | so)" "Increase my workload (without giving me the time and | resources required for it" "Finish this quickly" (without helping | me mitigate my workload, or expecting the same effort and | quality) | | And also, it has made me a bit more pragmatic about saying no to | projects, even though they could benefit me (genuinely or not). | | Or at least, it has taken away much of the guilt for not doing | those projects even though they're on my list etc. | | That is all. | tpoacher wrote: | btw! I forgot the best part! | | How does technical debt fit into the whole PV=nRT framework. | | The story goes like this. "We have n tasks. Unit tests are an | extra task. We don't have time for n+1 tasks" | | In reality, technical debt is not an additive, it's a modifier. | It applies a modifier a to the current task, and a modifier b | to all related tasks after it. | | So it's more like having E[n] = 1 * a + (n-1) * b, where a > 1, | and 0 < b < 1 | | E.g. if writing a unit test makes your task double, but your | remaining tasks now take half the time, then you didn't really | make n into n+1 with unit tests, you made n become 2 + (n-2)/2 | | So, for the above (admittedly unrealistic) modifiers, if you | have 8 projects to do, and you're thinking should I do unit | tests | | In your mind you may be thinking, fukit, I can't afford to do | 16 tasks instead of 8 (i.e. 8 tasks plus 8 unit tests) | | But because geometric processes are so hard to reason with, | it's hard to see the benefit, but the benefit is massive! | | octave:16> f = @(n) 2 * n; | | octave:17> g = @(n) 4 - 2 .^ (2-n); | | octave:18> [ f(1:8); g(1:8) ] | | ans = 2.0000 4.0000 6.0000 8.0000 10.0000 12.0000 14.0000 | 16.0000 2.0000 3.0000 3.5000 3.7500 | 3.8750 3.9375 3.9688 3.9844 | | Not only is it not 16, but actually it will save you so much | time, that you'll spend even less than the original 8 time | units! | | (assuming related tasks and compounding effect paid from | technical debt) | decebalus1 wrote: | I'm sorry, but this sounds like some hardcore NXIVM science.. | melissalobos wrote: | I am not very familiar with the cult, but this just seems like | regular self-help advice. Could someone explain how this | relates to a sex cult(based on the wikipedia article)? | decebalus1 wrote: | > In 1998, Raniere and Nancy Salzman founded NXIVM, a | personal development company offering "Executive Success | Programs" (ESP) and a range of techniques for self- | improvement | | The leader used all sorts of mathy pseudologic to make | connections between equations and human feelings. It managed | to gain some pretty smart members in spite of the bullshit. | | https://artvoice.com/2019/05/27/guest-view-keith- | mathematica... | erwincoumans wrote: | His math literally doesn't add up. If you multi-task you need to | ADD multiple multiplications, one for each task. For example, if | you perfectly divide all attention, time and effort in two tasks, | you ideally get: | | 0.5 * 0.2 + 0.5 * 0.15 (given that the value of the first task is | 0.2 and the value of the second task is 0.15) | | One important point is likely, that there is overhead in | multitasking, so the actual formula becomes 0.45 * 0.2 + 0.45 * | 0.15 + 0.1 * 0 where 0.1 of the time is wasted in useless (value | = 0) overhead (of switching tasks, getting into the zone and so | on). | | You may or may not enjoy spending time in this 'useless' | overhead... | devnull255 wrote: | Unless you consider the result of two tasks performed | simultaneously a product of two tasks rather than the sum of | two tasks. | deetz wrote: | it makes sense if you read it as: I'm working at 80% of my | capacity for 20% of the time, I get 16% of my possible | productivity | LambdaTrain wrote: | Right. It feels like Op uses wrong math but gets a good | conclusion in the context of doing daily job: focus on one | shit. | | However, in general sense, the return of an investment is | considered as random variable, so the problem is not just max | value, but max value while minimizing risk, and the solution is | multitask/portfolio | BizarroLand wrote: | Multitask repetitive or time consuming tasks only. When I was | in college I worked for a mom and pop type PC repair store. | | Doing PC re-imaging, I set up 6 stations and would kick off one | refresh and while it was running, start up the next one and so | on. Using disks to install took ages, so I figured out how to | make bootable USB sticks, so I would have all 6 or occasionally | more (by stealing bench seats) stations humming away while I | was also doing part upgrades or builds on another station, only | pausing to check up on progress. | | That is ideal multitasking, where you need to pay a small | amount of attention to one arduous group of tasks and the | remainder of your time is free to focus on fine detail high | mental demand tasks with ease. | _jal wrote: | All the productivity cliches I needed I learned in Kindergarden. | rob_c wrote: | Yup, sit down, keep quiet and don't disturb others and do as | your told/asked. | mellavora wrote: | You forgot about naptime. Huge productivity boost, and a | central part of most kindergarden curriculum's. | porb121 wrote: | one of the worst posts I've ever read cheers mate | playdead wrote: | > If you multiply two numbers together, shouldn't the result be | greater than each part? | | I appreciate the metaphor, but... multiplication is not repeated | addition. | jaqalopes wrote: | I was never a strong math student but this is the kind of math I | can get behind--not strictly logical, but also analogical. It | tells a story, and the significance is partly up to the reader. | For the specific case of "when we operate at a fraction we | compromise output" I find it to be extremely true in my own life. | This is about more than focus, it's about intention, and | beginning with the end in mind. When I approach a task with an | "ugh guess I have to do this" attitude, I inevitably slack off, | take too many breaks, and end up with a worse experience than if | I had simply begun with the attitude of "this is what I will do | now and I will use the powers available to me to do it correctly | and as quickly as is reasonable." I suspect most people could | benefit from something like the author's post-it by their desk to | remind them at every moment of the very real power they have to | create better outcomes in everything they do. | sugarfreerussia wrote: | Little's Lemma directly relates work in process to throughput. | | Replace customer with "work" and you have a simple equation to | transform your productivity, not some millenial woo-woo resume- | boosting nonsense like in this post. | | L = Lambda * W L = Avg. number of customers in system Lambda = | Avg. customer arrival rate W = Avg. time customer spends in | system | sdenton4 wrote: | Let us learn from Ron Swanson: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6hZ9KdG1QU | | "Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing." | starwind wrote: | It's a good feeling. Sense of accomplishment and pride. | Damnit... I just love it so much. | [deleted] | dpicco wrote: | deltaonefour wrote: | >As a result, our output suffers. What we produce becomes less | than what we put in. We achieve only an iota of what we're | capable. | | This is assuming output is multiplicative. Output is usually | additive if you're an employee as you only reap benefits in terms | of salary. Thus it is in your best interest as an employee to | apply 0.8. | | For an entrepreneur output is multiplicative because your output | scales with customers. As an entrepreneur it is in your best | interest to apply all your effort as when more customers use your | product you gain more benefit. | damiankennedy wrote: | I was thinking of something more like Drake's equation. | | P = T * Hbar * Cbar^Dh * E * (Po)^N | | P = Productivity T = Tiredness Hbar = 2 _PI /(HackerNews posts | read) Cbar = 2_PI/(speed of light) Dh = Disruptions per hour E = | Environment Po = Productivity of people you work with N = Number | of people you work with | rob_c wrote: | Yeah that was my assumption as to what would have been an | "equation", but then I suppose we don't work in HR... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-19 23:00 UTC)