Not really answers to your questions, but related musings:
It might be good to have an anonymous form for this, because lots of people (including me) are ashamed or embarrassed about how much they work, or they might worry about being punished by their employer if they actually work fewer hours than they’re contracted to, or than the employer expects.
I feel extremely confused about how to think about working hours. When I’ve done relatively independent writing/research-y work (my current writing work, my PhD), I’ve always felt like I wasn’t working enough, and felt bad about this. But also, I’m reasonably productive in terms of output? Until I burnt out, I met all my PhD deadlines and the expectations of my committee; I don’t really know how my writing output compares to other people doing similar things, but I don’t think I do ridiculously little. I guess a takeaway is that it’s not just hours that matter, but output and quality.
I think i can do more work total if I’m doing different types of work, because these deplete different buckets of energy. For example, if I’m doing research + teaching, I can do more total work than if I was doing just research or just teaching. I also think mindless household chores don’t usually meaningfully trade off against focussed intellectual work (which is why I’m a bit sceptical about some EA rhetoric of ‘spending money to buy time which you then use on your research job’ - for me anyway, time’s not really the constraint).
David Maciver claims that almost no-one really works a 40-hour work week. I don’t know whether to believe this. Certainly lots of people report only being able to do <20 hours of focussed think-y work a week. I do think there’s no reason to assume that 40 hours would be optimal for all types of work, and from the point of view of the worker (vs the employer, whose interests are different).
Lots of people (including in this thread) report working extremely long hours. I don’t know whether this is theoretically possible for most people if they’re physically and mentally healthy and have the right ‘hacks’/ structure/motivation/work that’s a good fit, or whether only a few outliers can do this and the rest of us will burn out if we try, or something in between (e.g. it’s possible for a minority, but more people than are currently doing it). A separate question is ‘assuming it’s possible sustainably, should we all want to do that, or are we obligated to?’ (I’d say not necessarily, because you’re allowed to have other goals in life).
Just to reiterate how risky it might feel for people to accurately report working low hours here: I just had the thought ‘oh shit, I’m considering applying for [EA job], what if they read this comment and assume I’m a slacker and don’t hire me’.
Not really answers to your questions, but related musings:
It might be good to have an anonymous form for this, because lots of people (including me) are ashamed or embarrassed about how much they work, or they might worry about being punished by their employer if they actually work fewer hours than they’re contracted to, or than the employer expects.
I feel extremely confused about how to think about working hours. When I’ve done relatively independent writing/research-y work (my current writing work, my PhD), I’ve always felt like I wasn’t working enough, and felt bad about this. But also, I’m reasonably productive in terms of output? Until I burnt out, I met all my PhD deadlines and the expectations of my committee; I don’t really know how my writing output compares to other people doing similar things, but I don’t think I do ridiculously little. I guess a takeaway is that it’s not just hours that matter, but output and quality.
I think i can do more work total if I’m doing different types of work, because these deplete different buckets of energy. For example, if I’m doing research + teaching, I can do more total work than if I was doing just research or just teaching. I also think mindless household chores don’t usually meaningfully trade off against focussed intellectual work (which is why I’m a bit sceptical about some EA rhetoric of ‘spending money to buy time which you then use on your research job’ - for me anyway, time’s not really the constraint).
David Maciver claims that almost no-one really works a 40-hour work week. I don’t know whether to believe this. Certainly lots of people report only being able to do <20 hours of focussed think-y work a week. I do think there’s no reason to assume that 40 hours would be optimal for all types of work, and from the point of view of the worker (vs the employer, whose interests are different).
Lots of people (including in this thread) report working extremely long hours. I don’t know whether this is theoretically possible for most people if they’re physically and mentally healthy and have the right ‘hacks’/ structure/motivation/work that’s a good fit, or whether only a few outliers can do this and the rest of us will burn out if we try, or something in between (e.g. it’s possible for a minority, but more people than are currently doing it). A separate question is ‘assuming it’s possible sustainably, should we all want to do that, or are we obligated to?’ (I’d say not necessarily, because you’re allowed to have other goals in life).
Just to reiterate how risky it might feel for people to accurately report working low hours here: I just had the thought ‘oh shit, I’m considering applying for [EA job], what if they read this comment and assume I’m a slacker and don’t hire me’.