You Need the Stamina and Mindset of a Professional Athlete to Make It in Business (more) a reminder that success takes stamina, and you get stamina by training and experience (more) It wasn’t until my mid-30s that I finally got to see some very successful people up close for long enough to notice a strong pattern: the most successful have a
I think stamina matters, but I also think focus is important. I guess that most people only really 'do' their job for 3 to 5 hours a day in between meetings, long commutes, breaks, Facebook checking, portfolio checking, doctor appointments, etc. Remote working could be a positive trend as it has the potential to cut out a lot of distractions and commute time.
What is the exact definition of stamina? Google dictionary says it's "the ability to sustain prolonged physical or mental effort". If that's the definition being used by Hanson then it seems to be that it *is* something that can be improved by practice. Whether its running or doing twelve to fourteen hour work days, or concentrating super hard on pure math for six to eight hours. Also, how long is long supposed to be? Poincare, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, worked only four hours a day. Lagrange is said to have worked only six hours a day. Most pure mathematicians don't spend more than 30 full concentration hours a week on pure math. It's not so much about how long you can do a particular task but how well you're able to do a particular task. In the NBA, Kobe only practiced six hours a day and Shaq barely practiced two hours a day.
I don't know if I agree. Success is way too multivariate to peg it to one dominant trait. We're also way too focused on the Great Man (or Woman) thesis in business analysis. Let's look at Jack Welch. A lion in the 80s. Now his legacy is a mired since he relied on GE financial to prop his numbers. And GE is in shambles.
Sure, but isn't this another way of characterizing "determination" or "endurance?" It would appear that the inclusion of such a factor would be second nature to the idea of success, particularly, long term success.
We should expect variance in traits because there can be multiple viable strategies. Each of us carries the DNA to have a healthy child with a wide variety of possible personalities, but you can think of these different personalities as parts of different strategies for securing reproductive success.
Yes I get that, and I apologize for not being clear.What I was trying to evoke, as a response, is the most persuasive counterargument to this particular argument ....Humans have been winnowed over billions of generations (since the beginning of life) to only include people who, for example, are women with the stamina to withstand 8 months of pregnancy, or men with the stamina to withstand years and years of violence, sometimes extreme.It seems that after billions of years of winnowing anything more than a minuscule variance in stamina in the descendants of all those generations that were so severely tested would be, probabilistically, unlikely.
How is it possible that after billions of years of such winnowing there is any real detectable variance in stamina?
I am not disagreeing with any particular statement, I am genuinely curious how, after billions of years of survival of the fittest, there could possibly be any significant variance on this parameter.
I get the counterexamples - with regard to pregnancy, there is Pearl Buck's description of very pregnant Chinese peasant women going out to the rice paddy, working all morning, dropping a baby and bringing the baby back to the huts, and going back to the rice paddy to finish the day of work, and then there are the hypo-maniacs like poor Theodore Roosevelt, who seemed to work hundred hour weeks ----- but I consider those anecdotes to be unreliable.
To put this in further context, I do not consider a difference between a five foot man and a six foot man to be 5/6 or 6/5 - that is of course the difference when we are only measuring men ---- but it is much smaller than that when we are measuring all the possible variations in size between creatures who evolved to be men and creatures who evolved in different paths (that is, a five foot man differs by 1/6 from a six foot man when measured against men, but differs by only 1/600 from a six foot man in a world where one considers the possibility that rational creatures can assume any size between almost zero and 600 feet tall, and such a world could easily exist.
Off topic, Professor Hanson, but this is one of the most interesting sites on the internet, and I admire your optimism and intelligence.
Some people might only work 4-6 hours a day, but if they are very intense hours that could require a lot of stamina. Just a 10-20% advantage could make all the difference in many areas.
Thanks for letting me know! It was too long anyway, so what I thought was a deletion was fortuitous.
My basic point was a question - how would it be possible for stamina to vary a great deal among people of the same species in such a way that the businessmen or science aficionados could vary by what seems to be an exponential amount with respect to not only results (that is easy to explain - the analogy of the movement of the light of a flashlight across a far-off wall) but also with respect to apparent effort.
I used, as an example, the "fact" that Newton probably spent less time on (what was then) recreational mathematics and the lucky application to then-current physics of his recreational mathematics pursuits than a really accomplished Sudoku player would now use (similar stamina, different results).
Lots of comments and the original source address this but I still am not convinced it has been answered.
Famous writers tend to work 4 or at most 5 hours per day. John Updike, for example, only worked in the morning and yet published a gigantic number of books. I believe Stephen King's schedule is similar.
I suspect that the ability to fall asleep quickly on airplanes is common among successful executives. America is more or less run by frequent fliers, and those who can nod off immediately have a big leg up in the stamina department over those who can't.
I think stamina matters, but I also think focus is important. I guess that most people only really 'do' their job for 3 to 5 hours a day in between meetings, long commutes, breaks, Facebook checking, portfolio checking, doctor appointments, etc. Remote working could be a positive trend as it has the potential to cut out a lot of distractions and commute time.
What is the exact definition of stamina? Google dictionary says it's "the ability to sustain prolonged physical or mental effort". If that's the definition being used by Hanson then it seems to be that it *is* something that can be improved by practice. Whether its running or doing twelve to fourteen hour work days, or concentrating super hard on pure math for six to eight hours. Also, how long is long supposed to be? Poincare, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, worked only four hours a day. Lagrange is said to have worked only six hours a day. Most pure mathematicians don't spend more than 30 full concentration hours a week on pure math. It's not so much about how long you can do a particular task but how well you're able to do a particular task. In the NBA, Kobe only practiced six hours a day and Shaq barely practiced two hours a day.
I understand there is variance in traits.
Trust me,I know what I am talking about.
And no you did not answer my proposed question.
I am in a good mood tonight so I am gonna say,I know the answer. But I am not in a good enough mood to tell you the answer.
I don't know if I agree. Success is way too multivariate to peg it to one dominant trait. We're also way too focused on the Great Man (or Woman) thesis in business analysis. Let's look at Jack Welch. A lion in the 80s. Now his legacy is a mired since he relied on GE financial to prop his numbers. And GE is in shambles.
Sure, but isn't this another way of characterizing "determination" or "endurance?" It would appear that the inclusion of such a factor would be second nature to the idea of success, particularly, long term success.
We should expect variance in traits because there can be multiple viable strategies. Each of us carries the DNA to have a healthy child with a wide variety of possible personalities, but you can think of these different personalities as parts of different strategies for securing reproductive success.
Yes I get that, and I apologize for not being clear.What I was trying to evoke, as a response, is the most persuasive counterargument to this particular argument ....Humans have been winnowed over billions of generations (since the beginning of life) to only include people who, for example, are women with the stamina to withstand 8 months of pregnancy, or men with the stamina to withstand years and years of violence, sometimes extreme.It seems that after billions of years of winnowing anything more than a minuscule variance in stamina in the descendants of all those generations that were so severely tested would be, probabilistically, unlikely.
How is it possible that after billions of years of such winnowing there is any real detectable variance in stamina?
I am not disagreeing with any particular statement, I am genuinely curious how, after billions of years of survival of the fittest, there could possibly be any significant variance on this parameter.
I get the counterexamples - with regard to pregnancy, there is Pearl Buck's description of very pregnant Chinese peasant women going out to the rice paddy, working all morning, dropping a baby and bringing the baby back to the huts, and going back to the rice paddy to finish the day of work, and then there are the hypo-maniacs like poor Theodore Roosevelt, who seemed to work hundred hour weeks ----- but I consider those anecdotes to be unreliable.
To put this in further context, I do not consider a difference between a five foot man and a six foot man to be 5/6 or 6/5 - that is of course the difference when we are only measuring men ---- but it is much smaller than that when we are measuring all the possible variations in size between creatures who evolved to be men and creatures who evolved in different paths (that is, a five foot man differs by 1/6 from a six foot man when measured against men, but differs by only 1/600 from a six foot man in a world where one considers the possibility that rational creatures can assume any size between almost zero and 600 feet tall, and such a world could easily exist.
Off topic, Professor Hanson, but this is one of the most interesting sites on the internet, and I admire your optimism and intelligence.
Some people might only work 4-6 hours a day, but if they are very intense hours that could require a lot of stamina. Just a 10-20% advantage could make all the difference in many areas.
Thanks for letting me know! It was too long anyway, so what I thought was a deletion was fortuitous.
My basic point was a question - how would it be possible for stamina to vary a great deal among people of the same species in such a way that the businessmen or science aficionados could vary by what seems to be an exponential amount with respect to not only results (that is easy to explain - the analogy of the movement of the light of a flashlight across a far-off wall) but also with respect to apparent effort.
I used, as an example, the "fact" that Newton probably spent less time on (what was then) recreational mathematics and the lucky application to then-current physics of his recreational mathematics pursuits than a really accomplished Sudoku player would now use (similar stamina, different results).
Lots of comments and the original source address this but I still am not convinced it has been answered.
I didn't delete any comment nor authorize any such deletion.
Stamina is the new grit?
Unfortunately, or fortunately, in real world, competitors don't wait for you.
I left a long comment here criticizing the foolishness of this stamina analysis, but it was apparently deleted.
Sad, I was just trying to be helpful.
Famous writers tend to work 4 or at most 5 hours per day. John Updike, for example, only worked in the morning and yet published a gigantic number of books. I believe Stephen King's schedule is similar.
But they really, really work when they work.
I suspect that the ability to fall asleep quickly on airplanes is common among successful executives. America is more or less run by frequent fliers, and those who can nod off immediately have a big leg up in the stamina department over those who can't.
Actually, once they realize they tend to keep doing it, just learn to pretend to forget that it is trial by ordeal.