There’s little question that having the freedom to pursue a hobby is a privilege reserved for a few, broadly speaking.
I think what’s interesting is that the study was comparing Nobel laureates to other scientists, which I’d imagine would somewhat correct for this bias.
Reading. A hobby available to anyone who can read.
Playing music. So many ways to do this now — people all over the world play music without lessons.
Listening to music, live or recorded. Being a lover of music.
Dancing.
Drawing.
Poetry, although less popular, is easily accessible.
I get what you mean, and undoubtedly there are hobbies that require both a surfeit or leisure and material wealth to pursue, but with respect I think you may be underestimating the degree to which people of all economic classes have access to the various cultural activities (of which the above are some examples) of their own, well, culture.
It appears that the actual title of the article is "Hobbies are not distractions", with the HN submission title being... I'm not sure it's really a subtitle, maybe a pull-out point from the quoted reference in the article?
[Edit: though, since it looks like the author wrote both the article and the HN submission, this point might be somewhat irrelevant.] :-)
Thanks. I have sucktastic eyesight and only skimmed a bit.
So this is also a pointless violation of HN guidelines, which indicate you should use the original title unless it's clickbait or a few other provisos.
Of course, "the first rule of downvotes is don't talk about the downvotes", but I've been genuinely puzzled by why this particular comment has so many downvotes. And I think it's because the title was changed at some point, apparently without a note being left anywhere indicating that. It didn't originally have the part about "compared to their peers".
Books from major publishers typically undergo a merciless editing process that can take something pretty good and make it exceptionally clear, memorable, and entertaining.
This rarely happens for online content, which I suspect is one reason I retain so little of what I've read online: it just wasn't that great.
Echoing a couple of others: pick up whatever book looks fun or entertaining to you. No judgement.
Developing a habit of reading books should be the real goal.
The "best" book is whichever one you'll actually read.
In the beginning of 2019, I felt overwhelmed with information overload across Twitter, HN, and the dozen or so newsletters I subscribed to.
I ended up unsubscribing from just about everything and now follow a handful of great curators instead. It's probably the best thing I did last year to find more signal online.
It's a short email that comes out every week or so and includes a funny/entertaining collection of ideas across a broad range of topics (AI, communication skills, evolutionary biology, etc.).
My biggest failure in 2019 was getting utterly trapped in analysis paralysis.
Throughout the year, I explored many different side project ideas but I rarely took any action on most of them.
I didn't ask people for feedback on the ideas. I didn't cold email potential customers to see what they thought. I didn't build much.
Instead, I got stuck in a "research" mindset and consumed endless information on new industries or business models, often eventually talking myself out of most of my ideas -- without having any direct data on whether or not something would have worked out.
I think a more productive approach to 2020 will be defining specific actions or experiments I can run on new ideas, rather than remaining purely in the theoretical realm.
It's moderately depressing to look back at how little I really learned. Few of my theories ever made contact with reality.
Been there. I realized doing something was better than planning most of the time in the initial stage.
Most ideas or things you will come across have already been done, so trying to find something original isn't a solid strategy. If it's entirely new/original, then it will come to you naturally. You will discover it because you are the consumer facing the problem.
Otherwise, focusing on getting feedback and people to talk to you, get them to send their email (even though I personally hate the practice of collecting private info without any product and sending 'spam') is important to maintain their investment along with a simple sketchy prototype to show off. It's easier to give feedback on something that you can see or interact with than written details. Showing vision is better than explaining it even if it is completely basic. Your users will flesh out the product for you, they will tell you what features you can add, how it should work and how you can actually do it.
All of that wouldn't happen without a basic structure. Without seeing a shitty painting, I wouldn't comment on it.
I wonder how depressed marketers and other similar people feel for manipulating others and hogging their personal life with irrelevant things.....such as getting someone's dad addicted to a gambling or social platform and that resulting in negligence.
I was halfway through college (I was an econ major) and had hired somebody to build a website for me. Immediately upon paying them half of the invoice, they fell off the face of the earth and never shipped a line of code.
I was left cash-less and code-less.
I decided to teach myself how to program so that I'd never need to be that dependent on somebody.
I watched hours upon hours of YouTube, audited a handful of CS courses at my university (UVA), and, after about a year, I had become a decent iOS developer.
As school neared an end, a mutual friend pitched me on a startup idea he was working on. I agreed to build the MVP, joined him as CTO, and our startup went on to have a $50M+ exit a few years after I graduated.
Hugely impactful decision.
I'd probably working some finance job I hate if I hadn't made that decision.
I think what’s interesting is that the study was comparing Nobel laureates to other scientists, which I’d imagine would somewhat correct for this bias.