[AStellersSeaCow]

>Hard work is overrated. What you really want is curiosity.

This is BS, and the kind of BS that results in lazy entitled adults expecting the world to be their oyster because they have kept their dreamer curiosity intact.

Out of the people I've know who are internationally-recognized academics and/or world-class engineers, many are both hard working and creative. Probably the majority of them, in fact. But many more are hard working and not especially creative: they doggedly pursue single lines of inquiry or development, and possibilities for truly new ideas or techniques - not just refinements - are exposed through the intellectual equivalent of brute force.

I don't know any internationally-recognized academics or world-class engineers who are creative but not hard working.

[ZenoArrow]

> "they doggedly pursue single lines of inquiry or development, and possibilities for truly new ideas or techniques"

This could easily be attributed to curiosity. Don't dismiss curiosity as something wishy-washy.

As I said before, the mindset between hardworking and curious is different. That's not to say pursuing curiosity takes no effort. I'll use a musician analogy to explain. A hardworking musician works hard to master their skill and knowledge with an instrument in order to maximise their abilities. A curious musician by contrast is guided by much broader principles, including a greater focus on sound rather than their personal skill. A playing mistake that produces an interesting result is not something to be eliminated by refinement, but instead is the opening of a new avenue of inquiry. It helps to be open to interesting mistakes, and this is not something that is easy to do when you're hyper focused on perfecting yourself.

In other words, spending energy is necessary to get a fuller understanding of something, but what motivates you does have an impact on the end result. Hard work is driven by ego, playful curiosity less so, but it doesn't mean less energy. Work and play are not the same thing, but what separates them is not the activity per se, but rather the mindset of the individual.

[balabaster]

> Hard work is driven by ego

I have a sample size of one that says this is false. For me at least, hard work comes from one of a number of things, none of which are ego.

1. The desire to deliver what I set out to deliver by the deadline I promised. I made a promise and I was raised that a man is only as good as his word. So unless you have a compelling reason why delivery is not an option, you see it through.

2. The desire for the satisfaction of looking at something that will pay future dividends, like learning to grow my own food takes hard work now, but at the end of it, I have a garden full of "free" food. Edit: On reflection, this one may be the most likely candidate for being ego - the ability to stand back and say proudly "I did that"... I will concede, this is probably ego.

3. The desire to master something I haven't yet mastered that either satisfies my fascination or because understanding it will enhance or simplify my life in the future - like small engine repair. I could easily take it to a shop and have them do it, but I'd rather learn how to do it myself because down the road there may be no shop nearby or I may just have to make do and improvise. If I don't work hard and spend the time and effort to understand the fundamentals and principles that make it all work, I wouldn't stand a chance.

So hard work isn't always about ego. The hard work may be fueled by curiosity, or it may be fueled by necessity. Certainly curiosity makes the hard work seem more like play than work, but that doesn't make it any less work. It just means that you don't realize how much effort you're putting in and it really just feels like an amusing way of playing or wasting time, but it's still work.

[elcritch]

I notice your edit where you admit point 2 is likely ego. Point 1 is also particularly ego as in the sense of "self-image, as you use it explicitly to define an image of yourself that is distinct from others on a psychological level, as in "I am a man who makes good on promises". So two of your points are pretty ego based.

Now not saying that's a bad thing! I have learned the hard way that we all have egos and that guided properly it's actually a benefit, as it drives you to do valuable things both for yourself _and_ others, as is clear in all of your points.

[balabaster]

Point 1 I will agree is about reputation. But to conflict with your perspective, this is less about ego than about contribution to your community and self preservation. If you're not as good as your word, eventually nobody trusts you or wants to work with you... and if nobody trusts you or wants to work with you, then your chances of getting where you need to go are quickly decimated.

[ZenoArrow]

> ". Certainly curiosity makes the hard work seem more like play than work, but that doesn't make it any less work. It just means that you don't realize how much effort you're putting in and it really just feels like an amusing way of playing or wasting time, but it's still work."

This is at the core of why we're disagreeing.

I'll make this as clear as I can. I have no problem with putting a lot of energy into something (or in your words, I have no problem with effort).

The reason we disagree is because for you effort = work, and for me the two are distinct. For me the worker mindset is one potential driving force behind putting in effort, and curiosity is another potential driving force behind putting in effort (there are others too; fear, anger, etc...).

The key point I've been trying to make is not about effort at all, but rather the difference between work and play. Whilst I do not deny that work has its place (as you indicated, it can lead to self-reliance, which is a good thing in my opinion), what I do think is that it lets ego get in the way of making things better.

Going back to a music analogy, let's imagine someone is creating a song. During the creation of the song, they discover a new sound that by chance fits the song perfectly. If the person wants this sound in their new song, they can either sample the existing sound, or learn how to create it from scratch. For someone with a 'hard work' mentality, the sampling option seems like cheating, in the sense of cheating yourself out of creating the song. However, if you're driven by curiosity/playfulness, your involvement in the creation of the song is of less importance, what matters more is the pleasure that comes from listening, and as the sound is identical to the one you wanted to hear there's no cheating of the listener.

Here's another analogy, the hacker vs. the academic. It's possible to become skilled with technology using either approach, but they are different approaches. The hacker lets curiosity guide their learning. The academic lets refinement of existing knowledge guide their learning. The academic appreciates best practices, the hacker looks for whatever works. You could make arguments both for and against both approaches, but IMO the hacker is more likely to be driven to explore, and enjoy doing so.

Hope I've clarified that my points have been about 'work vs. play' instead of 'effort vs. no effort'.

[AStellersSeaCow]

You seem to be mixing and matching hardworking vs. curious, incremental improvement vs. innovation, and results-oriented vs. process-oriented, all of which are completely different topics.

Saying hard work is ego driven while curiosity has some more noble, ineffable motivation is the exact same sort of BS I was decrying before. Hard work can just as well be driven by a sense of responsibility, a desire for more predictable outcomes, or faith, while curiosity/playfulness can be an ego-saving measure to offset mediocrity that the person can't or won't work past. Neither is more morally right, imo.

But to meander back to the core of the discussion, I don't think it's possible to become notably good at anything without at least some motivation towards self-improvement and foundational skills. People who ride playfulness and curiosity into lasting renown are able to do so because they have some degree of mastery of the fundamentals. Some people manage to earn lasting renown without much curiosity or playfulness, just a single-minded drive towards mastering known techniques.

Few to no people have ever earned lasting renown by noodling around in a field they had zero grounding in until they randomly struck gold. Some have earned infamy with that approach, but that's a different topic.

[balabaster]

> Some have earned infamy with that approach, but that's a different topic.

Anyone notable? I'd be interested to read about those... and if the striking of gold was truly random or if it was something else.

[AStellersSeaCow]

Mostly thinking the "so noxiously but unusually bad it's briefly popular" type of creative output by people clearly lacking in much grounding or practice in their fields. 'Singers' like William Hung, 'writers' like Gene Ray, 'filmmakers' like Tommy Wiseau, or 'actors' like Robert Coates.

[OneSprings2Mind]

Stanislaw Ulam, Louis de Broglie