|
On May 29 2016 16:46 Cascade wrote:
Big shot particle physicist Richard Feynman famously (I think it's famous, can't find a source though...) said that you only have energy to really think about 90 minutes per day. The rest of the day you can only do more mindless tasks that may require concentration, but not creative thinking.
That's not a question, but I assume you're wondering if there's any credibility to such a claim?
I can't find any inkling of such a quote by him anywhere, but if he said it, then he's surely wrong. (And obviously, being a physicist doesn't mean you're an expert of the human mind/ brain.)
One cannot make such a sweeping generalization for a cap on how long someone can be creative or focused or concentrated, as it changes with the individual and depends on personal/ environmental factors (e.g., are they tired/ hungry, are there other distractions, how intrinsically motivated and interested are they in the task at hand).
For what it's worth, when it comes to academic settings, younger students generally have shorter spans of focus and more breaks because they may lose interest or not be able to pay attention to a singular thing for as long as older students and adults. I don't know offhand if there is a magic number or cap to generalize/ stereotype to- and, again, it depends on the aforementioned personal/ environmental factors anyway- but even children can definitely show creativity for several hours throughout a given day- just possibly not non-stop. Similarly, I know of many high school, college, and adult groups who have exhibited focus and creativity for many hours in a given day.
I'm struggling to find out where you heard about "90 minutes" in this context, but if I had to guess, then possibly it might be the case that after 90 straight minutes of a task, the average adult will probably be struggling to keep the same level of focus they initially had, on even a very interesting task. That's why, during my three-hour university lectures, I give my students a break around halftime. But that's consecutive minutes; such a thing can be done several times throughout a single day.
Edit: I've been Googling like crazy, and I can't find any quote by anyone about anything even remotely close to being limited to 90 minutes of creative thinking each day. Just gonna flat out call bullshit on this. Maaajor citation needed.
|
On May 29 2016 18:42 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2016 16:46 Cascade wrote:
Big shot particle physicist Richard Feynman famously (I think it's famous, can't find a source though...) said that you only have energy to really think about 90 minutes per day. The rest of the day you can only do more mindless tasks that may require concentration, but not creative thinking. Wouldn't that depend one's sugar consumption though, since glucose is the brain's preferential (or only? not sure) source of energy?
You're oversimplifying a by a lot. Thinking power depends on more than available energy, as it is for the rest of the body. It's not like you can continue running forever as long as you eat enough, or work out in the gym indefinitely as long as you eat sugar.
Wildly guessing, I'd say it is related to subconscious digestion of the creative thinking. The brain needs time for the thoughts to settle and connect with the rest of your knowledge. Making more wild analogies, maybe it's like filling up your RAM, and then needing time to move to disk, limited by I/O. :D
Anyway, wild speculations aside, point is that there is more going on in the brain that can be explained by available ATP.
|
Or you can get mindrot injected into your brain and carefully manipulated to make you Focused for years without interruption. The stupid question is: what book am I reading right now 
|
On May 29 2016 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2016 16:46 Cascade wrote:
Big shot particle physicist Richard Feynman famously (I think it's famous, can't find a source though...) said that you only have energy to really think about 90 minutes per day. The rest of the day you can only do more mindless tasks that may require concentration, but not creative thinking. That's not a question, but I assume you're wondering if there's any credibility to such a claim? I can't find any inkling of such a quote by him anywhere, but if he said it, then he's surely wrong. (And obviously, being a physicist doesn't mean you're an expert of the human mind/ brain.) One cannot make such a sweeping generalization for a cap on how long someone can be creative or focused or concentrated, as it changes with the individual and depends on personal/ environmental factors (e.g., are they tired/ hungry, are there other distractions, how intrinsically motivated and interested are they in the task at hand). For what it's worth, when it comes to academic settings, younger students generally have shorter spans of focus and more breaks because they may lose interest or not be able to pay attention to a singular thing for as long as older students and adults. I don't know offhand if there is a magic number or cap to generalize/ stereotype to- and, again, it depends on the aforementioned personal/ environmental factors anyway- but even children can definitely show creativity for several hours throughout a given day- just possibly not non-stop. Similarly, I know of many high school, college, and adult groups who have exhibited focus and creativity for many hours in a given day. I'm struggling to find out where you heard about "90 minutes" in this context, but if I had to guess, then possibly it might be the case that after 90 straight minutes of a task, the average adult will probably be struggling to keep the same level of focus they initially had, on even a very interesting task. That's why, during my three-hour university lectures, I give my students a break around halftime. But that's consecutive minutes; such a thing can be done several times throughout a single day.
It was a comment to the previous question/discussion about getting tired when thinking. And maybe the quote never really went viral outside physics... Could be that I just heard it by word of mouth, at which point we'd have to trust my memory (and honesty for you, the reader) and the chain of people it went through.  Anyway, I remember it because I recognised myself in it, from Feynman or not. But it was definitely 90 minutes per day, consecutive or not. The statement is very handwaving ofc, maybe some have 60, other 120, what does creative thinking mean exactly, etc. I don't want to sell it as some scientific fact, but more piling on anecdotal evidence that thinking hard makes you tired, even if you happen to be a supposedly smart scientist. It's also just a single sentence out of context, and we shouldn't read too much into it.
Ignoring my own advice, let's dig deeper! :D It's not a claim about concentration, but of creative thinking. So sitting and absorbing information at a lecture doesn't counts as creative thinking for the majority of the time. In the setting of physics, it'd be time spent actually thinking of how to solve your problems in your projects. Coming up with new approaches to solve equation, or modelling system, or nailing down smart approximation, or understanding principles from new angles, and so on. While things like reading and learning new algorithms from a text book doesn't count, nor does mechanically applying methods you already know to solve problems. Not sure that I am explaining myself well... :/
It could very well be that kids have more of this. More plasticity in the brain and all that. Feynman (or me) would probably be happy to restrict the statement to adults.
|
Yeah I'm going to definitely say False then, sorry :/ Besides, Feynman saying it isn't even an argument from authority, because he wasn't an expert in the fields of psychology/ education/ creative learning. Being a theoretical/ quantum physicist isn't really relevant, and I can't find any published papers by him that have appropriately explored anything regarding limitations and time constraints to creative learning, nor can I find anything relevant by actual experts that have similar ideas to that "90 minutes maximum of creative thinking" per day idea. I don't even think Feynman- or anyone famous- said it. At this moment, it's just an inquiry from Cascade  Not that you had a question per se, but if the question was "Is there any credibility to this 90 minute max thing", then the answer is No. But by all means, if you find published papers on the issue that can provide any sort of evidence to the claim, I'd be happy to read them Otherwise, don't worry about it... use your limited daily creative juices for something more fulfilling!
|
|
|
Yeah, as I said, it's just anecdotal, not some study or whatnot. I don't claim to have evidence, or that me or Feynman are some kind of authority on this kind of stuff. I brought it up because I recognise it with myself.
|
Sure, but you didn't ask a question. You were just stating an unjustified, provocative, definitive statement about concentration vs. creativity, and your decision to reference a famous guy who never said that seemed odd (to me, at least), as if you were using him as some sort of credible reference.
Why not ask the question "Sometimes I feel like I can only think creatively for about 90 minutes a day, maximum. Does anybody else feel that way? Is there a daily limit on such a thing? What could be some reasons that might limit something like this?" That way, you actually ask a question we can work with, and you can take ownership over your specific anecdotal experience
|
On May 30 2016 00:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Sure, but you didn't ask a question. You were just stating an unjustified, provocative, definitive statement about concentration vs. creativity, and your decision to reference a famous guy who never said that seemed odd (to me, at least), as if you were using him as some sort of credible reference. Why not ask the question "Sometimes I feel like I can only think creatively for about 90 minutes a day, maximum. Does anybody else feel that way? Is there a daily limit on such a thing? What could be some reasons that might limit something like this?" That way, you actually ask a question we can work with, and you can take ownership over your specific anecdotal experience
It was in response to the question about getting tired when you think. Maybe you didn't read it in context?
Unjustified, provocative, definite? >_>
I clearly presented it as a quote from Feynman, not as a fact. And I even mentioned that I didn't have a source even for that. 
|
On May 30 2016 00:12 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 00:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Sure, but you didn't ask a question. You were just stating an unjustified, provocative, definitive statement about concentration vs. creativity, and your decision to reference a famous guy who never said that seemed odd (to me, at least), as if you were using him as some sort of credible reference. Why not ask the question "Sometimes I feel like I can only think creatively for about 90 minutes a day, maximum. Does anybody else feel that way? Is there a daily limit on such a thing? What could be some reasons that might limit something like this?" That way, you actually ask a question we can work with, and you can take ownership over your specific anecdotal experience It was in response to the question about getting tired when you think. Maybe you didn't read it in context?
I think I must have missed that connection then
|
On May 30 2016 00:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 00:12 Cascade wrote:On May 30 2016 00:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Sure, but you didn't ask a question. You were just stating an unjustified, provocative, definitive statement about concentration vs. creativity, and your decision to reference a famous guy who never said that seemed odd (to me, at least), as if you were using him as some sort of credible reference. Why not ask the question "Sometimes I feel like I can only think creatively for about 90 minutes a day, maximum. Does anybody else feel that way? Is there a daily limit on such a thing? What could be some reasons that might limit something like this?" That way, you actually ask a question we can work with, and you can take ownership over your specific anecdotal experience It was in response to the question about getting tired when you think. Maybe you didn't read it in context? I think I must have missed that connection then
I'm getting lazy with the quoting, I'll admit to that. Even if you are quoting a long post (which I wouldn't in this case), there are spoiler tags.
|
Does anyone know how to clean hair out of computer chair? I have a NFS chair that I love, but over the years it built up a decent amount of hair in the cushion and backrest. I tried vac which helps a little bit but is nowhere near good enough. Is there a good of removing them besides just take it apart and spend a whole day do it by hand?
|
On May 30 2016 03:21 ragz_gt wrote:
Does anyone know how to clean hair out of computer chair? I have a NFS chair that I love, but over the years it built up a decent amount of hair in the cushion and backrest. I tried vac which helps a little bit but is nowhere near good enough. Is there a good of removing them besides just take it apart and spend a whole day do it by hand?
Lint roller? Cat hair removal brush?
|
|
|
On May 30 2016 03:23 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 03:21 ragz_gt wrote:
Does anyone know how to clean hair out of computer chair? I have a NFS chair that I love, but over the years it built up a decent amount of hair in the cushion and backrest. I tried vac which helps a little bit but is nowhere near good enough. Is there a good of removing them besides just take it apart and spend a whole day do it by hand? Lint roller? Cat hair removal brush?
Lint roller doesn't quite work, I will try to get a cat hair thing, thanks!
And above.... It's too expensive a chair to blow up T.T
|
On May 30 2016 06:58 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 03:23 ThomasjServo wrote:On May 30 2016 03:21 ragz_gt wrote:
Does anyone know how to clean hair out of computer chair? I have a NFS chair that I love, but over the years it built up a decent amount of hair in the cushion and backrest. I tried vac which helps a little bit but is nowhere near good enough. Is there a good of removing them besides just take it apart and spend a whole day do it by hand? Lint roller? Cat hair removal brush? Lint roller doesn't quite work, I will try to get a cat hair thing, thanks! And above.... It's too expensive a chair to blow up T.T
Small pieces of duct tape may work too!
|
And don't forget to shave your cat to prevent it in the future (it sounds worse than it looks)
|
|
|
On June 01 2016 03:55 JimmiC wrote:
If male pornstar impregnates and female porn star during the filming of movie is he responsible for the child?
That depends on the country and/or state in which the filming took place.
|
Probably. It also means that a lot of people have fucked up majorly. As far as i know professional porn is pretty rigid on health standards, which i would assume also means contraception.
Plus, when was the last time you actually saw someone ejaculate in a vagina in porn?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
