Slowness Is a Virtue
This article challenges the modern obsession with speed and immediate results, arguing that true, groundbreaking research often requires a slow, meandering, and 'illegible' process. It critiques how current academic and institutional structures, fueled by narrow definitions of intelligence, actively hinder deep exploration and novel discoveries. Hacker News users debated the practical implications of 'slowness' in sprint-driven workplaces and pondered how to redefine value beyond quick, measurable outcomes.
The Lowdown
The article "Slowness Is a Virtue" contends that contemporary culture's relentless focus on speed and easily quantifiable outcomes fundamentally misunderstands and undermines genuine research and intellectual progress. It posits that the most significant discoveries stem from a slow, often undirected process, rather than the rapid, legible methodologies favored by modern institutions.
- Critique of Modern Research: The author argues that academic funding and career structures incentivize quickly answerable questions, which are essentially development, not true research. Real research involves following hunches with a fuzzy destination, a process incompatible with fast, step-by-step plans.
- Re-evaluating Speed and Intelligence: Speed is presented as an "anti-signal" in deep research, and the modern definition of intelligence, often tied to IQ tests, is criticized for valuing only the speed of solving well-defined problems. The article debunks the myth of exceptional IQs among Nobel laureates, highlighting flaws in historical studies.
- The Power of Slow Thinkers: "Slow thinkers" are depicted as those more likely to ignore legible problems and venture into uncharted territory, unlike "sprinters" who gravitate towards what they can solve quickly.
- Institutional Bias: Institutions, shaped by leaders who excel at legible, fast-paced work, are designed to reward predictable progress, making it difficult for inherently "illegible" and long-term projects to gain support or even be pursued.
- Call to Action: The piece concludes by urging readers to consider problems they would tackle if the constraint of demonstrating "legible progress within the next ten years" were removed.
Ultimately, the article suggests that our collective bias towards speed and legibility creates a systemic filter, preventing the kind of deep, exploratory work that leads to humanity's most significant breakthroughs.
The Gossip
Speed vs. Deliberation: A Nuanced Notion
Commenters quickly pointed out the article's juxtaposition with another front-page story, 'Working quickly is more important than it seems.' Many clarified that 'working quickly' in that context often means optimizing for rapid feedback loops and iterations to improve quality, not sloppy work. Analogies like 'slow is smooth and smooth is fast' (military) or 'slow is steady and steady is fast' (trades) were cited, emphasizing that careful, deliberate work ultimately leads to efficiency and higher quality, rather than simple slowness or procrastination.
Institutional Impediments to Illegible Insights
Many users resonated with the article's critique of institutional structures, particularly the struggle to integrate nebulous research work into common agile, sprint-based methodologies. They shared experiences of trying to estimate inherently unpredictable research tasks, which often involve extensive trial and error. The discussion highlighted the challenge of justifying and funding work that lacks clear milestones, and some wondered how modern institutions could be reformed to foster long-term, non-linear intellectual pursuits without resorting to purely 'hyper-rational' metrics.
Intelligence Redefined: Persistence Over Pace
A segment of the comments debated the article's treatment of intelligence and its perceived virtue of 'slowness.' Some questioned if 'persistence' might be a more accurate virtue than 'slowness,' especially when considering sustained effort on complex problems. There was also discussion about the article's implicit judgment of individuals with high IQs, asking if they are obligated to pursue 'groundbreaking research' or if personal choices, like Marilyn vos Savant's puzzle column, are equally valid contributions, referencing the 'Good Will Hunting' dynamic.