8/29/2021 Work-life balance: A perspective from Jack Nicklaus | Hacker News

Hacker News
new | threads | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit zentropia (62) |
logout

Work-life balance: A perspective from Jack Nicklaus (wyounas.com)

43 points by simplegeek 4 hours ago | flag | hide | past | favorite | 21 comments

add comment

dvtrn 4 minutes ago [–]

Work serves an important purpose in our life. It not only helps us create value, but also helps us learn from people and experiences. So yes,
work is important, but not most important. It deserves our attention, but not the whole of it. Our family, not our work, comes first.
I love this thinking and wish it would take more of a precedent versus finding new ways to describe and justify why work should be the central
meme of our societal-existence. I recognize that work has its place in our lives, but I also maintain a lot of mental well being by reminding
myself that work is not the total sum of meaning in our lives.
That includes this seemingly in vogue reframing of work away from "work-life balance" to "work-life blend" of the last several years[1].
The last thing I want is to 'blend' work with life, because then all compartmentalization goes away, the already faint demarcation lines that exist
between employer and employee grow even fainter, and boundaries become problematic to enforce.
The leadership and management class enjoy 'work-life-balance' and 'work-life-blend' in very different ways than the rank and file cadre and I
wish there was as much writing about that as there was about how I should strive for "blending" my work life with my life life.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=work+li...
reply

hn_throwaway_99 2 hours ago [–]

While I think Nicklaus' mindset is commendable, I also think there is a real danger trying to think his lessons are widely applicable.
Jack was by far the best golfer of his era, and he made many millions of dollars playing a game he loved, so he could easily afford things like
having his family travel with him everywhere. For nearly all others caught up in the rat race with an unhealthy work-life balance, they can't say
the same.
I'll just speak personally for myself, but I know some of my tendencies to over-commit to work are because I, just like Jack, want to be really
great at what I do. But at the same time, I don't have anywhere near the same level of comparable talent in my field, so I have to work much
longer at it, and I'm still rarely satisfied with the results.
It kind of reminds me of stuff I've read about Usain Bolt, that he's really chill and laid back. When you know you have the innate gifts to never
lose, it's easier to feel that way.
reply

spaetzleesser 2 hours ago [–]

It must be nice to be able to focus on the one thing you are really good at, and make enough money with it so you can spend money to
get help at all the other aspects of life.
That’s why it often bothers me when celebrity mothers talk about life balance in talk shows and get admired for it. This is much easier to
achieve if you can afford nannies, cooks and cleaners.
In general, be wary of life advice from wealth people. Their advice often doesn’t apply to the average guy.
reply

mfer 1 hour ago [–]

Jack didn’t overcommit. For example, he played a limited set of events each year. There are some lessons in that.
You don’t need to overcommit to be great.
He prioritized family over money and success (he could have won more tournaments which bring more money and records). We can all
do that
reply

frankbreetz 33 minutes ago [–]

Some people don't need to overcommmit to be great. I, for instance, could go through a similar golf itinerary as Jack and would
only be an average golfer, as I am not a gifted golfer. I could perhaps dedicate every waking second to golf and perhaps become
pro, but still probably not. Jack had a once in a generation talent to go along with his commitment to work life balance.
reply

EngCanMan 2 hours ago [–]

Your views are ones that are unfortunately too common in society, the common theme being ‘the successful guy has it easy, if he had
my problems…’. The successful probably worked harder than you, made smarter/luckier choices than you, and had to overcome many
of the same problems as you. Society needs to stop excusing their own problems as if the successful don’t have them too.
reply

hn_throwaway_99 1 hour ago [–]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28346158 1/3
8/29/2021 Work-life balance: A perspective from Jack Nicklaus | Hacker News
What you've written is a total, 100% mischaracterization of my opinion. I don't think Nicklaus "had it easy", nor do I think there
probably weren't lots of things he had to overcome.
But at the very top echelons of sport, virtually all the difference in success comes down to innate talent. Why? Because at that
level, basically all the competitors are putting in nearly the maximum about of time and practice necessary to succeed. We don't
ever really try to deny this either - look at how sportscasters talk about people like Bolt, Nicklaus, Messi, Ronaldo, Biles, James,
Phelps, etc. etc. Nobody denies they work really hard, but also nobody denies their innate gifts are otherworldly. I mean, I've
seen loads of articles that talk about how Phelps is almost genetically constructed to have the perfect body for swimming.
And I don't begrudge any of these superstars for their success - on the contrary, they bring me lots of joy by sharing their insane
talents with the world.
What I do begrudge is the messaging that we can all "be like Mike" if we just put our mind to it and work hard, and then we can
have a nice work-life balance to boot. I'd much rather read articles about "average" people and how they learned to balance their
desire for success with healthy relationships.
reply

k__ 1 hour ago [–]

The truth is actually the other way around.
Right, the successful people have problems too, had to work hard to get where they are.
Often the only difference between successful and unsuccessful people is their success.
Having the same problems as successful people, without the success, doesn't really make for an easy life
reply

WhompingWindows 2 hours ago [–]

Must be nice to be extremely wealthy and the greatest ever at a game you've always loved. Unlimited money to fly your kids around to
wherever you are "working", huge flexibility of schedule when you're not playing the game, huge relief of stress by doing what you love.
The basic insight, that happiness comes from family, is a truism at this point.
reply

fipar 2 hours ago [–]

It may be a truism but a lot of people still pursue happiness in their job.
My focus has always been my family and instead of flying them everywhere (that did happen once though: I had to do a client on-site
and I said “either my family comes with me or I don’t go. There are many jobs but I only have one family”, and they flew us all in), I’ve
consistently chosen remote jobs with no mandatory travel instead of the slightly better paying option with “relocation package”, or
frequent traveling.
I’m aware I’m lucky as lots of people don’t have that choice, but I think in my industry (IT) a lot of people maximize for career progress
when there’s plenty of good-paying family-friendly opportunities too.
reply

hn_throwaway_99 1 hour ago [–]

I agree with everything you've written, but that is also exactly why I think Jack Nicklaus is a poor example for most people.
In your case, you had to explicitly choose to take the path of family over maximizing career progression.
Jack Nicklaus didn't have to do that - he could easily have both. Honestly, I'd rather read stories about how people like you
created a healthy work-life balance than more laudatory articles focusing on unattainable hero worship.
reply

ramesh31 8 minutes ago [–]

>It includes David’s interview with Jack Nicklaus, who is one of the greatest golfers of all time. I recently learned that even Tiger Woods is
behind Jack Nicklaus in terms of major titles won.
This is a lot like saying Larry Bird was the best shooter in the history of basketball. The game was different then, and far less competitive.
reply

chrisstu 47 minutes ago [–]

Surprisingly few mentions of the orange elephant in the room here. Perhaps Don Jr shot the elephant on a "hunting" trip.
reply

Bud 2 hours ago [–]

[flagged]

eplanit 1 hour ago [–]

This says a lot more about you than either Trump or Nicklaus.
reply

blisterpeanuts 2 hours ago [–]

These responses just make me sad. Family is, by far, the most important and redeeming thing in my life. We have one child, an amazing and
talented and beautiful girl, who along with my wife is worth more to me than all the money in the world. You could offer me $50 billion in
exchange, and I would turn it down.
Unfortunately, this concept is unknowable until you experience it for yourself. That is why our civilization is in trouble; when people choose not
to raise a family, they forego a natural and essential part of life, they have little understanding or empathy for those who do have children, and
society becomes ever grimmer and coarser as a result.
Mr. Nicklaus could be a millionaire or a poor man and his words would ring just as true.
reply

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28346158 2/3
8/29/2021 Work-life balance: A perspective from Jack Nicklaus | Hacker News
ramphastidae 1 hour ago [–]
Being a parent does not magically make you a more empathetic person, nor does it teach you “unknowable” things. Perhaps you lacked
empathy before having a child, but it is unfair and just plain wrong to project that onto all childless people.
reply

lkois 9 minutes ago [–]

There are some parents like the parent comment, who claim that having a child is some essential ingredient for learning
empathy.
To me, all that says is that they lacked empathy before having a child, and continue to lack empathy for anyone but their child.
And they're so shocked by their new experience of empathy for this person they've created, that they unempathetically claim that
others must also create a person to experience the same shocking feeling of caring about more than just themselves.
reply

ebiester 1 hour ago [–]

I'm fine for empathy for people who have children. I'm not fine with people who challenge my decision to be without children as
"forgo[ing] a natural and essential part of life" and being responsible for society "becom[ing] ever grimmer and coarser..."
We don't need 16 billion people in the next century. But to the point of the article, my choice to not replicate is not a choice to avoid work
life balance. That said, it does mean I may be able to take more risks because I don't have as many people depending on me. This is
not a bad thing to have a mix of stability and risk-taking in society.
reply

Jare 59 minutes ago [–]

I 100% agree that society should support and encourage all ways of life, but I have to disagree so hard on characterizing the
responsibility of raising a family as "risk-free". :)
reply

Bud 2 hours ago [–]

I'm not sure that civilization's problems (especially given our massive overpopulation problems) can be ascribed to a general lack of
"empathy" on the part of people who don't have children.
Actually, I am sure that they can't. I'm sure we've all observed plenty of people with kids who seem to lack all empathy.
reply

blisterpeanuts 1 hour ago [–]

My general point was that a family centric society is safer, more stable, and more functional than a post-family society. More
boring, perhaps, but when you're raising children, boring and predictable are advantages.
We can all agree, though, that dysfunctional families do not contribute to said stability.
reply

Applications are open for YC Winter 2022

Guidelines
| FAQ
| Lists
| API
| Security
| Legal
| Apply to YC
| Contact

Search:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28346158 3/3