I'm not sure I agree, because the situation is in my opinion not symmetrical.

Work without reading about it: might work, and often does. Reading about it without doing the work: way less useful.

My view is the opposite, basically the adage “measure twice, cut once.”

Work without research often is actively harmful in addition to failing and wasting time & resources. Research at least improves knowledge while not wasting other resources besides time.

In science, engineering and coding, I agree!

However, I felt the context of this conversation was self-improvement though. In this particular context, it's easier to get things done without reading any motivational books/articles (in fact, most people get things done without reading about how to self motivate), and the contrary -- reading self-improvement articles -- doesn't mean anything if you don't do the actual work.

Let me quote the initial post of this subthread, which is the sentiment I agree with:

> "The thing about working on yourself is that it’s actually work. Reading an article, or a book on behaviour, self-improvement and what else doesn’t actually change you any more than reading Harry Potter does."

I think it’s true no matter the domain. You should take a scientific approach to self improvement.

Spend a week in the lab to save a day in the library?

I should have been clearer: I was talking about motivational or self-improvement sort of books and articles, as is the topic of TFA.

I wouldn't try it with lab work, though pioneering work sometimes was that way ;)

I was mostly being facetious, thanks for taking it so well :)

Worked for Edison