5 ms·

I think you have a very narrow understanding of what "productive" means. You can produce or make progress towards anything that you value. Making other people m

by sunir 6y ago

I think you have a very narrow understanding of what "productive" means. You can produce or make progress towards anything that you value. Making other people money is just one avenue. If you had a year to live, you would definitely want to be productive. There's a lot that needs to get done to wrap up your one single life well, so that your time on earth wasn't lost. Just getting your will and testament done, talking to all your loved ones, getting your affairs in order for any dependents, tying up any loose ends so they aren't inherited, cleaning up your house for the estate. If you know older people, you'll see them doing these kinds of activities in their later years. That's still being productive. You're still making progress.

CarelessExpert 6y ago
> If you had a year to live, you would definitely want to be productive. No, I'd want to be happy. It's the uniquely American Calvinist view that conflates these things.
- oblio 6y ago
  Yeah, agreed. I don't think I know any person that's written their will, for example.
  - maya24 6y ago
    It's irresponsible for anyone with kids to have not done this.
    - vntok 6y ago
      Completely depends on where you live. Many countries have sane defaults for simple cases.
      - lemming 6y ago
        No country can have a sane default for “who should look after my kids if both parents die suddenly?”. That will always be a very personal decision that depends very much on your family situation.
        vntok 6y ago
        The sane default is that the family is functional enough that the closest living relative will know best.
        lemming 6y ago
        Which family? Mine or my wife's? Who chooses that?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Maximizing productivity in the context of the parent clearly meant "doing the most of the things you find important". That could be writing a will. That could be smoking pot. It depends on the individual's preferences. I get that misunderstanding the parent comment is an easy excuse to signal your disdain for American cultural norms but it's really not necessary in this context.
- MetalGuru 6y ago
  Guitar makes me happy. Feeling stimulated and feeling like I’m progressing makes me happy. I can be productive in guitar. Where’s the conflation in this?
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Progression in guitar makes you happy because guitar makes you happy. It isn't the other way around.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      No, there is satisfaction in improving a skill. I enjoyed getting faster at end of night audits at my job in high school. I absolutely did not enjoy the audits themselves.
      - CaptArmchair 6y ago
        The original take wasn't about conflating satisfaction/happiness with progressing through hard, tedious work. It's, more to the point, equating both concepts. As in: You can only attain happiness and satisfaction if you improve/progress. It's perfectly possible to practice guitar and attain some level of proficiency, while detesting the concept of playing the guitar. As in, looking at the instrument, how to play it and how to get better at it from a strictly utilitarian point of view. e.g. I learn to play the guitar because I need to become good at it because I want to get a well paid job in the music industry as a musician. Inevitably, though, you will be wondering why you are pushing yourself through the pain as you drag yourself to your weekly guitar practice sessions. Conversely, it's perfectly valid to simply pluck at the strings, gradually explore the instrument and what it can do, and become increasingly more interested, motivated, incentivized to play as time marches on e.g. because you like the sound, the feel of the strings, finding like minded spirits, enjoy the rhythm, the way it allows you to express how you feel and so on. You becoming more proficient, in that regard, is subservient to the above. It's a function of the fact that you are intrinsically motivated to keep playing. Because you play the guitar for no other reason then that doing that resonates with who you are.
- PhasmaFelis 6y ago
  You should read the sentence immediately following the one you quoted. That comment didn't mean what you think it means.
coldtea 6y ago
>If you had a year to live, you would definitely want to be productive. You'd be surprised. That's more of rat-race-disease artifact, where a person is measured by their "achievements" and "success" (as opposed to being intristically worth). Many people of many peoples would want to either relax, love and be with family, or enjoy themselves (and more likely a healthy combination of the two).
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  And unless you're completely free of obligations, you'd want to maximize the time you spent "relaxing, loving and being with family, or enjoying yourself". This requires some thought and effort - and that's precisely being productivity / optimizing your life.
  - tharkun__ 6y ago
    So much this. The productivity craze is dumb and your definition is much better. Prioritize what is important to you. If you are able to, that's productive! Screw other people's definition of productivity. Dying of cancer? Enjoying a walk out with friends - who knows how many times you'll be able to until you are bed ridden and in pain constantly despite meds? You're "productive"! Ask me how I know... (no don't....)
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    That's basically an alternate take on Maslow's Pyramid of needs. [1] However, it's a model which isn't free of criticisms. For instance: > In their extensive review of research based on Maslow's hierarchy, Wahba and Bridwell found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described or for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all. [2] or > Maslow's hierarchy of needs fails to illustrate and expand upon the difference between the social and intellectual needs of those raised in individualistic societies and those raised in collectivist societies. The needs and drives of those in individualistic societies tend to be more self-centered than those in collectivist societies, focusing on improvement of the self, with self-actualization being the apex of self-improvement. In collectivist societies, the needs of acceptance and community will outweigh the needs for freedom and individuality. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0030507376900386 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003050... [3] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Maslow%27s-Hierarchy-of-Needs%3A-Does-It-Apply-in-A-Gambrel-Cianci/1a00751fe6003e6cae5ebcb8600bbc4326873e7d https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Maslow%27s-Hierarchy-o... Your statement also hides an assumption: > unless you're completely free of obligations Your obligations might be different from my obligations. And then there's the question who determines those obligations. Those same family and friends? Employers? A legal framework? Cultural norms and values? Religion even? To what extent are those truly set in stone? And to what extent are many mundane obligations a figment of your own mind? Something you subconsciously force upon yourself to make sense of the world and maintain your own identity? And how does all of this tie into a philosophical tradition of discussing determinism and free will? The same is also true when it comes to "enjoying yourself". Ultimately, what one person enjoys on their own accord could feel like an absolute requirement or obligation to someone else. Context matters a ton in that regard. For instance, you might live in a context where you love making artisan bread as a hobby or a pass time. Something you don't need to do - you can easily buy bread - but something you do simply because it brings you happiness. And at the same time, there are people for who making bread at home is something they have to do if they want to food on the table, which turns this into an obligation. > This requires some thought and effort - and that's precisely being productivity / optimizing your life. Talking about productivity and optimization only works when you do so in a concrete context. When you discuss priorities, and, crucially, acknowledge that the next person will have different priorities from you simply because their life is uniquely different from yours. Tracking time and assigning value to what you do with each hour of your life can be worthwhile, but it can only empower you if you are also intrinsically motivated to engage in an activity. It's perfectly reasonable to track the time you spend reading books, and set a goal to spend more time, reading more books in 2021 compared by last year. It's unreasonable to expect that this line of reasoning applies to everyone. Plenty people read simply because they enjoy reading, but they feel absolutely no need to track the number of books they have read, or put an utilitarian meaning or assign economic value to how much they read.

by sunir 6y ago

CarelessExpert 6y ago

> If you had a year to live, you would definitely want to be productive. No, I'd want to be happy. It's the uniquely American Calvinist view that conflates these things.

oblio 6y ago
Yeah, agreed. I don't think I know any person that's written their will, for example.
- maya24 6y ago
  It's irresponsible for anyone with kids to have not done this.
  - vntok 6y ago
    Completely depends on where you live. Many countries have sane defaults for simple cases.
    - lemming 6y ago
      No country can have a sane default for “who should look after my kids if both parents die suddenly?”. That will always be a very personal decision that depends very much on your family situation.
      - vntok 6y ago
        The sane default is that the family is functional enough that the closest living relative will know best.
        lemming 6y ago
        Which family? Mine or my wife's? Who chooses that?
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Maximizing productivity in the context of the parent clearly meant "doing the most of the things you find important". That could be writing a will. That could be smoking pot. It depends on the individual's preferences. I get that misunderstanding the parent comment is an easy excuse to signal your disdain for American cultural norms but it's really not necessary in this context.
MetalGuru 6y ago
Guitar makes me happy. Feeling stimulated and feeling like I’m progressing makes me happy. I can be productive in guitar. Where’s the conflation in this?
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Progression in guitar makes you happy because guitar makes you happy. It isn't the other way around.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    No, there is satisfaction in improving a skill. I enjoyed getting faster at end of night audits at my job in high school. I absolutely did not enjoy the audits themselves.
    - CaptArmchair 6y ago
      The original take wasn't about conflating satisfaction/happiness with progressing through hard, tedious work. It's, more to the point, equating both concepts. As in: You can only attain happiness and satisfaction if you improve/progress. It's perfectly possible to practice guitar and attain some level of proficiency, while detesting the concept of playing the guitar. As in, looking at the instrument, how to play it and how to get better at it from a strictly utilitarian point of view. e.g. I learn to play the guitar because I need to become good at it because I want to get a well paid job in the music industry as a musician. Inevitably, though, you will be wondering why you are pushing yourself through the pain as you drag yourself to your weekly guitar practice sessions. Conversely, it's perfectly valid to simply pluck at the strings, gradually explore the instrument and what it can do, and become increasingly more interested, motivated, incentivized to play as time marches on e.g. because you like the sound, the feel of the strings, finding like minded spirits, enjoy the rhythm, the way it allows you to express how you feel and so on. You becoming more proficient, in that regard, is subservient to the above. It's a function of the fact that you are intrinsically motivated to keep playing. Because you play the guitar for no other reason then that doing that resonates with who you are.
PhasmaFelis 6y ago
You should read the sentence immediately following the one you quoted. That comment didn't mean what you think it means.

coldtea 6y ago

>If you had a year to live, you would definitely want to be productive. You'd be surprised. That's more of rat-race-disease artifact, where a person is measured by their "achievements" and "success" (as opposed to being intristically worth). Many people of many peoples would want to either relax, love and be with family, or enjoy themselves (and more likely a healthy combination of the two).

TeMPOraL 6y ago
And unless you're completely free of obligations, you'd want to maximize the time you spent "relaxing, loving and being with family, or enjoying yourself". This requires some thought and effort - and that's precisely being productivity / optimizing your life.
- tharkun__ 6y ago
  So much this. The productivity craze is dumb and your definition is much better. Prioritize what is important to you. If you are able to, that's productive! Screw other people's definition of productivity. Dying of cancer? Enjoying a walk out with friends - who knows how many times you'll be able to until you are bed ridden and in pain constantly despite meds? You're "productive"! Ask me how I know... (no don't....)
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  That's basically an alternate take on Maslow's Pyramid of needs. [1] However, it's a model which isn't free of criticisms. For instance: > In their extensive review of research based on Maslow's hierarchy, Wahba and Bridwell found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described or for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all. [2] or > Maslow's hierarchy of needs fails to illustrate and expand upon the difference between the social and intellectual needs of those raised in individualistic societies and those raised in collectivist societies. The needs and drives of those in individualistic societies tend to be more self-centered than those in collectivist societies, focusing on improvement of the self, with self-actualization being the apex of self-improvement. In collectivist societies, the needs of acceptance and community will outweigh the needs for freedom and individuality. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0030507376900386 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003050... [3] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Maslow%27s-Hierarchy-of-Needs%3A-Does-It-Apply-in-A-Gambrel-Cianci/1a00751fe6003e6cae5ebcb8600bbc4326873e7d https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Maslow%27s-Hierarchy-o... Your statement also hides an assumption: > unless you're completely free of obligations Your obligations might be different from my obligations. And then there's the question who determines those obligations. Those same family and friends? Employers? A legal framework? Cultural norms and values? Religion even? To what extent are those truly set in stone? And to what extent are many mundane obligations a figment of your own mind? Something you subconsciously force upon yourself to make sense of the world and maintain your own identity? And how does all of this tie into a philosophical tradition of discussing determinism and free will? The same is also true when it comes to "enjoying yourself". Ultimately, what one person enjoys on their own accord could feel like an absolute requirement or obligation to someone else. Context matters a ton in that regard. For instance, you might live in a context where you love making artisan bread as a hobby or a pass time. Something you don't need to do - you can easily buy bread - but something you do simply because it brings you happiness. And at the same time, there are people for who making bread at home is something they have to do if they want to food on the table, which turns this into an obligation. > This requires some thought and effort - and that's precisely being productivity / optimizing your life. Talking about productivity and optimization only works when you do so in a concrete context. When you discuss priorities, and, crucially, acknowledge that the next person will have different priorities from you simply because their life is uniquely different from yours. Tracking time and assigning value to what you do with each hour of your life can be worthwhile, but it can only empower you if you are also intrinsically motivated to engage in an activity. It's perfectly reasonable to track the time you spend reading books, and set a goal to spend more time, reading more books in 2021 compared by last year. It's unreasonable to expect that this line of reasoning applies to everyone. Plenty people read simply because they enjoy reading, but they feel absolutely no need to track the number of books they have read, or put an utilitarian meaning or assign economic value to how much they read.