11 ms·

Against Productivity

329 points by bmmayer1 12y ago

jdimov 12y ago
This may be far wiser than almost anything that has ever been posted on HN, but you can't feed this shit to people who are not ready for it. It is a lesson which can not be taught. The real truths in life are not something you can read about. Real knowledge can only ever come from within. You can never lead someone to knowledge, but you CAN inspire them to seek their own - and you've done a pretty good job at that. Thank you.
- awt 12y ago
  "A decade in the lab will save you an afternoon in the library."
  - neolefty 12y ago
    For sure. I'm thankful that my children and students will not have to spend my decade in the lab. If I manage to tell them in a way that they can hear.
  - jbranchaud 12y ago
    Do you know who this quote is attributed to?
    - idlewan 12y ago
      Frank Westheimer seems to be the one who popularized the expression. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Frank_Westheimer http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Frank_Westheimer
misiti3780 12y ago
that radio tower looks like the one from the movie Golden Eye
- smoe 12y ago
  That's because it is the one from Golden Eye ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_Observatory#In_Popular_Culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_Observatory#In_Popular_...
- GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
  Had to listen to this as soon as I saw that photo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6hsdWGF0no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6hsdWGF0no
twtwtaway 12y ago
This is bullshit. Just continue to work 16 hours a day, increase your productivity and your startup will succeed. After that you'll be happy forever. And your investor too.
chromaton 12y ago
805 million people on earth don't have enough to eat. 783 million don't have access to clean water. 1.9 million die of diarrhea every year. 176 million African adults can't read. And this guy sits around the first world for a couple years with the back of his hand nailed to his forehead. If he can't bring himself to do more than write a couple essays and snap some photos over a couple years, I would suggest a refreshing visit to Mozambique or Syria. People there could surely use help with the basic necessities of life.
- dageshi 12y ago
  Wouldn't you be using your time more productively by not reading HN?
  - whytaka 12y ago
    Not if he convinces me that this article is a bit whiny and re-orients me towards industry for the sake of human good. One short quip for renewed vigor. That's productivity!
    - Bjartr 12y ago
      Clearly then our best path forward is to spend all our time convincing others to do things.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - chromaton 12y ago
    In the case of this article, yes.
- ZeroFries 12y ago
  How much productive effort goes into solving these problems versus other less necessary problems? Let me define productivity: conscious effort to re-organize the world's energy and matter. Am I honour bound to re-organize the world's energy and matter until it's in the ideal state (which of course is never obtainable and not even definable, since it's different for each person)? The author has an issue with productivity for the sake of productivity. Spending time helping people in need is obviously a valuable and wise use of time, but you shouldn't feel guilty for not spending every waking moment increasing your net worth.
mchusma 12y ago
This reminds me of PG's essay - http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html Basically, I believe Author would be better off making the claim that many people (himself included) confuse the definition of productivity.
- goldenchrome 12y ago
  the author is a woman
  - shaurz 12y ago
    To be fair that Medium website doesn't exactly make it clear who is writing.
charlespwd 12y ago
Fantastic piece. I believe in similar things. Here, where I currently live, we spend so much time working and being productive that we forget to ask questions. "Why am I doing this?" "What is the meaning of it?" "What is really important?" Then we end up lost, depressed and what not. Not all of us do, but some? Certainly. We do it because others do it. Because we believe that pursuing a different venue is not realistic. Others have that? Hell, I should have it too. "I should totally run a startup." Anyways, it happened to me. Went to SEA for four months. Dreamed. Life is amazing. I can do whatever I want. I don't need money to live. yadi. yada. Then you come back, and no one understands you. You are a hippy. I'm not. In periods of doubt, I write things down. Then I remember what I believe. Then I remember I'm going back soon. That it is what I should be doing. Being productive is ok. It's fun. But, in the end, it's not important. People are. At least, that's the conclusion I came to. I guess I'm just rambling. Carry on. Note: when I write "We", I mostly mean "I".
- bonobo3000 12y ago
  I'm a recent immigrant to USA, and while I don't presume to know everything about American culture, your comment and this article really resonate with my observations in the time I've spent here. There is a consistent message pervasive in the culture - you are worth what you produce. You are defined by what you produce. Productivity is the currency that buys you respect in society. I've met many many people who rise above this view, but as a society, this is prevalent. Everything has to be about "winning" in some way - even if you are working out, or playing a game, you gotta "play hard", compete, kick the other guys ass, not feel sorry for yourself, not mope, just WIN. Forget about what you're winning, what or why you produce, as long as you produce more than the other guy. Other cultures may use wisdom, or age, or kindness as currencies for respect/status in society. And then people wonder why society is becoming increasingly isolated. See, when you tie your worth to what you produce, you must give up everything to produce. EVEN IF "producing" means painting a beautiful portrait in your garage, the compulsion to produce is the problem. It makes people focus too hard on themselves and how they can improve/level-up. Too focused inward to see the people around you and their lives, and the joy that can bring. That isolation leads to addiction, depression, isolation and all manner of mental illness. Because humans have evolved to be social creatures. It is hardwired in our nature. We cannot and should not try to fight that. We should not view that as a sign of weakness or an obstacle to productivity, or money, or fame, or any other idol.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
Increased Pareto is a better thing to aim for than increased productivity. Doing the one very important thing, the one thing with huge returns or leverage will outweigh all the other probably also important things that really hard working and productive people can do in a day It however takes wisdom to know what is important and courage to trust your wisdom.
FD3SA 12y ago
This is an excellent post because it focuses on a central topic: mankind's behavioral predispositions. The world today runs on profit and productivity. Morals, ethics and philosophies are irrelevant hindrances, as SV and Wall St. have demonstrated repeatedly. This is all well and good, as the last century apparently demonstrated that all ideologies and philosophies are the devil incarnate (Nazism, Leninism, Maoism, etc.) But I do wonder one thing...did we quit on ideology prematurely? An ideology which I've always held as my own mission in life is the relentless pursuit of knowledge through science. Throughout history, there have been times where mankind has focused intently on this goal, and the results were incredible. Sadly, most of these periods were spurred on by major wars. What I really want to know is this: Is it possible to built a society whose goal is the advancement of mankind's knowledge? The profit motive and the free market are undoubtedly the best motivators for mankind, due to our evolutionary predispositions for survival and inherent need to establish status hierarchies. But could we not harness these energies, and direct them to positive-sum endavors such as science and engineering research, rather than a pure profit-driven battle to the death? Keep in mind, the historical mean society throughout history has been oligarchy. It appears the last century was a brief respite due to massive wars and resultant existential threats. We now seem to be heading right back into the oligarchical paradigm of rich get richer, and poor stay serfs [1]. I can envision a society built around the pursuit of knowledge. The market exists and is regulated to produce needs and wants efficiently, yet without negative-sum behavior (regulatory capture, corruption, anti-competitive conduct, wage fixing, etc.) Education and research are a prime government mandate in addition to infrastructure, defense, healthcare and a social safety net. Citizens are incentivized to hone their skills and education continuously without massive financial downsides (student debt). State sponsored research institutes exist throughout the country similar to Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, JPL, etc. and serve to stimulate the economy through constant research projects, both large and small. The projects provide jobs for low and high skilled individuals (e.g. ITER, LHC). Those who enjoy pure research have a plethora of opportunities to move the state of the art forward. Those who don't, have excellent and rewarding employment. The challenge in creating this society is a very tough one: humans are not motivated by knowledge. We are motivated by status, sex, and power, though few ever understand it or admit to it. But I hope that one day, knowledge of our inherent weaknesses will become common enough such that we can fight our destructive natures in an effort to transcend our limitations. Till that day, I remain a dreamer. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Cen...
myth_drannon 12y ago
If you liked the theme of this essay you will like this book: "How to Be Idle" by Tom Hodgkinson. The book starts similarly and expands the idea of idleness to trying to bring it into your life.
- hliyan 12y ago
  And more recently, "How Much Is Enough?" by Robert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky
ggreer 12y ago
This post is full of mistakes and unclear thinking. I can't figure out what the author is arguing against or for. Is she against quantifying wealth? I'm not sure. Is she against working hard? Maybe. Does she think it impossible to quantify happiness and well-being? I get the impression she does. First, the author made a huge mistake when talking about GDP. Her comparison used absolute instead of per-capita values. India and Canada may produce the same amount of wealth, but India has 35 times more people. Of course per-capita GDP doesn't fully capture quality of life, but it's easy to measure and hard to fake. That's why it's used. Most people make mistakes when it comes to balancing work and leisure, but to claim such mistakes are killing us is preposterous. People in developed countries live the longest, healthiest lives in the history of humanity. The nation with the longest life expectancy is the workaholic Japanese culture so disparaged by the author! Many people, especially in technology, say their productivity is changing the world, and this is irrefutable. But no one seems to know what they’re changing it into, because no one can measure the world. When no one can measure the world, how much can it really exist? This really irks me. Measuring and quantifying something is a prerequisite to optimizing it. Maybe a lot of people are measuring the wrong things. Maybe they're missing or underweighting a factor. Maybe they just have different preferences than the author. But to suggest that the entire enterprise is bunk is to disregard centuries of progress across a dozen fields of study. If money doesn't make you happy, then you probably aren't spending it right.[1] 1. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/DUNN%20GILBERT%20&%20WILSON%20(2011).pdf http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/DUNN%20GILBERT%20&%20WILSON%... Edit: Pronouns fixed. Apologies, I thought Quinn was a male name.
- antichaos 12y ago
  The author, danah boyd, is female.
  - onethree 12y ago
    medium is confusing, it was actually written by Quinn Norton. also female, so your point still stands
- wodenokoto 12y ago
  I disagree with you. I thought it was very clear and well written. > Of course per-capita GDP doesn't fully capture quality of life, but it's easy to measure and hard to fake. It's extremely easy to fake. I sell you a backrub for 10.000 dollars and after that I buy one from you for 10.000 dollars and we've now in 10 minutes boosted our GDP with 20.000 dollars. > Measuring and quantifying something is a prerequisite to optimizing it. Which is what he is talking against. We are too focused on optimizing, when a lot of what it means to be a human are things that shouldn't be optimized. And secondly, long periods without productivity may actually be the foundation of later quality. And you can't optimize these unproductive periods.
sgentle 12y ago
I liked this essay, but it's also important to point out that GDP is very strongly correlated with health outcomes like life expectancy. It might be that we are starving our souls, but let's not forget about the fairly serious consequences of starving our bodies. I don't mean to say that I disagree with the conclusion, just that I think the historical context is missing something. We didn't become productive out of greed, we became productive out of hunger. That attitude has run its course, absolutely, and we need to ask: we're not hungry anymore, so what now? But let's not denigrate how we got here on the assumption that it was never a good idea. We might have climbed past the lowest rungs of the ladder, but that doesn't mean we didn't need them. Indeed, there are many who still do.
- 6t6t6 12y ago
  Then how you explain the fact that USA has one of the lowest life expectancy among the developed world? I think that what the author tries to explain is that, in some places, societies have gone too far in the seek of productiveness and, ironically, people there is less happy and healthy. I guess finding the good balance is more important than trying to be the number one.
  - quonn 12y ago
    Why is this downvoted? Given that the US is as economically powerful as it is, why _is_ life expectancy lower [0], compared to other _developed_ nations? Check out Canada, Australia, Japan and West-Europe on the map. [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Life_Expectancy_2011_CIA_World_Factbook.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Life_Exp...
    - runj__ 12y ago
      The US is a big country, it's incredibly diverse. Comparing the US as a whole to other countries is not really fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_exp... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_... But we can of course all pick our own statistics to fit our standpoint. But it's important to keep in mind that the US can be a bit of an edge case.
johnloeber 12y ago
Even though some valuable ideas are expressed in this piece, there's a lot of conflation of highly distinct social phenomena that goes on. The author looks at the notion of "productivity", judges that people blindly rush from birth straight to the grave in the pursuit of being "productive", somehow lops that in with GDPs (not per capita, not at PPP?) and the weird way in which we have industrialized pleasure, and concludes... what, exactly? Regardless, the author expresses a valuable point that suffers from her conflating topics. I think that point is that there's a certain industrial culture -- a focus on productivity and structure -- that dominates our lives, whether in work or in leisure (see e.g. tourism). I don't think this is necessarily bad, but it's important to be aware of it. Some people do indeed wear blinders as they race through life, being as productive as they can -- not for themselves, but maybe for society. Or for their boss. Or for someone else, whose interests are not necessarily aligned with their own. Maybe that's a good reminder to carefully define productivity for yourself, however you see fit. The idea here is to have a notion of productivity to strive for that is well-aligned with doing things that make you feel good for the time invested. And then we're right back down to those age-old platitudes, so obvious and ubiquitous that we forget their truth: "spend your time wisely."
- prawn 12y ago
  "...not for themselves, but maybe for society. Or for their boss." A lot of things (like this) remind me that we are often barely different to bees and ants. Even down to our queens.
- perfunctory 12y ago
  "and concludes... what, exactly?" Use your own imagination.
  - mcdougle 12y ago
    I don't really know why you're getting downvoted. That's a great answer to the question. The article is about how we over-analyze and over-optimize and look for a distinctly obvious purpose in everything in an effort to ensure productivity. I think it's funny that most of the comments here are doing exactly that with the article -- trying to analyze it, refute it, and determine the exact conclusion the author is trying to state. Should we stop being over-productive? Be less productive? Try to find balance? Maybe we should simply continue to pursue productivity, but at least understand what we're doing, rather than pursuing it blindly? Honestly, it's probably some combination of the above -- and it's probably subjective and dependent on the reader. The author doesn't simply state the conclusion -- because there is no obvious conclusion to the article. It's just a bunch of observations that allow the reader to reach a conclusion him/herself.
hliyan 12y ago
"Above all we become interesting [sic] in measuring ourselves. Word count/day, lines of code/day, hamburgers served/hour, steps taken/day, test questions/100, money earned/field’s average salary. We got quarterly reviews, job evaluations, and tested certifications." I've a dilemma: I've come to believe that this really is a bad thing, not just because we're suboptimizing output at the expense of quality of life, but also because you get what you measure: you can totally get more LOC/day without actually getting anything useful. BUT, what's the alternative? People need to be rewarded for output; different individuals' outputs are different; still, should we reward them the same? Or should we make it dependent on output (therefore, reward merit, not need)? If so, should the measure be subjective or objective? Can you make it objective without turning it into what the author is talking about? Can you make it subjective while keeping it fair? No matter how much I try, when I try to be fair in rewards/compensation, I find metrics raising their ugly head.
- calinet6 12y ago
  Just remove the individual metric. We know they don't work. Incentivize the entire company for the success of the company. Pay people fairly in an uncomplicated way. Align all the incentives and don't reward anything that is not directly connected to the clear and well-communicated success of the company.
  - nindalf 12y ago
    So even if I do the bare minimum at work, I should be rewarded the same as someone who worked his pants off? Sure, that's fine. Just one thing, that guy who was working his pants off no longer has the incentive to work hard because his reward is tied to how the company as a whole does. He will begin to do the bare minimum, and the company suffers. He will eventually become jaded with this and leave to some place that will recognise and reward his extra output.
    - calinet6 12y ago
      It turns out what you say is not true in reality, but it persists as the myth of individualism in the corporate workforce. It is simply false; it doesn't happen. When you align the incentives, uncomplicate rewards, clearly guide people in the same direction toward clear and logical goals, and enable them to do good work they can be proud of, all of that individual infighting and politics goes away. You can still compensate people fairly for their contributions as measured simply and clearly as "contribution to the success of the company," there's absolutely no reason not to; you just remove the complex measurement and competition that results in the opposite of the desired goal. Simplify. This is well-understood stuff. It is not new. It resulted quite directly in the success of the Japanese economy after WWII, driven by the teachings of statistician W. Edwards Deming. We, as Americans, ignore it because of the persistence of myths like the one you mention. Because of our fixation on individual gain and protection, and on a pervasive belief in the incompetence and dishonesty of our fellow man. We fail to see the truth: that the failures around us are a result not of poor individuals, but of systems which surround them and stop anyone except a few unicorns from being able to be effective. Start with W. Edwards Deming: here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming and here: http://blog.deming.org/ http://blog.deming.org/
esfandia 12y ago
I may somewhat agree with the author's case against productivity, but I think it's important not to confuse it with a case against production. At the end of the day (or life) I think you do want to look back and think of what you've produced (rather than consumed), and how you did it. Was it fun? Satisfying? I think it's fair to want to rebel against production/time. It's not bad to think instead of something along the lines of satisfaction/production.
Xcelerate 12y ago
Why am I productive? No other reason than I dislike boredom. I had the unusual situation growing up of having completely free summers (including college). To do absolutely and whatever I wanted. Well, long story short, I basically wasted them and didn't get anything accomplished. And I definitely wasn't happy with that much useless free time. So now I do things because I find them interesting. I "measure myself" and try to improve at things because it's a fun game for me. The results don't really matter in the end, but it keeps me entertained.
Xcelerate 12y ago
Why am I productive? No other reason than I dislike boredom. I had the unusual situation growing up of having completely free summers (including college). To do absolutely and whatever I wanted. Well, long story short, I basically wasted them and didn't get anything accomplished. And I definitely wasn't happy with that much useless free time. So now I do things because I find them interesting. I "measure myself" and try to improve at things because it's a fun game for me. The results don't really matter in the end, but it keeps me entertained.
erikb 12y ago
Okay we should spend more time wasting more time. But how to pay your bills in that time? As long as this question is not answered all this discussion is meaningless in my eyes.
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  How about a regular 40 hour / week or part-time job for a decent wage? It's what the vast majority of people do.
  - erikb 12y ago
    Maybe I misunderstood the article? I understand that he wants to go to other countries, walk around, watch the rain and think about life in general. Maybe you can do that if you are a museum security guard, but in most jobs that's not possible. And at least I am quite tired after working 40 hours plus taking care of the basics needs I have (buying grocieries, cooking, cleaning) and my family has (spending time together, solving problems of other family members). I'm quite happy if I can manage to squeeze in 7 to 8 hours of sleep.
    - kstenerud 12y ago
      Don't you think there's something inherently wrong with that?
lovemenot 12y ago
The article states that Karoshi is death by productivity. This is generally not correct. Karoshi is death from over-work. The distinction concerns quantity of output. Many Japanese will work long hours with little impact on output. Such people are therefore hard-working yet unproductive. Japanese business culture tends to respect effort more than result.
simonh 12y ago
America is also the country that gave us 'stick it to the man', 'tune in, turn on, drop out', 'make love, not war'. America is a big country, big enough to find a space somewhere to l9ive your life almost any way you like and pobably find others who want to do the same too. In fact I'm hard pressed for think of any other nation on the entire planet that is more diverse. Anyone care to name one? I speak as an outsider (a Brit) that's visited the US several times and has many friends and acquaintances there.
ondrejzabojnik 12y ago
You wrote about the time when you weren't beating yourself for not being productive enough and you described that past experience in a way that seemed to me like you were happy. What made you want to become productive? What did you imagine 'productive' looks and feels like? Could you track down your most internal motives?
MrDosu 12y ago
This is the major problem when you do things for reasons other then you love to do it. Stop trying to do whats "hip" and find your passion. A lot of the thoughts given in the article have the slight taste of the author wanting to do them because they are intellectual/trendy/response from society. Do what you love, simple as. Work will never feel like work again.
- sergiosgc 12y ago
  > Stop trying to do whats "hip" and find your passion. Don't. Don't go overboard with the passion thing. If your passion is origami, you are in for a very rough ride trying to live off selling folded paper on the street. Find a balance. What's difficult is that life is not black and white, it's in shades of grey. Find something that the market needs and that you like doing. Not something that you absolutely love doing and that nobody ever wants, nor something that the market absolutely wants and that you loathe doing. Virtue is found in the middle.
barbudorojo 12y ago
Trying to summarize the post: Free time can increase your wisdom and is necessary sometimes for higher order thinking. Too much productivity, that is not having time for your mind wandering, produces a bad effect in society. To compose that post has taken the author four months. I think that every great writer has been many times in his life waiting for inspiration. But inspiration only occurs when you are inviting inspiration to come by working a lot, your mind has to be struggling with the problem, at least in a subconscious level, and then, suddenly, inspiration comes to your rescue.
shoover 12y ago
What really devastated my generation was the spiritual malaise inherent in Taylorism's perfectly mechanized human labor. But Taylor had never seen a robot or a computer perfect his methods of being human. By the 1980s, we had. In the age of robots we reinvented the idea of being robots ourselves. We wanted to program our minds and bodies and have them obey clocks and routines. In this age of the human robot, of the materialist mind, being efficient took the pre-eminent spot, beyond goodness or power or wisdom or even cruel greed. Ouch. We are productive without price. Not because people aren't dying, they surely are, uncounted lives and families are smothered with despair. There is no price because there's no measure to quantify what we are losing. This makes me wonder how history will look on our mental health issues, as we look back on alcoholism in early 20th century America. For those sympathetic to the views of the article, I can't recommend enough Matthew Crawford's book Shop Class as Soulcraft for a fuller and prescriptive discussion of the history and philosophy of these issues of work and meaning and mental health.
damon_c 12y ago
I have always considered productivity to be a measure of production over time where time is the duration a person works at a task and not a constant. So a highly productive person gets a lot done in a small amount of time. People who get a lot done and work all the time aren't really high productivity people; they just work a lot. I see nothing wrong with striving for productivity if this is how it is defined.
saeguaiga 12y ago
Besides tax contribution topping, and market protection (what's this siphon to p-shares that trade in microseconds doubling my concern's trade overhead, and where is it rubbing the walls;) and citizenship (why is there a regulatory forbidden level where we may want our customers;) it's hard to say there is a forum; and that you don't rent there. Pretty sure I missed it.

329 points by bmmayer1 12y ago

This may be far wiser than almost anything that has ever been posted on HN, but you can't feed this shit to people who are not ready for it. It is a lesson which can not be taught. The real truths in life are not something you can read about. Real knowledge can only ever come from within. You can never lead someone to knowledge, but you CAN inspire them to seek their own - and you've done a pretty good job at that. Thank you.

awt 12y ago
"A decade in the lab will save you an afternoon in the library."
- neolefty 12y ago
  For sure. I'm thankful that my children and students will not have to spend my decade in the lab. If I manage to tell them in a way that they can hear.
- jbranchaud 12y ago
  Do you know who this quote is attributed to?
  - idlewan 12y ago
    Frank Westheimer seems to be the one who popularized the expression. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Frank_Westheimer http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Frank_Westheimer

misiti3780 12y ago

that radio tower looks like the one from the movie Golden Eye

smoe 12y ago
That's because it is the one from Golden Eye ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_Observatory#In_Popular_Culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_Observatory#In_Popular_...
GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
Had to listen to this as soon as I saw that photo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6hsdWGF0no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6hsdWGF0no

twtwtaway 12y ago

This is bullshit. Just continue to work 16 hours a day, increase your productivity and your startup will succeed. After that you'll be happy forever. And your investor too.

chromaton 12y ago

805 million people on earth don't have enough to eat. 783 million don't have access to clean water. 1.9 million die of diarrhea every year. 176 million African adults can't read. And this guy sits around the first world for a couple years with the back of his hand nailed to his forehead. If he can't bring himself to do more than write a couple essays and snap some photos over a couple years, I would suggest a refreshing visit to Mozambique or Syria. People there could surely use help with the basic necessities of life.

dageshi 12y ago
Wouldn't you be using your time more productively by not reading HN?
- whytaka 12y ago
  Not if he convinces me that this article is a bit whiny and re-orients me towards industry for the sake of human good. One short quip for renewed vigor. That's productivity!
  - Bjartr 12y ago
    Clearly then our best path forward is to spend all our time convincing others to do things.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- chromaton 12y ago
  In the case of this article, yes.
ZeroFries 12y ago
How much productive effort goes into solving these problems versus other less necessary problems? Let me define productivity: conscious effort to re-organize the world's energy and matter. Am I honour bound to re-organize the world's energy and matter until it's in the ideal state (which of course is never obtainable and not even definable, since it's different for each person)? The author has an issue with productivity for the sake of productivity. Spending time helping people in need is obviously a valuable and wise use of time, but you shouldn't feel guilty for not spending every waking moment increasing your net worth.

mchusma 12y ago

This reminds me of PG's essay - http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html Basically, I believe Author would be better off making the claim that many people (himself included) confuse the definition of productivity.

goldenchrome 12y ago
the author is a woman
- shaurz 12y ago
  To be fair that Medium website doesn't exactly make it clear who is writing.

charlespwd 12y ago

Fantastic piece. I believe in similar things. Here, where I currently live, we spend so much time working and being productive that we forget to ask questions. "Why am I doing this?" "What is the meaning of it?" "What is really important?" Then we end up lost, depressed and what not. Not all of us do, but some? Certainly. We do it because others do it. Because we believe that pursuing a different venue is not realistic. Others have that? Hell, I should have it too. "I should totally run a startup." Anyways, it happened to me. Went to SEA for four months. Dreamed. Life is amazing. I can do whatever I want. I don't need money to live. yadi. yada. Then you come back, and no one understands you. You are a hippy. I'm not. In periods of doubt, I write things down. Then I remember what I believe. Then I remember I'm going back soon. That it is what I should be doing. Being productive is ok. It's fun. But, in the end, it's not important. People are. At least, that's the conclusion I came to. I guess I'm just rambling. Carry on. Note: when I write "We", I mostly mean "I".

bonobo3000 12y ago
I'm a recent immigrant to USA, and while I don't presume to know everything about American culture, your comment and this article really resonate with my observations in the time I've spent here. There is a consistent message pervasive in the culture - you are worth what you produce. You are defined by what you produce. Productivity is the currency that buys you respect in society. I've met many many people who rise above this view, but as a society, this is prevalent. Everything has to be about "winning" in some way - even if you are working out, or playing a game, you gotta "play hard", compete, kick the other guys ass, not feel sorry for yourself, not mope, just WIN. Forget about what you're winning, what or why you produce, as long as you produce more than the other guy. Other cultures may use wisdom, or age, or kindness as currencies for respect/status in society. And then people wonder why society is becoming increasingly isolated. See, when you tie your worth to what you produce, you must give up everything to produce. EVEN IF "producing" means painting a beautiful portrait in your garage, the compulsion to produce is the problem. It makes people focus too hard on themselves and how they can improve/level-up. Too focused inward to see the people around you and their lives, and the joy that can bring. That isolation leads to addiction, depression, isolation and all manner of mental illness. Because humans have evolved to be social creatures. It is hardwired in our nature. We cannot and should not try to fight that. We should not view that as a sign of weakness or an obstacle to productivity, or money, or fame, or any other idol.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

Increased Pareto is a better thing to aim for than increased productivity. Doing the one very important thing, the one thing with huge returns or leverage will outweigh all the other probably also important things that really hard working and productive people can do in a day It however takes wisdom to know what is important and courage to trust your wisdom.

FD3SA 12y ago

This is an excellent post because it focuses on a central topic: mankind's behavioral predispositions. The world today runs on profit and productivity. Morals, ethics and philosophies are irrelevant hindrances, as SV and Wall St. have demonstrated repeatedly. This is all well and good, as the last century apparently demonstrated that all ideologies and philosophies are the devil incarnate (Nazism, Leninism, Maoism, etc.) But I do wonder one thing...did we quit on ideology prematurely? An ideology which I've always held as my own mission in life is the relentless pursuit of knowledge through science. Throughout history, there have been times where mankind has focused intently on this goal, and the results were incredible. Sadly, most of these periods were spurred on by major wars. What I really want to know is this: Is it possible to built a society whose goal is the advancement of mankind's knowledge? The profit motive and the free market are undoubtedly the best motivators for mankind, due to our evolutionary predispositions for survival and inherent need to establish status hierarchies. But could we not harness these energies, and direct them to positive-sum endavors such as science and engineering research, rather than a pure profit-driven battle to the death? Keep in mind, the historical mean society throughout history has been oligarchy. It appears the last century was a brief respite due to massive wars and resultant existential threats. We now seem to be heading right back into the oligarchical paradigm of rich get richer, and poor stay serfs [1]. I can envision a society built around the pursuit of knowledge. The market exists and is regulated to produce needs and wants efficiently, yet without negative-sum behavior (regulatory capture, corruption, anti-competitive conduct, wage fixing, etc.) Education and research are a prime government mandate in addition to infrastructure, defense, healthcare and a social safety net. Citizens are incentivized to hone their skills and education continuously without massive financial downsides (student debt). State sponsored research institutes exist throughout the country similar to Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, JPL, etc. and serve to stimulate the economy through constant research projects, both large and small. The projects provide jobs for low and high skilled individuals (e.g. ITER, LHC). Those who enjoy pure research have a plethora of opportunities to move the state of the art forward. Those who don't, have excellent and rewarding employment. The challenge in creating this society is a very tough one: humans are not motivated by knowledge. We are motivated by status, sex, and power, though few ever understand it or admit to it. But I hope that one day, knowledge of our inherent weaknesses will become common enough such that we can fight our destructive natures in an effort to transcend our limitations. Till that day, I remain a dreamer. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Cen...

myth_drannon 12y ago

If you liked the theme of this essay you will like this book: "How to Be Idle" by Tom Hodgkinson. The book starts similarly and expands the idea of idleness to trying to bring it into your life.

hliyan 12y ago
And more recently, "How Much Is Enough?" by Robert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky

ggreer 12y ago

This post is full of mistakes and unclear thinking. I can't figure out what the author is arguing against or for. Is she against quantifying wealth? I'm not sure. Is she against working hard? Maybe. Does she think it impossible to quantify happiness and well-being? I get the impression she does. First, the author made a huge mistake when talking about GDP. Her comparison used absolute instead of per-capita values. India and Canada may produce the same amount of wealth, but India has 35 times more people. Of course per-capita GDP doesn't fully capture quality of life, but it's easy to measure and hard to fake. That's why it's used. Most people make mistakes when it comes to balancing work and leisure, but to claim such mistakes are killing us is preposterous. People in developed countries live the longest, healthiest lives in the history of humanity. The nation with the longest life expectancy is the workaholic Japanese culture so disparaged by the author! Many people, especially in technology, say their productivity is changing the world, and this is irrefutable. But no one seems to know what they’re changing it into, because no one can measure the world. When no one can measure the world, how much can it really exist? This really irks me. Measuring and quantifying something is a prerequisite to optimizing it. Maybe a lot of people are measuring the wrong things. Maybe they're missing or underweighting a factor. Maybe they just have different preferences than the author. But to suggest that the entire enterprise is bunk is to disregard centuries of progress across a dozen fields of study. If money doesn't make you happy, then you probably aren't spending it right.[1] 1. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/DUNN%20GILBERT%20&%20WILSON%20(2011).pdf http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/DUNN%20GILBERT%20&%20WILSON%... Edit: Pronouns fixed. Apologies, I thought Quinn was a male name.

antichaos 12y ago
The author, danah boyd, is female.
- onethree 12y ago
  medium is confusing, it was actually written by Quinn Norton. also female, so your point still stands
wodenokoto 12y ago
I disagree with you. I thought it was very clear and well written. > Of course per-capita GDP doesn't fully capture quality of life, but it's easy to measure and hard to fake. It's extremely easy to fake. I sell you a backrub for 10.000 dollars and after that I buy one from you for 10.000 dollars and we've now in 10 minutes boosted our GDP with 20.000 dollars. > Measuring and quantifying something is a prerequisite to optimizing it. Which is what he is talking against. We are too focused on optimizing, when a lot of what it means to be a human are things that shouldn't be optimized. And secondly, long periods without productivity may actually be the foundation of later quality. And you can't optimize these unproductive periods.

sgentle 12y ago

I liked this essay, but it's also important to point out that GDP is very strongly correlated with health outcomes like life expectancy. It might be that we are starving our souls, but let's not forget about the fairly serious consequences of starving our bodies. I don't mean to say that I disagree with the conclusion, just that I think the historical context is missing something. We didn't become productive out of greed, we became productive out of hunger. That attitude has run its course, absolutely, and we need to ask: we're not hungry anymore, so what now? But let's not denigrate how we got here on the assumption that it was never a good idea. We might have climbed past the lowest rungs of the ladder, but that doesn't mean we didn't need them. Indeed, there are many who still do.

6t6t6 12y ago
Then how you explain the fact that USA has one of the lowest life expectancy among the developed world? I think that what the author tries to explain is that, in some places, societies have gone too far in the seek of productiveness and, ironically, people there is less happy and healthy. I guess finding the good balance is more important than trying to be the number one.
- quonn 12y ago
  Why is this downvoted? Given that the US is as economically powerful as it is, why _is_ life expectancy lower [0], compared to other _developed_ nations? Check out Canada, Australia, Japan and West-Europe on the map. [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Life_Expectancy_2011_CIA_World_Factbook.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Life_Exp...
  - runj__ 12y ago
    The US is a big country, it's incredibly diverse. Comparing the US as a whole to other countries is not really fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_exp... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_... But we can of course all pick our own statistics to fit our standpoint. But it's important to keep in mind that the US can be a bit of an edge case.

johnloeber 12y ago

Even though some valuable ideas are expressed in this piece, there's a lot of conflation of highly distinct social phenomena that goes on. The author looks at the notion of "productivity", judges that people blindly rush from birth straight to the grave in the pursuit of being "productive", somehow lops that in with GDPs (not per capita, not at PPP?) and the weird way in which we have industrialized pleasure, and concludes... what, exactly? Regardless, the author expresses a valuable point that suffers from her conflating topics. I think that point is that there's a certain industrial culture -- a focus on productivity and structure -- that dominates our lives, whether in work or in leisure (see e.g. tourism). I don't think this is necessarily bad, but it's important to be aware of it. Some people do indeed wear blinders as they race through life, being as productive as they can -- not for themselves, but maybe for society. Or for their boss. Or for someone else, whose interests are not necessarily aligned with their own. Maybe that's a good reminder to carefully define productivity for yourself, however you see fit. The idea here is to have a notion of productivity to strive for that is well-aligned with doing things that make you feel good for the time invested. And then we're right back down to those age-old platitudes, so obvious and ubiquitous that we forget their truth: "spend your time wisely."

prawn 12y ago
"...not for themselves, but maybe for society. Or for their boss." A lot of things (like this) remind me that we are often barely different to bees and ants. Even down to our queens.
perfunctory 12y ago
"and concludes... what, exactly?" Use your own imagination.
- mcdougle 12y ago
  I don't really know why you're getting downvoted. That's a great answer to the question. The article is about how we over-analyze and over-optimize and look for a distinctly obvious purpose in everything in an effort to ensure productivity. I think it's funny that most of the comments here are doing exactly that with the article -- trying to analyze it, refute it, and determine the exact conclusion the author is trying to state. Should we stop being over-productive? Be less productive? Try to find balance? Maybe we should simply continue to pursue productivity, but at least understand what we're doing, rather than pursuing it blindly? Honestly, it's probably some combination of the above -- and it's probably subjective and dependent on the reader. The author doesn't simply state the conclusion -- because there is no obvious conclusion to the article. It's just a bunch of observations that allow the reader to reach a conclusion him/herself.

hliyan 12y ago

"Above all we become interesting [sic] in measuring ourselves. Word count/day, lines of code/day, hamburgers served/hour, steps taken/day, test questions/100, money earned/field’s average salary. We got quarterly reviews, job evaluations, and tested certifications." I've a dilemma: I've come to believe that this really is a bad thing, not just because we're suboptimizing output at the expense of quality of life, but also because you get what you measure: you can totally get more LOC/day without actually getting anything useful. BUT, what's the alternative? People need to be rewarded for output; different individuals' outputs are different; still, should we reward them the same? Or should we make it dependent on output (therefore, reward merit, not need)? If so, should the measure be subjective or objective? Can you make it objective without turning it into what the author is talking about? Can you make it subjective while keeping it fair? No matter how much I try, when I try to be fair in rewards/compensation, I find metrics raising their ugly head.

calinet6 12y ago
Just remove the individual metric. We know they don't work. Incentivize the entire company for the success of the company. Pay people fairly in an uncomplicated way. Align all the incentives and don't reward anything that is not directly connected to the clear and well-communicated success of the company.
- nindalf 12y ago
  So even if I do the bare minimum at work, I should be rewarded the same as someone who worked his pants off? Sure, that's fine. Just one thing, that guy who was working his pants off no longer has the incentive to work hard because his reward is tied to how the company as a whole does. He will begin to do the bare minimum, and the company suffers. He will eventually become jaded with this and leave to some place that will recognise and reward his extra output.
  - calinet6 12y ago
    It turns out what you say is not true in reality, but it persists as the myth of individualism in the corporate workforce. It is simply false; it doesn't happen. When you align the incentives, uncomplicate rewards, clearly guide people in the same direction toward clear and logical goals, and enable them to do good work they can be proud of, all of that individual infighting and politics goes away. You can still compensate people fairly for their contributions as measured simply and clearly as "contribution to the success of the company," there's absolutely no reason not to; you just remove the complex measurement and competition that results in the opposite of the desired goal. Simplify. This is well-understood stuff. It is not new. It resulted quite directly in the success of the Japanese economy after WWII, driven by the teachings of statistician W. Edwards Deming. We, as Americans, ignore it because of the persistence of myths like the one you mention. Because of our fixation on individual gain and protection, and on a pervasive belief in the incompetence and dishonesty of our fellow man. We fail to see the truth: that the failures around us are a result not of poor individuals, but of systems which surround them and stop anyone except a few unicorns from being able to be effective. Start with W. Edwards Deming: here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming and here: http://blog.deming.org/ http://blog.deming.org/

esfandia 12y ago

I may somewhat agree with the author's case against productivity, but I think it's important not to confuse it with a case against production. At the end of the day (or life) I think you do want to look back and think of what you've produced (rather than consumed), and how you did it. Was it fun? Satisfying? I think it's fair to want to rebel against production/time. It's not bad to think instead of something along the lines of satisfaction/production.

Xcelerate 12y ago

Why am I productive? No other reason than I dislike boredom. I had the unusual situation growing up of having completely free summers (including college). To do absolutely and whatever I wanted. Well, long story short, I basically wasted them and didn't get anything accomplished. And I definitely wasn't happy with that much useless free time. So now I do things because I find them interesting. I "measure myself" and try to improve at things because it's a fun game for me. The results don't really matter in the end, but it keeps me entertained.

Xcelerate 12y ago

erikb 12y ago

Okay we should spend more time wasting more time. But how to pay your bills in that time? As long as this question is not answered all this discussion is meaningless in my eyes.

Cthulhu_ 12y ago
How about a regular 40 hour / week or part-time job for a decent wage? It's what the vast majority of people do.
- erikb 12y ago
  Maybe I misunderstood the article? I understand that he wants to go to other countries, walk around, watch the rain and think about life in general. Maybe you can do that if you are a museum security guard, but in most jobs that's not possible. And at least I am quite tired after working 40 hours plus taking care of the basics needs I have (buying grocieries, cooking, cleaning) and my family has (spending time together, solving problems of other family members). I'm quite happy if I can manage to squeeze in 7 to 8 hours of sleep.
  - kstenerud 12y ago
    Don't you think there's something inherently wrong with that?

lovemenot 12y ago

The article states that Karoshi is death by productivity. This is generally not correct. Karoshi is death from over-work. The distinction concerns quantity of output. Many Japanese will work long hours with little impact on output. Such people are therefore hard-working yet unproductive. Japanese business culture tends to respect effort more than result.

simonh 12y ago

America is also the country that gave us 'stick it to the man', 'tune in, turn on, drop out', 'make love, not war'. America is a big country, big enough to find a space somewhere to l9ive your life almost any way you like and pobably find others who want to do the same too. In fact I'm hard pressed for think of any other nation on the entire planet that is more diverse. Anyone care to name one? I speak as an outsider (a Brit) that's visited the US several times and has many friends and acquaintances there.

ondrejzabojnik 12y ago

You wrote about the time when you weren't beating yourself for not being productive enough and you described that past experience in a way that seemed to me like you were happy. What made you want to become productive? What did you imagine 'productive' looks and feels like? Could you track down your most internal motives?

MrDosu 12y ago

This is the major problem when you do things for reasons other then you love to do it. Stop trying to do whats "hip" and find your passion. A lot of the thoughts given in the article have the slight taste of the author wanting to do them because they are intellectual/trendy/response from society. Do what you love, simple as. Work will never feel like work again.

sergiosgc 12y ago
> Stop trying to do whats "hip" and find your passion. Don't. Don't go overboard with the passion thing. If your passion is origami, you are in for a very rough ride trying to live off selling folded paper on the street. Find a balance. What's difficult is that life is not black and white, it's in shades of grey. Find something that the market needs and that you like doing. Not something that you absolutely love doing and that nobody ever wants, nor something that the market absolutely wants and that you loathe doing. Virtue is found in the middle.

barbudorojo 12y ago

Trying to summarize the post: Free time can increase your wisdom and is necessary sometimes for higher order thinking. Too much productivity, that is not having time for your mind wandering, produces a bad effect in society. To compose that post has taken the author four months. I think that every great writer has been many times in his life waiting for inspiration. But inspiration only occurs when you are inviting inspiration to come by working a lot, your mind has to be struggling with the problem, at least in a subconscious level, and then, suddenly, inspiration comes to your rescue.

shoover 12y ago

What really devastated my generation was the spiritual malaise inherent in Taylorism's perfectly mechanized human labor. But Taylor had never seen a robot or a computer perfect his methods of being human. By the 1980s, we had. In the age of robots we reinvented the idea of being robots ourselves. We wanted to program our minds and bodies and have them obey clocks and routines. In this age of the human robot, of the materialist mind, being efficient took the pre-eminent spot, beyond goodness or power or wisdom or even cruel greed. Ouch. We are productive without price. Not because people aren't dying, they surely are, uncounted lives and families are smothered with despair. There is no price because there's no measure to quantify what we are losing. This makes me wonder how history will look on our mental health issues, as we look back on alcoholism in early 20th century America. For those sympathetic to the views of the article, I can't recommend enough Matthew Crawford's book Shop Class as Soulcraft for a fuller and prescriptive discussion of the history and philosophy of these issues of work and meaning and mental health.

damon_c 12y ago

I have always considered productivity to be a measure of production over time where time is the duration a person works at a task and not a constant. So a highly productive person gets a lot done in a small amount of time. People who get a lot done and work all the time aren't really high productivity people; they just work a lot. I see nothing wrong with striving for productivity if this is how it is defined.

saeguaiga 12y ago

Besides tax contribution topping, and market protection (what's this siphon to p-shares that trade in microseconds doubling my concern's trade overhead, and where is it rubbing the walls;) and citizenship (why is there a regulatory forbidden level where we may want our customers;) it's hard to say there is a forum; and that you don't rent there. Pretty sure I missed it.