"Hard Work"

[Bethyaga]

and you're losing what (desperately small) amount of respect most of the community had for you.

Actually, he lost that way back in his "if you won't join the military, then you cannot comment on military policy" argument. But people forget, and after awhile, he starts to look legitimate. Especially since the majority of people don't follow these exchanges in detail. Therefore, the lion's share of Bulldrekkers assume that this is just a 3278 vs. Cain thing and without knowing the details, they assume that the two are somehow equally culpable, granting Cain equal footing by default. The only credibility he loses is among the eight of us that actually read this whole thing. And even then, he'll still suck most of us in with his next debate, because he /seems/ so intelligent when it all starts.

And Cain, just to make it perfectly clear: common curtesy says that you refer to another person (or people or entity) by the name he/she/it has stated is prefered. If they do not state a preference, then you make either ask or make a reasonably intelligent guess. For you to try to use "logic" to justify why calling him by a name he has asked you not to use is acceptable simply means you're a tit. But you know that already. Crazy Elf does the same thing, but being an abrasive ass is part of his persona. You always try to appear above that.

[Eliahad]

And now for a moment of levity:

Mmm, Bethy said tit...*drool*

[3278]

"...I can't fight <a href="http://www.bulldrek.com/viewtopic.php?t=5907">this feeling</a> anymore...I've forgotten what I started fighting for..."

[WillyGilligan]

And Cain, just to make it perfectly clear: common curtesy says that you refer to another person (or people or entity) by the name he/she/it has stated is prefered.

But, Bethy, you're forgetting SubRosa. I wouldn't bet money on it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this is all gonna tie back into that. Of course, if it is, then 32 would still be on solid ground as he called SubRosa by the name requested if not the gender.

[Cain]

You're still talking about effort beyond the point of diminishing returns, which I believe everyone agrees does not result in additional success.

Actually, I'm merely pointing out that said point is closer than most people realize.

Look, you're saying that increased stress = increased performance. Which isn't true as a general rule, and isn't even good in specific cases. Yes, you hear about mothers, in times of great stress, flipping over cars to reach their children-- but that's only for short bursts. Despite your arguments, you never hear of mothers picking up an SUV, holding it over their head, and running it down to the nearest hospital.

Every study on workplace efficiency I've ever seen has been about reducing stress in the workplace. Why is that? Is it because they feel people aren't near their optiomal tension point, or that they're already over it? And, to correlate, what is the most common result of reducing workplace stresses? Why, an *increase* in productivity.

As such, it can be easily shown that most work places, and most individuals, tend to set their effort levels to near or above optimum.

Even if I did, I most certainly did not shift my weight twice in the second it took me to read the sentence.

Do me a favor, and either hook your butt up to a set of electrodes, or read up on muscle physiology. You most certainly did shift your weight several times; the only way you couldn't have is if you're physically disabled or extremely obese.

But there is most definitely a very large span between my typing slowly and largely without error to the point of diminishing returns, beyond which the increase in time spent correcting errors overcomes the time saved typing quickly.

Really? How large is it? I'll wager that the difference is best measured in microseconds.

[Salvation122]

Do me a favor, and either hook your butt up to a set of electrodes, or read up on muscle physiology. You most certainly did shift your weight several times; the only way you couldn't have is if you're physically disabled or extremely obese.

I just sat perfectly still for around sixty seconds. I am not physically disabled - though the intensity of the poison [ivy/oak/sumac] covering much of the lower half of my body is really working at it - and I am a scrawny sumbitch. Now, it's possible that you mean that your body shifts weight unconciously and with no effort all the time, but if that's the case, I am (again) going to call you a goddamn idiot for putting forward such an absurd point as these unconcious shifts obviously do not affect effort or productivity in any way.

[Cain]

And Cain, just to make it perfectly clear: common curtesy says that you refer to another person (or people or entity) by the name he/she/it has stated is prefered.

But, Bethy, you're forgetting SubRosa. I wouldn't bet money on it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this is all gonna tie back into that. Of course, if it is, then 32 would still be on solid ground as he called SubRosa by the name requested if not the gender.

Actually, that's a good example. Would Earl prefer it if I referred to him as "it"?

[WillyGilligan]

Notice the second part, where I said the exact reason why that case wouldn't apply? Yeah, look that over again, and realize that you're still wrong.

[Eliahad]

Cain: All of your points on stress are clouding the issue, because stress has nothing to do with hard work, thanks. Try again. No one, at any point, has said hard work had to do with deadlines and a boss standing over your shoulder and being focused on getting things done because of the clock. The part about the mothers lifting cars is simply ridiculous. Just plain silly and has /nothing/ to do with hard work. Okay, wait, it probably takes hard work to lift an SUV, I know I'd have to be pretty focused.

[3278]

Of course, if it is, then 32 would still be on solid ground as he called SubRosa by the name requested if not the gender.

Oh, if Cain wants to use the pronoun "she" to refer to me, I'd be quite satisfied, although, as with SubRosa, it would be terribly inaccurate and probably somewhat confusing. Still, I have neither need nor desire to protect my gender identity, while I do, perhaps somewhat irrationally, prefer people not use my real name a whole lot online.

"It" would be fine, too; frankly, I spend much more time feeling like an "it" than like a "he" or a "she." I don't identify myself particularly strongly with my gender or species; I mostly just feel like "me." From that point of view, one arbitrary designation is as valid as any other, whether given me by my parents or by a friend. I prefer 3278 online, however, and only one person, apparently, has any sort of problem with that, which tells me that the problem is not with my self-identification, but with that person.

I'm not saying being rude makes Cain a bad guy; Paul Erdoz only entered his friends' houses through their windows, and I think he was all right. But Cain is not Paul Erdoz, nor is he my friend, so if I ask him politely to step in through the front door and not muss my curtains, I would expect him to comply, just as I would if he asked me to refer to him by some other name. [Although I don't think I'll accept the optional course of referring to him by the almost certainly fictional "Dave."]

I feel stupid, making such a big deal out of such a little thing, but then I remember that I'm not the reason it's a big deal. Then I shake my head and laugh and feel a little less bad for wasting everyone's time in this way. But really only a little.

[Eliahad]

And /I'd/ prefer it if you didn't call him Dave.

[3278]

You're still talking about effort beyond the point of diminishing returns, which I believe everyone agrees does not result in additional success.

Actually, I'm merely pointing out that said point is closer than most people realize.

That's not even remotely what you're doing, although I recognize that it's a useful fallback position. Even if that were your point, you'd have to admit that "said point" is not exactly the same point as "easy work." Therefore, there must be some span between easy work and too-hard work which is more effective than easy work as well as more effective than too-hard work. This is hard work. I did a bunch of it today, and accomplished a great deal. I did very little of it yesterday, and accomplished almost nothing. Perhaps your experiences are different, because you are a professed avoider of hard work; perhaps the level at which you succumb to attention fatigue, boredom, physical exhaustion, etc., is lesser than our own. Perhaps, unaccustomed to hard work, you don't notice that it is actually a prime tool of accomplishment. So listen to the voices around you, <i>every one of whom</i> disagrees that hard work [before the point of diminishing returns] does not contribute materially to success. If it works for every single one of us, perhaps it works for a great many more people than you believe.

Look, you're saying that increased stress = increased performance.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying increased effort equals increased performance [as a general rule]. Increasing your level of effort does not have to mean increased stress. Today, doing yard work, I felt vastly more energized and happy than I did yesterday, doing many of the same tasks, only faster and with more drive. Human physiology actually likes stress, in many cases; it leads to hypertrophy, which allows you greater exertion. It leads to the secretion of endorphins, which mask the physical symptoms of stress until you're able to deal with them [later]. It pumps you up. Sure, too much burns you out. Too little is tiring, boring, and doesn't get as much shit done. It's got to be just right. Luckily, there's a long, long distance between easy work and too-hard work, in most cases, so we don't have to be that discriminating; just work as hard as you can without reaching the point of diminishing returns. Not only will you get more done in less time, but you'll actually find that point of diminishing returns gets greater and greater.

Every study on workplace efficiency I've ever seen has been about reducing stress in the workplace. Why is that?

Because people in american cities are giant pussies, who've never really had to work for much of anything. Giant, gaping, dripping pussies who couldn't chop wood for an hour if they had to. Enormous vaginas, all over the landscape, leaving snail tracks and having to pause constantly in order to walk 15 miles. Cunts so vapid and weak they're unable to perform even the simplest of tasks for renumeration, and thus have to feed like leeches on the underbelly of a working class which continues to feed them blood despite their own economic anemia.

Even if I did, I most certainly did not shift my weight twice in the second it took me to read the sentence.

Do me a favor, and either hook your butt up to a set of electrodes, or read up on muscle physiology. You most certainly did shift your weight several times; the only way you couldn't have is if you're physically disabled or extremely obese.

Explain, please. Do you mean "shifting weight," or micro-tremors in muscle tissue? It sounds to me like you're trying to get out of the fifty bucks you owe me.

But there is most definitely a very large span between my typing slowly and largely without error to the point of diminishing returns, beyond which the increase in time spent correcting errors overcomes the time saved typing quickly.

Really? How large is it? I'll wager that the difference is best measured in microseconds.

How could you wager that, when we haven't set any kind of frame of reference? Microseconds on a page, or on a word? And how much are you willing to wager <i>this</i> time?

[3278]

And /I'd/ prefer it if you didn't call him Dave.

I would think. Ironically, the "placeholder" name I use for the protagonist in any story or series I'm developing is David, making it doubly unpleasant for me to call him Dave. I choose not to sully the good name of those I respect with what is almost certainly a lie anyway.

[3278]

I just sat perfectly still for around sixty seconds.

And I'd wager that the motion you made was intentional. If you want to - or if, like me, you get so wrapped up in things [thinking, reading, post-orgasming] that you just don't move - I guarantee you could go tons longer than that. [Although not, I would wager, for hours and hours on end, your body being young and not disposed to stillness.] I frequently remain perfectly still for over an hour, being older and somewhat more predisposed to sloth and introversion.

Now, if we count autonomic responses, like microtremors, breathing, heartbeats, and so on, obviously no one but the dead ever sits still. But if Cain is counting autonomic responses as "mini-breaks," which is how we got onto this "shifting my weight" thing in the first place, then he's being slightly more silly than normal.

I am not physically disabled - though the intensity of the poison [ivy/oak/sumac] covering much of the lower half of my body is really working at it...

Pants, Sal. How many times do I have to tell you, no frolicking naked in the woods!

[Salvation122]

Well, considering that we basically went bushwacking on an ill-maintained trail, without the machetes, and I crawled over and through all manner of foliage while wearing shorts, I'm not horribly suprised I got it. I /am/ suprised that it took four days to show up, and that it's basically covered most of my right leg from mid-thigh down despite my best efforts to contain it. (Incidently, when one unconciously scratches at poision ivy shortly before pissing, one's junk contracts poison ivy. Unfun.)

[Cain]

Therefore, there must be some span between easy work and too-hard work which is more effective than easy work as well as more effective than too-hard work. This is hard work.

All right, then. Here's two examples, please tell me which constitutes "hard work":
1. Getting up early for school versus sleeping until the last second.
2. Calling in sick when you have a cold, or going in anyways to get stuff done.

If it works for every single one of us, perhaps it works for a great many more people than you believe.

Actually, it doesn't work for any of you. That's an illusion brought on by the Protestant work ethic. You think you are accomplishing more, so you evaluate your work as greater. When measured objectively-- say by workplace efficiency studies-- then we see that "lazy" work often gets more done.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying increased effort equals increased performance [as a general rule]. Increasing your level of effort does not have to mean increased stress.

How does it differ? Physiologically, I mean. What's the difference between a heightened mental state and a stress-reaction state?

Every study on workplace efficiency I've ever seen has been about reducing stress in the workplace. Why is that?

Because I don't have a real argument.

Just like I thought. Look, you claim that most people don't work hard; yet every study on workplace efficiency concludes that a reduction in workplace tension-- and tension is identical to concertedness, from any physical standpoint-- is correlated with an *increase* in productivity. That means, most people are actually so concentrated on their tasks, they've pushed themselves past optimum. Asking them to work harder doesn't help matters; asking them to try less work does.

Explain, please. Do you mean "shifting weight," or micro-tremors in muscle tissue?

Yes. They're identical, after all.

Your body takes "micro breaks"on a subconscious level. "Micro tremors" are your muscles relaxing, then recontracting. They take a break for a moment, re-energize themselves, and then fire again. There's a reason why extended tetanus is a bad thing, after all.

[Serious Paul]

Yeah right, whatever. If you wany your pants back alive you'll mail me that copy of the Kids in the Hall skit, "These are the Dave's I know".

[Salvation122]

When measured objectively-- say by workplace efficiency studies-- then we see that "lazy" work often gets more done.

I'd say I'd like to see those studies, but even if they do exist and say what you claim, I'll still think they're full of shit.

Cain, I am in school. Last semester I busted ass. This semester I mostly sat in my room. Last semester I pulled out - after mono kicking my ass for two months - with a C+ average. This semester I'll be doing significantly worse. In short, you and your workplace efficiency studies are full of shit.

Yes. They're identical, after all.

Somewhere, an anatomy professor just screamed.

[Bethyaga]

My ass twitches, and Cain (who has been watching my ass... naturally) screams, "See! See! Right there! You took a break! HA! I win! I win! Who's the loser now, huh? WHO'S THE LOSER NOW?!?!?!"

[FlameBlade]

Very very very hard to keep a donkey still. That ass always goes heehaw and twitches every time Cain says Earl. It's impossible for me control this ass. He got a stubborn streak.

[Bishop]

Because people in american cities are giant pussies, who've never really had to work for much of anything. Giant, gaping, dripping pussies who couldn't chop wood for an hour if they had to. Enormous vaginas, all over the landscape, leaving snail tracks and having to pause constantly in order to walk 15 miles. Cunts so vapid and weak they're unable to perform even the simplest of tasks for renumeration, and thus have to feed like leeches on the underbelly of a working class which continues to feed them blood despite their own economic anemia.

Thanks for the visual.

[Eliahad]

Yes, yes, whatever Cain, but we're not talking about TENSION. Which is fine if reducing tension in the work place produces more productivity. You do /not/ have to be tense to work hard.

Oh and in your two examples, which are stupid, the answer is they are both forms of hard work. Sleeping in late requires split second timing getting everything accomplished and getting to school on time. Getting up early lets you spend more time on all of the details so you're focusing more on each part. Different goals, still hard work. (If you even want to do hard work then, gah.)

The second is also a different goals situation.

Goal 1: Fight the cold.
Goal 2: Finish more work.

So great, the comparison of apples and oranges continue. It's no wonder we haven't found any orange colored apples yet.

[Eliahad]

Every study on workplace efficiency I've ever seen has been about reducing stress in the workplace. Why is that?

Because I don't have a real argument.

We know. Look get the quotations right, or by god, you look even more like an ass than you already do.

Just like I thought. Look, you claim that most people don't work hard; yet every study on workplace efficiency concludes that a reduction in workplace tension-- and tension is identical to concertedness, from any physical standpoint-- is correlated with an *increase* in productivity. That means, most people are actually so concentrated on their tasks, they've pushed themselves past optimum. Asking them to work harder doesn't help matters; asking them to try less work does.

Concertedness != physical tension.

Mosier Feldenkrais - who teaches how the body moves and operates free of tension - has you learn how all the different body parts move by laying in various positions and focusing on, oh say, your pinky toe. In fact, you can focus so much that your body will fall asleep from all the information it absorbs. Your point is false, contrived, and unsupported.

Furthurmore. Playing a string instrument is all about removing the tension from the body while keeping the mind focused on the task at hand. Still contradicting your point no I didn't hire someone to do an efficiency study, but my last four teachers can't be all wrong, plus five masterclasses by different teachers can't all be wrong, can they?

[3278]

You guys are so funny. Not as funny as Cain, though!

All right, then. Here's two examples, please tell me which constitutes "hard work":
1. Getting up early for school versus sleeping until the last second.

The very fact that you consider "getting up" to be work says more about the questioner than it does about the question. I don't know what the "goal" here is - getting to school, perhaps? - and thus it's pretty impossible to answer the question. I will gladly do so, however, if you can provide more details.

2. Calling in sick when you have a cold, or going in anyways to get stuff done.

Again, as Eli pointed out, we don't know what the goal is, so it's impossible to judge which effort is more concerted in pursuit of that goal. Presuming that workplace accomplishment is the goal, certainly, going into work is "hard work," compared to sitting at home. And obviously - in support of our position - the hard work in this case leads to vastly increased success over not working at all. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, since your pursuit of goals leads to possibly sickening your entire workplace, lowering overall workplace efficiency and thus success. Perhaps that's meant to be the "trick" in this question; I don't know. Your socratic method never works for you.

If it works for every single one of us, perhaps it works for a great many more people than you believe.

Actually, it doesn't work for any of you.

It's just incredible that you can maintain that position in the face of so many other people's opinions, people with more experience and success than you have. In fact, it's interesting to note that the one person who doesn't support hard work [Crone having ironed out her problems with my incomplete and ill-formed definitions], is the one who has been least "successful," provided your goal has been to make any money or insure economic stability. The second-least-successful person - me - is the one who attributes his lack of financial success to a lack of hard work in the direction of financial success, correctly or incorrectly.

I think it's pretty simple: if Eli practiced cello for five or ten minutes a day, between bouts of Tekken 3 and gulps of beer, he's not going to be as good a cellist as he would be if he practiced an hour a day. Two hours a day will make him better still. Three hours better still, and so on, up to some point where the physical and mental fatigue prevent him from making further progress. I firmly believe that Eli will agree with me, as would every one of his masters. You ascribe this to false self-diagnosis due to the Protestant work ethic, although many of those teachers likely aren't Protestant or american or even necessarily hard workers at anything but the cello. Certainly, at least two of the people supporting hard work here are not Protestant, nor were they raised Protestant. The concept that effort leads to success is hardly unique to one philosophy.

When measured objectively-- say by workplace efficiency studies-- then we see that "lazy" work often gets more done.

Okay, show me.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying increased effort equals increased performance [as a general rule]. Increasing your level of effort does not have to mean increased stress.

How does it differ? Physiologically, I mean. What's the difference between a heightened mental state and a stress-reaction state?

I have no idea, physiologically, beyond the fact that, as Eli says, hard work [concerted effort] doesn't at all need to mean increased stress. In fact, I find I'm much less stressed if I focus and relax. Anyway, I would be interested to know the physiological difference between a heightened mental state and a stress-reaction state, so if anyone knows, please, do tell. I know focus doesn't produce adrenaline, and that it doesn't cause long-term tissue damage or immune suppression, and in fact, that hard work makes these responses less likely even in times of stress. What I don't know is, physically, why.

Every study on workplace efficiency I've ever seen has been about reducing stress in the workplace. Why is that?

Because I don't have a real argument. [ed: Not, in case anyone's forgotten, what I said.]

Just like I thought.

I'm sorry, Cain, but the "giant dripping pussies" argument really was my real argument. Modern urban americans are giant dripping pussies. They're physically less capable in many cases than their hard-working rural counterparts; for instace, I don't know many farm workers who couldn't walk 15 miles at a stretch.

Out of curiousity, Cain, how much do you weigh, if that's not invasive?

Look, you claim that most people don't work hard; yet every study on workplace efficiency concludes that a reduction in workplace tension-- and tension is identical to concertedness, from any physical standpoint-- is correlated with an *increase* in productivity.

Tension is not identical to concertedness. That misconception is costing you severely. Either prove it, or let it go. And please, show me that "every" study on workplace efficiency concludes that people are overworked.

t it to be objective, it can't be a workplace study based on self-assessment, nor can it be about hours worked, since the former is subjective and almost always inaccurate, and the latter is not the sole arbiter of effort, or even a strong one.
I can't believe you're trying to welsh on the 50 bucks you owe me. We were talking about mini-breaks and shifting weight, and now you're talking about unconscious muscle contraction. Well, if you're going to be this way, please educate me about what mechanism causes me to shift weight through muscular contraction twice in a second. [Or give me my money.]
Okay, but how does this have anything to do with "hard work?" If your body does it subconsciously, and it cannot be supressed, then concerted effort cannot and will not prevent it, until the muscle is so fatigued it cannot contract, which is well beyond the point of diminishing returns.

[Cain]

Presuming that workplace accomplishment is the goal, certainly, going into work is "hard work," compared to sitting at home. And obviously - in support of our position - the hard work in this case leads to vastly increased success over not working at all. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, since your pursuit of goals leads to possibly sickening your entire workplace, lowering overall workplace efficiency and thus success.

Actually, recent studies suggest that going in when sick costs the American economy significantly more money per year than sick leave does. And it's not because of contagion-- it's because of lowered individual efficiency.

So, we see that "working smart" is staying home when you have a cold. Hard work is therefore directly incompatable with smart work. Again.

Earl, how many exceptions will it take to prove your rule is crap?

Anyway, I would be interested to know the physiological difference between a heightened mental state and a stress-reaction state, so if anyone knows, please, do tell.

There isn't one. The human body only has one state of arousal. It's the same for moments of concentration as it is for excitement as it is for flight or flight. Yes, adrenaline-- if you were being scientific, plasma epinephrine-- *is* being dumped into your system, as the sympathatic nervous systems increases its firing; and simply focusing does increase SNS system activity.

Think about it. What happens when you're scared, physiologically speaking? Heart rate increases, blood pressure rises, etc, right? What happens when you're aroused sexually? Heart rate increases, blood pressure rises, etc. What about when you're angry? Heart rate, blood pressure, again.

You only have one sympathetic nervous system, and it only does one thing-- it takes you to an aroused state, an excited state, a state designed to deal with things quicky. Unfortunately, we can't *stay* in that state for very long before negative health effects begin to kick in.

Well, if you're going to be this way, please educate me about what mechanism causes me to shift weight through muscular contraction twice in a second.

I would be glad to; except if you don't understand about sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous system activity, I'd never succeed in explaining it to you. There's a necessary sequence of topics that one has to go through in order to understand muscle physiology; if you don't understand how the nervous system works, you can't understand how muscles work.

Since I don't know how much math and biology you've actually studied-- as opposed to "picked up" out of conversations and magazines-- I'd have to educate you from scratch. I'm perfectly willing to keep tossing resources at you until we find something that's at your level; however I've learned to not overestimate you. So, let's start with this: here is a few starting resources to check your skills on. If those are too tough, I can find easier ones. If you can handle those, I'll step things up a bit.

Okay, but how does this have anything to do with "hard work?"

Because when we work hard, we do actively suppress it. And fatigue ourselves that much faster, I might add.

[Salvation122]

Presuming that workplace accomplishment is the goal, certainly, going into work is "hard work," compared to sitting at home. And obviously - in support of our position - the hard work in this case leads to vastly increased success over not working at all. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, since your pursuit of goals leads to possibly sickening your entire workplace, lowering overall workplace efficiency and thus success.

Actually, recent studies suggest that going in when sick costs the American economy significantly more money per year than sick leave does. And it's not because of contagion-- it's because of lowered individual efficiency.

Cite. (And stop using his name.)

[Ghotty]

Hey, fuck you 32. I'm a city boy, who performs manual labor, and frequently walks 15 miles straight! Oh..wait. Sorry. Yeah, most of the city people are pussies. That's why black kids take their wallets.

On another note, I have a question: Just what in the fuck are you guys talking about? If it's about hard work, then this is what I define as hard work(with lots of stress too!):

Lifting logs that are 6 inches(well, 5-6 3/4") wide, by 12 inches tall(again give or take some), and 5-12 feet long. Walking with these logs. Loading them into a house, then sliding them into the house from outside. Then going inside the house, tilting these logs up on end, bending down, and picking these logs(that are 12'x6"x12", remember this) up, and thrusting them into the air, hoping that a co-worker catches hold of one end before the log falls. Then pushing the sonafabitch up into the air, at which point I go get another one of these logs. Constant, or near constant movement, from 8 in the morning to 6 in the night.

Need i mention that this is in 100+ weather. In the sun. With horseflies the size of harrier jump-jets. And the added satisfaction of having no porta-jon, so I have to go take a shit in the forest, where swarms of light reconnassiance flies fly scouting and diversinary missions for the heavy fighter bomber yellow backed, green-eyed, sonafabitch that takes CHUNKS of your ass out when he bites it horsefly. With your boss screaming at you. With little or no water to drink. With the added stress of being flat broke, and wondering what you're gonna do about gas money home.

Is that Hard-work? I really want to know. Because if it's not, I'd like to know if this is:

climbing onto a rood. Laying plywood(4x8' sheets of 1/2" OSB). Nailing it off. Then laying felt on the roof, and nailing it. Working until blood drips from your fingers. Your knees are bloody and scratched. Your back is sunburned and covered in scratches and sawdust. Is this hard work?

Now, you could do like my cousin did, and just mope around and be a sad-sack. Do enough not to get fired. I guess. Take breaks and try not to work too hard. Or you can be like me. Work full-bore, balls to the walls, let's go, let's get this done. And see which one builds a house first. See, I like to take my breaks because I'm done with work, and I'm waiting on YOU, rather than keep you waiting on me.

And if that's not hardwork, I also have greenhouse experience, tree-cutting experience, land clearing experience, resteraunt kitchin experience and lord knows how much cleaning experience.

I don't really think i'm adding to this discussion, but it doesn't look like there's much of one.

[Marius]

The human body only has one state of arousal.

Think about it. What happens when you're scared, physiologically speaking? Heart rate increases, blood pressure rises, etc, right? What happens when you're aroused sexually? Heart rate increases, blood pressure rises, etc. What about when you're angry? Heart rate, blood pressure, again.

What doesn't happen when I'm working hard, when I'm concentrating, when I'm working in the zone? My blood pressure doesn't rise. My heart rate and respiration decrease. My stress drops. My efficiency increases. Because I'm concentrating.

Well, if you're going to be this way, please educate me about what mechanism causes me to shift weight through muscular contraction twice in a second.

I would be glad to; except if you don't understand about sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous system activity, I'd never succeed in explaining it to you. There's a necessary sequence of topics that one has to go through in order to understand muscle physiology; if you don't understand how the nervous system works, you can't understand how muscles work.

Try explaining it to me, then. I know a hell of a lot about the nervous system and about muscle physiology. If it turns out it really needs it (which I'm certain it won't) I can translate it into baby talk for 3278.

[Eliahad]

Ghotty: Hell yeah that's hard work. But what happens when you start writing a Shadowrun run, or start working on creative stuff, do you put in a whole shitload of effort into that too? I say, if you do, then you're doing hard work there too. Part of the discussion is that hard work doesn't have to be physical work.

[3278]

Actually, recent studies suggest that going in when sick costs the American economy significantly more money per year than sick leave does. And it's not because of contagion-- it's because of lowered individual efficiency.

...and? Is your point actually that:
Staying home sick is "smart work" [despite the fact it isn't actually work].
Going into work sick is "hard work" [which it only is in comparison to staying home asleep].
Going into work while sick costs more than sick leave because of "lowered individual efficiency."
Therefore, hard work isn't better than easy work.

Is that your point? Because that's not a particularly good point. You're saying smart work is better than hard work, but your example of smart work isn't work, and your example of hard work is already acknowledged to be a bad idea [although because of contagion, which I understand to be vastly more devastating than one person's lack of efficiency, since contagion is exponential].

Earl, how many exceptions will it take to prove your rule is crap?

Well, if you could prove just one - if, in fact, one of your exceptions could withstand even a few rounds of discussion without being absolutely disproven - then perhaps we could talk about it. And please, stop using my name.

Well, if you're going to be this way, please educate me about what mechanism causes me to shift weight through muscular contraction twice in a second.

I would be glad to; except if you don't understand about sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous system activity, I'd never succeed in explaining it to you. There's a necessary sequence of topics that one has to go through in order to understand muscle physiology; if you don't understand how the nervous system works, you can't understand how muscles work.

That's the saddest dodge I've seen from you this week. I will surely enjoy your explanation to Marius at least as much as I will enjoy the fifty dollars you'll have to pay me afterward.

So, let's start with this: here is a few starting resources to check your skills on. If those are too tough, I can find easier ones. If you can handle those, I'll step things up a bit.

Dude, where's this anger coming from? You know, this entire time, everyone has been unfailingly polite to you, or at least not half as rude as you have been in return, and now you're pointing "The Other Math Guy" at a mathematics site for 7-year-olds just because you made a stupid bet and got proven wrong. Get some sleep; get some sex; grow up. Something.

[3278]

Your body takes "micro breaks"on a subconscious level. "Micro tremors" are your muscles relaxing, then recontracting. They take a break for a moment, re-energize themselves, and then fire again.

Okay, but how does this have anything to do with "hard work?" If your body does it subconsciously, and it cannot be supressed, then concerted effort cannot and will not prevent it, until the muscle is so fatigued it cannot contract, which is well beyond the point of diminishing returns.

Because when we work hard, we do actively suppress it. And fatigue ourselves that much faster, I might add.

Wait, what? You're saying that when we work hard, we actively supress the autonomic microtremors? Proof, please?

By the way, you're certainly under no obligation to respond to all the points of mine that you've ignored, but I would highly recommend you re-read my last post and ask yourself how you could possibly be correct about this issue when you cannot address even the simplest of challenges, such as encouragement to link to the workplace efficiency studies on which your entire argument now rests.

[Bishop]

Ghotty: Amen, brother. Sawmills are the bomb for physical labor. Especially hardwood cants. Gotta love those.

[crone]

In fact, it's interesting to note that the one person who doesn't support hard work [Crone having ironed out her problems with my incomplete and ill-formed definitions], is the one who has been least "successful," provided your goal has been to make any money or insure economic stability. The second-least-successful person - me - is the one who attributes his lack of financial success to a lack of hard work in the direction of financial success, correctly or incorrectly.

If thinking there is a place for hard work = supporting it, then OK.

Hard work is therefore directly incompatable with smart work.

Does everyone agree that this is sometimes true?

[Eliahad]

If you can tell me some circumstances by which it is not true, sure. I think some people who work hard don't realize that they can work smarter sure.

[Cain]

Staying home sick is "smart work" [despite the fact it isn't actually work].
Going into work sick is "hard work" [which it only is in comparison to staying home asleep].
Going into work while sick costs more than sick leave because of "lowered individual efficiency."
Therefore, hard work isn't better than easy work.

Is that your point?

Yes. Sometimes, resting gets more accomplished than working. Incidentally, here is a link to that story. "Presenteeism" can easily cost much more than absenteeism.

Well, if you could prove just one....

I have. You've admitted that "hard work" doesn't increase productivity above a certain point; that it only works for short-term boosts, and that it isn't even a primary factor in financial success. How many more exceptions do you need?

That's the saddest dodge I've seen from you this week.

Okay, fine. I'll try to break it down simply for you. In fact, I'm going to dramatically oversimplify the case; I know you're going to come back with a bunch of "But that's not always true!" whines, so I'm going to say that it's oversimplified right now, and save us a bundle of trouble.

Every example of "hard work" you provide is an example of increased productivity. Someone "works harder", they get more done. Well, that means they have to do more physically. Now, your body has one system that controls your physical speed, and that is your sympathetic nervous system. Any demand for an increase in physical activity causes your SNS to increase activity. This causes, among other things, an increase in plasma epinephrine-- in laymans terms, you dump adrenaline into your blood. Your blood vessels constrict, your cardiac output goes up, your respiration increases, and so on. You begin to increase your body's arousal, and are capable of greater feats than you were before. That's the "working harder" increase that you've been discussing.

The problem is, of course, that we can't really maintain that for very long. Before long, your blood pressure becomes dangerously high; your skeletal muscles have run out of fuel and are forced into secondary measures, causing fatigue poisons to build up; your blood pH begins to become increasingly acidic. You have to slow down. And now, you're in "Oxygen debt"-- you body needs to take the time to replenish the resources it expended. It takes much longer for your body to replenish its resources than it does to maintain them, so you end up needing a longer rest to reach full recovery.

Now, if you're capable of working at a maintained pace, without overly invoking your SNS, you can maintain things for a longer period. You don't have *any* fatigue poison buildup, you're using your body's resources at maximum efficiency. You don't need to rest as often, so you can continue for longer.

So, "hard work" is concerted work, which is work that's difficult for your body. Like Ghotty pointed out, heavy manual labor is hard work in every sense of the word. "Smart work" is efficient work, which means finding the easiest way of doing something. In Ghotty's case, that'd be getting a forklift and gas-powered comealong.

By the way, you're certainly under no obligation to respond to all the points of mine that you've ignored, but I would highly recommend you re-read my last post and ask yourself how you could possibly be correct about this issue when you cannot address even the simplest of challenges, such as encouragement to link to the workplace efficiency studies on which your entire argument now rests.

I'm sorry, I didn't see many actual questions or arguments in your last post. And I have linked to that study. In the meanwhile, I want to know why you suddenly develop amnesia every time you play a video game or have sex. Could you clarify that for me?

[Eliahad]

So financial success is the only goal worth working hard for?

Anyway, 32 can say anything I want to say better, and I'm feeling lazy and don't want to work hard at the goal of 'convincing Cain that he's using big words in an effort to pull a fast one on people who are, apparently, smarter than him.' Actually, doesn't seem worth it at all. I guess I'm working smarter, I'll go put my effort into something else so I'm working smarter /and/ harder.

Wow, my pulse hasn't quickened at all.

[Salvation122]

I have. You've admitted that "hard work" doesn't increase productivity above a certain point; that it only works for short-term boosts, and that it isn't even a primary factor in financial success. How many more exceptions do you need?

He admitted that there's a point of diminishing returns, which validates your first point but does not address the other two.

Well, that means they have to do more physically.

No.

And I have linked to that study.

Well, /now/ you've linked to a CNN article that /references/ that study, but those aren't really the same thing.

In the meanwhile, I want to know why you suddenly develop amnesia every time you play a video game or have sex. Could you clarify that for me?

Cain, sex is kinda a distraction. Now, maybe that changes for someone who's had his balls tied off, I dunno, but for me, it's a big enough distraction that any sort of study - besides that of the woman whose company I am sharing - is an impossibility.

[sinsual]

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat...?

<VC "Bishop"> *WHAM* PAX ROMANA! are you listening yet?</vc>

[Cain]

Cain, sex is kinda a distraction. Now, maybe that changes for someone who's had his balls tied off, I dunno, but for me, it's a big enough distraction that any sort of study - besides that of the woman whose company I am sharing - is an impossibility.

Yeah, but he said he can't retain anything during sex or video games. I want to know how it's possible that he develops total amnesia during sex. Either he's doing something very wrong, or very right.

[Salvation122]

He said nothing of the sort:

Wow. You sure are rare, then, since almost no one can memorize /anything/ while having sex and playing video games at the same time. You must be really, really cool.

What, you mean you can't?

No, I just said I can't. When I'm having sex, I'm thinking about the sex I'm having. My concentration is solely on the woman in question, and if you asked me to recite the pledge of allegiance, I probably wouldn't be able to. I really, you know, get into sex. Is this strange? Does anyone else feel they'd have difficulty memorizing 20 vocabulary words while having sex and playing a video game?

There is a difference between remembering that your girlfriend likes it when you touch her a certain way and studying Calculus during sex. You know that. So please, for the love of God, drop this argument.

[Bishop]

But it's sort of amusing. Kind of like drilling holes in your head is amusing.

[Cain]

He said nothing of the sort:

What, you mean you can't?

No, I just said I can't....

There is a difference between remembering that your girlfriend likes it when you touch her a certain way and studying Calculus during sex. You know that. So please, for the love of God, drop this argument.

He did say as much. And he still doesn't seem to understand how mnemnonics work.

Let me try this one again. Since he decided to flip out over it, I'll explain how I remember Boyle's Law. Boyle's Law states that under conditions of constant temperature and quantity, there is an inverse relationship between the volume and pressure for an ideal gas-- which is fine and dandy as far as it goes, and is correct, but that's a mouthful. I'm too lazy to bother memorizing that whole damn thing. I can shortcut it some, down to P1V1=P2V2, which is easier, but it's just letters and numbers.

Well, most people have an easier time remembering jokes. So, "Smaller pipes have higer pressures!", being mildly scatological, is easier for me to remember than the full text of Boyle's law. But now, I need to make sure I can keep the two linked together in my head.

Generally, I just think back to the last person I told this to, which is why I told him I'd be linking him with it. (Yes, I remember everyone I explained that to. Go figure.) But then, he happened to respond with that incredible amount of compensation. Since people remember jokes better than other things, I now link it to the biggest joke I know; now all I have to remember is "Boyle's law = Earl's Law."

See? It's to remember four words than a huge long sentence and related equasion. "Hard work" would be reciting Boyle's law over and over until it sticks. "Smart work" is reducing it to four words that make you giggle. They're not the same thing at all.

[FlakJacket]

But it's sort of amusing. Kind of like drilling holes in your head is amusing.

You'd probably just snap the drill-bit or break the motor.

[Salvation122]

He's not talking about mnemnonics:

Wow. You sure are rare, then, since almost no one can memorize /anything/ while having sex and playing video games at the same time. You must be really, really cool.

so stop trying to defend your argument by claiming you were really making another argument (EvanMoore's Fallacy.)

[Ghotty]

Eli: Well, true now. However, I do all my creative stuff as leisure, rather than as work. I enjoy both things, however, I don't like the stress of having to work being applied to my art, writing or general creative thinking. Forcing ideas isn't a good thing. They tend to come out feeling contrived and weak.

However, things such as doing web pages, or coding, or entering data, isn't what strikes me as "hard" work. It's not difficult. In fact, it's the exact opposite. It's so mind-numbingly simple that it begins to cause your mind to zone out, and you go on "auto-pilot". But because you can't think too deeply on other things, this results in the day creeping by.

This is also why I don't sondier retail, or fast food work, or bagging groceries/cashier to be hard work. Or school to be hard. It's just tedious. It annoys me because it's not difficult. When I spend 5 hours pulling stock for a store, I don't feel like I've done something the average man couldn't. When I build a flight of stairs in 5 hours, or a couplr walls. Or even if all I do is haul a bunch of logs and lumber, I feel good. I feel like I'm accomplishing something.

I see hard work as satisfying, but difficult. Same as solving a very complex equations. Which I'm sure 32 could agree with me on(I too can now see the beauty of math. But only when I beat the bitch, or get sloshed). However, the equations I solve are childsplay to many in here. But when I do it, I feel the same as when I draw a fine picture, build something or type a nice article. I feel like I've succedded. that I've made some form of progress.

Here we go: I'll define hard work as that which reqiures a large amount of effort invested into it. But which returns that investment with personal satisfaction of a job well done. Of doing something that many couldn't do.

We can compare this to shadowrun, in a way. Do you fill satisfied when you make a ranged attack with pistols 6, vs. a TN of 2? Not really. It's routine. It's dull. Even with 5 or more successes, it isn't really surprising. But that TN6, or TN8. That's satisfying. It makes you feel like you really did something.

This is all my opinion, and I could be wrong(in fact, we can bet on it. )

[Bishop]

But it's sort of amusing. Kind of like drilling holes in your head is amusing.

You'd probably just snap the drill-bit or break the motor.

Yeah, but it'd be an accident. I never /mean/ to break anything.




Well, ok, so sometimes I do. But I don't wanna get this thread off track. Sorry, guys.

[MissTeja]

He did say as much. And he still doesn't seem to understand how mnemnonics work.

Echo Sal. He wasn't talking about mneumonics. Here you go twisting his words again. If anyone would have the capacity to learn vocabulary while having sex and playing Playstation, it would probably be 32. Thing is, he doesn't care to because he's not a dumbass who wishes for his girlfriend to whack him upside the head for doing so, which she probably would. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it. I know the woman better than pretty much anybody, even him. So, stop twisting his words and stop using his name. Please.

[Bishop]

Please don't sully Good Gumby's name like that, Teja.

[MissTeja]

Oh Bish, good buddy. I'm sorry. Please, do forgive me.

[3278]

Sometimes, resting gets more accomplished than working.

Sure. But not very often. And not in the case of working sick versus not working: 8 hours of half-assed effort still accomplishes more than 8 hours of no effort.

Incidentally, here is a link to that story. "Presenteeism" can easily cost much more than absenteeism.

That story doesn't say that at all. In fact, let me quote from it: "Lori Rosen, a workplace analyst for CCH Inc., a Riverwoods, Illinois-based trade group that does an annual nationwide survey on absenteeism, acknowledged presenteeism is a problem but said absenteeism still costs employers more, an average of $645 per employee per year." This compared to the $255 the Cornell study estimates is caused by presenteeism.

Okay, fine. I'll try to break it down simply for you. In fact, I'm going to dramatically oversimplify the case; I know you're going to come back with a bunch of "But that's not always true!" whines, so I'm going to say that it's oversimplified right now, and save us a bundle of trouble.

My lord. That's the medical explanation of microtremors you're giving to Marius? I think maybe you owe /him/ fifty bucks now, too.