Good point. I agree the word "productivity" is bundled up with many meanings, and it could be a whole study in-itself to unpack it. Preliminarily, I'd say productivity is pragmatic towards-which one identifies oneself (a hunter hunts, a writer writes, etc).
I've been reading Being and Time recently, and Heidegger makes an interesting distinction between what is "ontic" (a writer writing, for example) and "ontological" (a writer investigating the state of being behind writing). In this context, productivity interestingly can be in both the following ideas:
Ontically, productivity writing a book.
Ontologically, productivity is understanding of the way of being a writer comports oneself to be a writer.
I think both ideas are equally important. I'm not sure why I'm writing this; maybe to address the difficulty with pinning down a consensus of what productivity means. but happy saturday!
Thanks for the writeup. I think you're right: the idea of external validation / accountability is definitely involved here as well.
And I think it's easy to read what I wrote to mean that "shame is objectively bad," but that was not my intention. The intention was more to question (and possibly reevaluate) our own relationships to it.
> I find happiness from productivity because I try my best to work on projects that I find meaningful
In the end, it comes down to what makes you thrive, and only you can answer that. Productivity, in its most general sense, can be a way to achieve that. At the same time, for me, it is healthy to question these assumptions every once in a while.
Good points! I agree the feeling of shame is pre-reflective. At the same time, I think we have the possibility of comporting ourselves in a way-of-being that better copes with shame. For me, By reflectively using your pre-reflective feeling of shame as a tool for productivity feels wrong (and this is personal and I don't have the best words right now to expound that feeling)
Okay, so shame exists because it is good for a society that is built on shame? I don't mean to be derogatory in anyway, but the fact something is stabilizing doesn't mean it is good. I believe there are better ways to build relationships with others
Yes, I'm not questioning whether one would be more productive (I think actually someone would be more productive!). It's the value of this productiveness in the context of manipulating shame. Maybe for you shame is not a factor here, and that's great. I can only know me, and for me, the act of having someone watch over my shoulder (and only watch over my shoulder) as I work would have some level of shame/guilt involved.
No, I'm not referring to pair programming. That is a dialogue between two people working to get something done (no shame involved).
I'm focussing more on the aspect of having someone looking over your shoulder. Just a pair of eyes to watch you work (which I don't equate with pair programming)
Anybody else get an immediately negative visceral reaction from this? If I'm understanding this correctly, the aim is to manipulate our sense of shame/guilt to boost productivity.
After sitting with the feeling for a bit, here are some ideas that come to mind:
1. Maybe we should ask why we feel shame/guilt in the first place. Is it "normal" to feel this? If it isn't we should not rely on it for our happiness (or productivity).
2. What is the value of productivity? Why does it make us happy?
For me, guilt/shame is something to be overcome, not used as a tool. And the value of productivity is something that has been handed down to us by a culture which we've been thrown into. And (at least for me), it's our duty to question these ideas instead of merely giving into them to self-reinforce themselves.
You're right; I don't know OP, and I've probably made some assumptions that are incorrect, but that's just the inevitable consequence of stating anything positively. I did, however, try not to attempt to state anything about OP's personal character or feelings. My initial inspiration for my comment was based on the quote you mentioned above: he channeled his anger/frustration into his craft. To me, that sounded like he found a dwelling in his craft for programming, and it reminded me of one of my own personal experiences
A passion is something that is personal and internal. It's your direct experience with a craft that is becomes a natural extension of you. When you change your relationship to that craft such that you require some external means, it no longer becomes purely internal. In today's culture, which (I believe) overvalues monetization and productivity, it is easy to be swept into external desires for accomplishment. And, even if you do achieve your goals, it is very difficult to go back to re-experience the original internal, personal relationship you enjoyed with that craft
Given the post's lack of detail relating to the experience of creating the game itself, I fear OP is treating his craft as a means to an end; instead of loving his craft for what it is. I fell into a similar trap when, after leaving my job to pursue my "passion," I became my own slavemaster, treating myself as resource for production, and eventually learned to hate my once cherished activities. I hope OP's game succeeds; regardless, I would not recommend, to anyone, to pursue a personal hobby, dwelling, or passion as a means to reaching some external reward.
The person came forward with the device and it was determined that the phone wasn't actually a Galaxy Note 7, but was just named that way. We were very close to being diverted though.
I was on this flight. The flight wasn't late; but we almost had to be diverted because no one came forward with the device. It took about 30 minutes and 4-5 reminders from the flight attendant and pilot to resolve the issue, making me think the person either forgot he renamed it to that or he himself was pranked and didn't realize his phone was renamed until he took a second look. I was hoping someone didn't buy a galaxy note 7 as a gift and had it in a bag somewhere. But yeah, definitely one of the more interesting flights i've been on :/
I've been reading Being and Time recently, and Heidegger makes an interesting distinction between what is "ontic" (a writer writing, for example) and "ontological" (a writer investigating the state of being behind writing). In this context, productivity interestingly can be in both the following ideas:
Ontically, productivity writing a book. Ontologically, productivity is understanding of the way of being a writer comports oneself to be a writer.
I think both ideas are equally important. I'm not sure why I'm writing this; maybe to address the difficulty with pinning down a consensus of what productivity means. but happy saturday!