NationStates Jolt Archive

Intelligence or strong work ethic. It seems that for a lot of people, especially in the college age crowd, they fit into either category but not both. for me, I've usually fallen into the intelligence category. For instance, I can write a paper the night before its due and get a good grade/mark on it. Or I can study a half hour before a test and do better than someone who has studied for many nights. Its kind of nice to have that ability, but part of me feels bad. I feel like those who work hard should be rewarded, as opposed to people like me who are just a bit more gifted (I'm seriously not trying to brag on myself). So, what I want to know is what NSG thinks is a better quality to have. Imagine you can't have both for a moment. Would you rather have intelligence and a poor work ethic, or would you rather work hard and have a less than stellar intelligence level? Why?

Intelligence all the way. I struggle to understand my modules through the entire year, come across as thick in the extreme, and only manage to pull off a creditable performance through hard work on essays and revision throughotu the year. Whereas other people in the seminar just read a text, don't even make notes and seem to understand all the concpets. The time I have to devote to working also means I have virtually no space for a social life (though to be honest I strongly doubt I'd have one anyway).

intelligence if you smart enough you can make anything seem ethical.

Intelligence is overrated.

Work ethic. Grass is always greener, perhaps.

I think intelligence is more subjective than it's generally perceived, though. Richard Feyman only scored a 124 on an IQ test, but there is no bloody way that I'm smarter than Richard Feynman.

why work hard when you can not?

hell, why work at all? work is bad for you, avoid if possible.

I don't know which is more valuable, but I know which is more durable. *nod*

Work ethic.

How many smart people achieve nothing at all because they are lazy?

Work ethic.

How many smart people achieve nothing at all because they are lazy?

lots. but they have more fun doing it.

Work ethic.

How many smart people achieve nothing at all because they are lazy?

lack of achievement by your standards.
perhaps they realize they don't need a lot of crap to be happy.

lack of achievement by your standards.
perhaps they realize they don't need a lot of crap to be happy.

Owning things is irrelevent, it's hard to use your intelligence to better the world without hard work.

Common sense is worth more than both

Smart people without a good work ethic aren't any better off than dumb people without a work ethic. A good work ethic is always valuable.

If you spoke about work ethics as not selling NDA data to the competitors, I'd say work ethics.

But if work ethics are being an obedient uncreative office shrimp, then obviously they're worthless.

What if you're convinced you're more intelligent than you actually are, and thus have no work ethic?

Have enough intelligence to know how much you can reduce your work ethic without failing.

Have enough intelligence to know how much you can reduce your work ethic without failing.

Define failing?

Define failing?
Failing an exam, failing at whatever you were supposed to be working on.

Failing an exam, failing at whatever you were supposed to be working on.

This is what I struggle with, the idea the raw intelligence is something to be used to take the easiest path.

I see intelligence as a gift to be used to it's fullest extent for the betterment of all, not just to complete a task to the minimum required extent.

Like the old saying:

Work smarter, not harder.

It doesn't matter how hard you work, as long as you accomplish the goal, what's the difference?

I fall into the intelligence vote by the way. This is because I'm intelligent, but with horrible work ethics. I still get my shit done though:)

This is what I struggle with, the idea the raw intelligence is something to be used to take the easiest path.

I see intelligence as a gift to be used to it's fullest extent for the betterment of all, not just to complete a task to the minimum required extent.
Ah, it's easy if you try.

I see intelligence as a gift to be used to it's fullest extent for the betterment of all, not just to complete a task to the minimum required extent.

sure. it's just that "the betterment of all" must involve killing the work ethic and arranging a less insane society.

It depends on the trade-off between intelligence and work ethic. Is it the difference between a guy who works 18 hour days at minimum wage and Manfred Macx, a fictional character from Charles Stross's Accelerando, who comes up with a number of get rich-quick schemes that work each day but has the attention span of a squirrel on crack? What's less than stellar intelligence and how gifted would one be in this hypothetical?

sure. it's just that "the betterment of all" must involve killing the work ethic and arranging a less insane society.

Changing society would probably involve a lot of hard work. :p

Changing society would probably involve a lot of hard work. :p

sure, but it must be freely chosen and the work cannot be an end in itself. working hard is not a virtue.

sure, but it must be freely chosen and the work cannot be an end in itself. working hard is not a virtue.

Isn't a hard work ethic a choice by definition?

Changing society would probably involve a lot of hard work. :p

It might, but one could work very hard for all of one's life and not alter society one iota or one could have such a brilliant idea that others do all the work for one.

It might, but one could work very hard for all of one's life and not alter society one iota or one could have such a brilliant idea that others do all the work for one.

Possibly, name one such idea.

Isn't a hard work ethic a choice by definition?

not so much, no. the work ethic is a set of moral claims about the virtue of hard work as such. since such a thing is trivially crazy and detrimental to society, anyone that works hard to conform with it is acting improperly.

not so much, no. the work ethic is a set of moral claims about the virtue of hard work as such.

So morals aren't a choice?

I say intelligence, because my work ethic consists of: "It'll be done when I feel like it". So I prefer to think my intelligence makes up for it.:D

Possibly, name one such idea.

Every ideological concept ever, the notion of the limited liability corporation, limited government, the first blog that spawned imitators and eventually gave rise to the blogoshere, lolcats, ect.

better to be a retard with a stupid grin than a miserable genius who will never amount to anything.

course through experience me being a lazy fuck (albeit cunning as a fox) hasn't really done me any favours

Every ideological concept ever, the notion of the limited liability corporation, limited government, the first blog that spawned imitators and eventually gave rise to the blogoshere, lolcats, ect.

work ethic puts food on the table

Every ideological concept ever, the notion of the limited liability corporation, limited government, the first blog that spawned imitators and eventually gave rise to the blogoshere, lolcats, ect.

And none of these ideas required any work from the originator whatsoever?

So morals aren't a choice?

its not a matter of whether the morals themselves are a choice. that would be choice at a totally different level than the choice of freely choosing to work hard at something out of love or a sense that the actual thing being accomplished is important, or not. that is choice. working harder because a strange moral code demands it is not a choice in the proper sense.

its not a matter of whether the morals themselves are a choice. that would be choice at a totally different level than the choice of freely choosing to work hard at something out of love or a sense that the actual thing being accomplished is important, or not. that is choice. working harder because a strange moral code demands it is not a choice in the proper sense.

How so?

If my strange moral choices resulted in me hunting down and murdering abortion doctors is would still be my choice. It may not be a good idea but I'd have chosen to do it.

work ethic puts food on the table

no, it doesn't. the work ethic puts food on other people's tables. that is its point.

no, it doesn't. the work ethic puts food on other people's tables. that is its point.

not if your a farmer :p

And none of these ideas required any work from the originator whatsoever?

It depends on what one means by work ethic. Blogging, writing political tracts with little effort, discovering a way to manage risk while hiring others to actually start a corporation out don't necessarily qualify as strong work ethic.

It depends on what one means by work ethic. Blogging, writing political tracts with little effort, discovering a way to manage risk while hiring others to actually start a corporation out don't necessarily qualify as strong work ethic.

OK, who wrote the first blog?

How so?

because you are comparing two different levels of choice. these choices are no more equivalent than the choice of "do X of die" is the same sort of thing as my choice of pants in the morning. we could use 'choice' in some really wide sense, but it misses key distinctions. i am proposing that the choice to work hard at something ought be like the choice of pants, rather than something done to conform with a mistaken idea of virtue.

not if your a farmer :p

especially if you are a farmer. emphatically so. farmers producing surpluses is how we got into this mess.

OK, who wrote the first blog?

I have no idea. Do you thing they worked extremely hard to spread the concept around?

I have no idea. Do you thing they worked extremely hard to spread the concept around?

No, but I'd wager they worked hard to create a website on which it could be hosted.

No, but I'd wager they worked hard to create a website on which it could be hosted.

wow, we are getting down to some awesome levels of hard work here. if we come up with a revised work ethic in which this is the level at which you start being virtuous, i might be somewhat satisfied with the concept.

I have no idea. Do you thing they worked extremely hard to spread the concept around?

The point is that such innovations do not spring fully-formed from the minds of lounging geniuses. They require the collective effort of a whole society.

If we assume that a work ethic is in-born (which I don't) intelligence is better, so you can get work done faster. If you assume its not, than hard work is better, because it can help you gain intelligence.

No, but I'd wager they worked hard to create a website on which it could be hosted.

It is not far-fetched that they enjoyed this and did it as a leisure activity.There are a lot of people whom I would consider on the lazier side but would play for hours on a new computer game, to master it, and beat it.

The point is that such innovations do not spring fully-formed from the minds of lounging geniuses. They require the collective effort of a whole society.

Which is much different from the personal work ethic of the original innovator.

It is not far-fetched that they enjoyed this and did it as a leisure activity.There are a lot of people whom I would consider on the lazier side but would play for hours on a new computer game, to master it, and beat it.

Just because you enjoy something it doesn't mean it's not work. I love my job but it's still work.

wow, we are getting down to some awesome levels of hard work here. if we come up with a revised work ethic in which this is the level at which you start being virtuous, i might be somewhat satisfied with the concept.

How do you mean?

Which is much different from the personal work ethic of the original innovator.

But the idea of crediting a single originator for a cultural meme like blogs is pointless. And even if that were the case, the idea of periodically updated content on a website is not so radical that I would credit this originator with dramatically changing society.

Just because you enjoy something it doesn't mean it's not work. I love my job but it's still work.

True, but a long-time unemployed loser in their thirties wh spends 12-18 hours a day mastering online games and blogging is usually not someone known for their work ethic.

I know students who are smart but so lazy they fail because they can't be bothered to meet any deadlines or responsibilities.

I know students who are slow but work steadily and get the job done quite well.

If I were hiring someone, I'd go for the person who does the job well over the brilliant slacker.

some reading material for the thread:

betrand russell's "in praise of idleness" (http://www.panarchy.org/russell/idleness.1932.html)

bob black's "the abolition of work" (http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm)

john maynard keynes' "economic possibilities for our grandchildren" (http://www.eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/368keynesgrandchildren.html)


and for those that don't click links
http://deoxy.org/gif/workfree.gif

True, but a long-time unemployed loser in their thirties wh spends 12-18 hours a day mastering online games and blogging is usually not someone known for their work ethic.

It depends on how you define a work ethic. If they've chosen to devote their time to mastering Eve Online then they're still working hard, it's the definition of useful work you're discussing.

It depends on how you define a work ethic. If they've chosen to devote their time to mastering Eve Online then they're still working hard, it's the definition of useful work you're discussing.

This is true, but usually when the "work ethic" is used its used for paid employment, work one wouldn't do if one wasn't paid, or work done for credentials to be used to gain paid employment.

What do brilliant people with no work ethic do with their time?

It depends on how you define a work ethic. If they've chosen to devote their time to mastering Eve Online then they're still working hard, it's the definition of useful work you're discussing.

so the only options are being in a coma or having a work ethic?

we have several Intelligent people with piss poor work ethics here... as well as people not so intelligent with great work ethics.

guess which group gets more complaints by our customers?

If I were hiring someone, I'd go for the person who does the job well over the brilliant slacker.

we have several Intelligent people with piss poor work ethics here... as well as people not so intelligent with great work ethics.

guess which group gets more complaints by our customers?

what makes those things the proper standard for judgment?

what makes those things the proper standard for judgment?

experience in the workplace vs Theorizing which is more important.

experience in the workplace vs Theorizing which is more important.

theorizing, obviously. otherwise we'd all still be planting things with a digging stick, barely scratching out a living in the best of times.

and at this point in history, work only exists above some very minimal level because our social system demands it rather than out of necessity.

theorizing, obviously. otherwise we'd all still be planting things with a digging stick, barely scratching out a living in the best of times.

and at this point in history, work only exists above some very minimal level because our social system demands it rather than out of necessity.

wrong analogy. after all, those working in the feild are still working while those creating new inventions are... guess what... working! after all, they are putting their inventions together and testing them out.

a good work ethic is not one who does manual labor, but has a belief in the moral benefit and importance of work and its inherent ability to strengthen character. so an inventor and innovator can still have a good work ethic.

now someone who theorizes and insists that his theories are correct without even trying to test them out does NOT have a good work ethic and would hardly be the one to improve our "planting things with a digging stick."

oh and the complete second choice is "Theorizing which is more important".

wrong analogy. after all, those working in the feild are still working while those creating new inventions are... guess what... working! after all, they are putting their inventions together and testing them out.

this definition of 'work' makes the options working or being unconscious. there are non-work activities, and these are not distinguished from work by effort, but rather by their freely chosen nature.

a good work ethic is not one who does manual labor, but has a belief in the moral benefit and importance of work and its inherent ability to strengthen character. so an inventor and innovator can still have a good work ethic.

not if they are motivated by wanting to work less hard. if hard work is something to be maximized, then any innovation that lessens the amount of necessary work must be bad.

the fact that we don't treat it as such just shows that the whole work ethic idea is an empty shell game performed for the benefit of the rich and powerful. i mean, it's this viewpoint that lets us have absolutely ridiculous increases in productivity combined with demands that people keep working just as hard (and often for the same or less pay, since the system isn't just insane, but evil).

would hardly be the ones to take us OUT of the hunter-gatherer society.

that's ok, at least that was a good life. it's when you hit agriculture and start accumulating surpluses that the problems hit.

this definition of 'work' makes the options working or being unconscious. there are non-work activities, and these are not distinguished from work by effort, but rather by their freely chosen nature. work, in and of itself. does not define a work ethic. it's the attitude towards 'work' that defines it. so an inventor who is inventing is 'working'.

not if they are motivated by wanting to work less hard. if hard work is something to be maximized, then any innovation that lessens the amount of necessary work must be bad.

the fact that we don't treat it as such just shows that the whole work ethic idea is an empty shell game performed for the benefit of the rich and powerful. i mean, it's this viewpoint that lets us have absolutely ridiculous increases in productivity combined with demands that people keep working just as hard (and often for the same or less pay, since the system isn't just insane, but evil).
Except it doesn't matter the motivation, but the attitude to the work itself. so yes, people working hard so they can relax and enjoy 'retirement' can still be considered to have good work ethics. finding more effecient ways to work can 'lessen' the amount of work to be done but is not an indicator of poor work ethics.

and the idea that the rich and powerful don't work is a myth. they just work differently.

that's ok, at least that was a good life. it's when you hit agriculture and start accumulating surpluses that the problems hit.nah, it's when people start to think, "I don't need to work because there is a surplus" is where the problems begin. ;)

sure. it's just that "the betterment of all" must involve killing the work ethic and arranging a less insane society.

This.

I can write a paper the night before its do

haha.

I think that's all I'll say.

Owning things is irrelevent, it's hard to use your intelligence to better the world without hard work.

bettering things according to whom ?
there is no one agreement on what bettering the world is. perhaps the intelligent realize it is better to drop away from society and work on their thoughts.

thoughts are fine but the creation of anything requires hard work.

This is what I struggle with, the idea the raw intelligence is something to be used to take the easiest path.

I see intelligence as a gift to be used to it's fullest extent for the betterment of all, not just to complete a task to the minimum required extent.

You, sir, are a genius.

work, in and of itself. does not define a work ethic. it's the attitude towards 'work' that defines it. so an inventor who is inventing is 'working'.

didn't say that it did. i think you'll find that inventors by and large invent because they love tinkering with stuff. it is not work, properly construed, any more than my training to be a better rock climber is work.

Except it doesn't matter the motivation, but the attitude to the work itself.

exactly. "doing this sucks, i can make it easier" is fundamentally incompatible with the work ethic. the work ethic demands that we accept the work itself as good (or conducive to good, perhaps). making it easier or lessening the amount of it is to refrain from acting virtuously; to engage in vice, if you will.

and the idea that the rich and powerful don't work is a myth. they just work differently.

i don't recall saying they necessarily do not. my claim is that the work ethic serves them, by making the rest of us work hard while they receive the benefits of that labor.

nah, it's when people start to think, "I don't need to work because there is a surplus" is where the problems begin. ;)

the sad history of the human race says otherwise

thoughts are fine but the creation of anything requires hard work.

maybe, for the time being. however, at current productivity levels, we could live at the living standard of the 1960s by working a less than half the amount we do. and in freeing up that much more human potential from drudgery, we would almost certainly find ways to boost productivity at even faster rates than the significant rate we've been going at for over a century.

maybe, for the time being. however, at current productivity levels, we could live at the living standard of the 1960s by working a less than half the amount we do. and in freeing up that much more human potential from drudgery, we would almost certainly find ways to boost productivity at even faster rates than the significant rate we've been going at for over a century.

No offense, but you seem to be talking from a sheltered perspective. I think you're in a far off fantasy land. You're assuming that some mediocre workers can be supported while most of the rest are busting their ass to the extreme just to live; it's like saying Americans deserve to live relatively well while doing nothing special while some people in the developing world work 10 times as hard for 10% of the standard. Nevermind if it's fair or not, or that it's the status quo, that's irrelevant, the point is it's not sustainable. Your premise is fantasy. I don't see how if people take more for doing less is going to promote "productivity" in any way shape or form; I would say it might promote the delusion of increased productivity, though it probably wouldn't last for long. People need to bust their ass to get anything important done, that's the bottom line.

sure, but it must be freely chosen and the work cannot be an end in itself. working hard is not a virtue.

Being intelligent isn't a virtue, either. And actually I think there is a little of a false dichotomy here. I know very few intelligent people who are not also hard workers. They may not wish to work hard at what other people ask them to do, but still spend plenty of energy reading or tinkering doing what they like, which allows them to do well on a test or job.

No offense, but you seem to be talking from a sheltered perspective. I think you're in a far off fantasy land. You're assuming that some mediocre workers can be supported while most of the rest are busting their ass to the extreme just to live

how did you even begin to get that out of what i wrote?

People need to bust their ass to get anything important done, that's the bottom line.

your bottom line is laughably wrong.

firstly, if productivity increases, it means that you can get more output for the same amount of labor (or the same output for less labor). productivity has increased so much that whereas it used to take almost all of our productive energy just to feed ourselves, we now can feed a much larger population with ridiculously little labor. the fact that we make some few people 'bust their asses' to do that labor is just an incident of injustice rather than a feature of the work requiring it.

secondly, the opposite of work is not sitting there comatose. in a just world people will still do things, putting great effort into them even. but they would be done freely, because people actively want to do them. and this is where our 'great works' will spring from.

...watch your life slide out of view,

And dance and drink and screw

Because there's nothing else to do.

Being intelligent isn't a virtue, either.

maybe, maybe not - are you distinguishing 'being wise' from 'being intelligent'?

in any case, that doesn't really matter to my point.

maybe, maybe not - are you distinguishing 'being wise' from 'being intelligent'?

in any case, that doesn't really matter to my point.

I was; I consider wisdom as a certain type, maybe a subset, of intelligence.
The way I interpreted the OP's question was whether it was better to be exclusively intelligent or exclusively have a good work ethic. As becoming wise would require at least determination, I don't think someone can become wise without working hard, not in the same way someone can be good at maths without working hard.
And you're right, your point stands anyway.

I don't think someone can become wise without working hard, not in the same way someone can be good at maths without working hard.

i would make the further distinction that these things are not rightly part of the work ethic, but are actually about some principle of excellence. if effort is required to excel at something worthwhile, then one should exert that effort because the goal is good rather than because work itself is virtuous.

To society? Intelligence. To your job? Usually work ethic.

To society? Intelligence. To your job? Usually work ethic.

which tells us something interesting, i think

He who would sacrifice intelligence for work ethics deserves neither.

...or something.

firstly, if productivity increases, it means that you can get more output for the same amount of labor (or the same output for less labor). productivity has increased so much that whereas it used to take almost all of our productive energy just to feed ourselves, we now can feed a much larger population with ridiculously little labor. the fact that we make some few people 'bust their asses' to do that labor is just an incident of injustice rather than a feature of the work requiring it.

You seem to believe the notion that an efficient work design just comes out of thin air, or maybe out weed smoke rings. It takes work to develop in the first place, and would be included into the work. The people who developed the alleged high productivity you reap the benefits from had to bust their ass doing it. Using something is not the same thing as creating it, and anything that needs to be used needed to be developed by other people. Also, things change and people need to adapt in the form of creating even more things, so things don't just reach a point where everyone can just sit around working halfways. Somebody always has to work harder to produce those new things at any given point.

secondly, the opposite of work is not sitting there comatose. in a just world people will still do things, putting great effort into them even. but they would be done freely, because people actively want to do them. and this is where our 'great works' will spring from.

Well fine, that's an ideal but the way you put it, it sounded dangerously close to trying to excuse and rationalize mediocrity and complacency. And for sure some would try to use a similar argument for that purpose.

You seem to believe the notion that an efficient work design just comes out of thin air, or maybe out weed smoke rings.

not so much, no.

Somebody always has to work harder to produce those new things at any given point.

prove this

Well fine, that's an ideal but the way you put it, it sounded dangerously close to trying to excuse and rationalize mediocrity and complacency. And for sure some would try to use a similar argument for that purpose.

thanks for reminding me of another important bit of reading for the thread

Paul Lafargue's "The Right To Be Lazy" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/index.htm)

He who would sacrifice intelligence for work ethics...

is doomed to a life of soul crushing drudgery?

I know students who are smart but so lazy they fail because they can't be bothered to meet any deadlines or responsibilities.

I know students who are slow but work steadily and get the job done quite well.

If I were hiring someone, I'd go for the person who does the job well over the brilliant slacker.

depends.
first thing i learned in the army is if you give the brilliant slacker responsibility and keep him entertained he suddenly performs well.

in sat com the shifts smart slacker would normally fix any piece of equipment the 1st time it broke (normally with me 2 soldiers per repair 50k volts of electricity after all). 2nd time it broke he fixed it again but was teaching the slow guy to fix it.

also when we had to deal with the other side of the communications link, don't let the slow guy answer the phone he will get talked into admitting the outage was his fault. it was either me or the brilliant slacker on the phone sense we would never admit to a communications outage.

prove this

I don't have to. You can believe whatever silly thing you desire. Common sense and the real world speaks for itself though, debate it at will.

I don't have to. You can believe whatever silly thing you desire. Common sense and the real world speaks for itself though

so your understanding of the world is that people work harder now than they did 150 years ago?

so your understanding of the world is that people work harder now than they did 150 years ago?

"harder" is relative and open to interpretation. A pretty useless question. I said what I said, that the significant advances are always through hard work.

"harder" is relative and open to interpretation. A pretty useless question.

more hours/using more calories.

the significant advances are always through hard work.

disagreed, under the definition of work i've been using. in fact, it seems to me that they have been made most often through much effort but little work. there really is nothing like work to destroy creativity.

My feelings about this equate neatly with my feelings about professional athletes: I'll take hustle over talent any day of the week.

My feelings about this equate neatly with my feelings about professional athletes: I'll take hustle over talent any day of the week.

Really, on my side I wonder at a life spent reaching peak physical fitness as entertainment for the masses, and for the few who make it, it's still talent that differentiates them from the hordes who never do, never could.

'To be the best' so often takes an individual tone.

The basketball courts of NYC are far more entertaining than the NBA, more life.

It's a beautiful day outside, as it so often is here, and I'm stuck under fluorescence.

How did it come to this, 14 days of holiday a year I'm granted...14 days!

A minority of status-fueled people have made slaves of us all.

/rant :)

it only took 90+ posts but work ethic is almost tied with LG's left testicle.

I'm going to let Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord sum it up for me:

I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!

When it comes down to it, the lazy, ultra-competent man has the nerves and stomach that others could only wish for. A stupid, industrious man is best suited for assignments that entail him working for the opposition, since this man will inevitably screw over the intended benefactor.

A minority of status-fueled people have made slaves of us all.

i think we'd been enslaved before some of the slaves got religion. in any case, we can stop it using political action. bring on the 20 hour work week, says i.

if all you have is a culture that promotes a strong work ethic and not the responsibility to exercise good sense, you end up with a world wonderfully productive of total crap that ultimately destroys itself with it, drowning itself in its own sea of illusions.

on the other hand, if everybody uses good sense, even if they produce no more then it takes for their mutual survival, well it may not look very austentatiously impressive, but you'll see a lot more of the kind of strainge wonderful interestingness i would rather live in and with anyway, and more importantly, while conditions might be 'closer to nature', i really think there'd be a lot less stress and aggressiveness problems, possibly even more real gratification, once people really begin to understand where it is actually found and how it is actually persued.

i don't buy this nonsense that anyone actually wants to do litterally nothing. but find it perfectly understandable, even noble, that many persons of good sense do not wish to contribute to the sources of and motivations for completely unneccesary conditions they find unpleasant or even offensive.

infrastructure, useful tangable infrastructure that is, and helping each other out, and being able to, these are the only really good reasons to even have any sort of large scale of social organization.

i think self dicipline is a very positive and even neccessary thing, but killing yourself to try and impress each other, for what? so that little green pieces of paper can worship more little green pieces of paper? i think that's a load of putrified dingo's kidneys and the biggest con game in human history.

i like tecnologies i can create and explore with and i realize their level of sophistication depends on a certain degree of social organization, but only, within specifically pertinent contexts.

same goes for useful tangable infrastructures in harmony with nature's cycles of renewal and keeping them and their tecnologies that way.

i think self dicipline is a very positive and even neccessary thing, but killing yourself to try and impress each other, for what? so that little green pieces of paper can worship more little green pieces of paper?

nah, its because god commanded it, and those that slack are going to hell. back to work, sinner!

I think it depends on a little of both but if I had to choose one. Work Ethic. Many of the people who are success in life were not overly intelligent. They knew how to exploit an opportunity.

At least three of the guys on the Top of the Forbes list Dropped out of College. Is money the only measure of a man. Certainly not even if we investigate other areas of human endeavors hard work plays more of a role than intelligence.


I think it has more to do with being in the right place at the right time with the right plan.

It's a beautiful day outside, as it so often is here, and I'm stuck under fluorescence.

How did it come to this, 14 days of holiday a year I'm granted...14 days!

A minority of status-fueled people have made slaves of us all.

/rant :)

I hate the fact that we've let our world and work 'life' become this kind of meh-ey crock of crap heh... as for 14 days holiday a year - I agree that it's just absolutely ridiculous and very demoralising!

/join rant :)

Intelligence or strong work ethic. It seems that for a lot of people, especially in the college age crowd, they fit into either category but not both. for me, I've usually fallen into the intelligence category. For instance, I can write a paper the night before its due and get a good grade/mark on it. Or I can study a half hour before a test and do better than someone who has studied for many nights. Its kind of nice to have that ability, but part of me feels bad. I feel like those who work hard should be rewarded, as opposed to people like me who are just a bit more gifted (I'm seriously not trying to brag on myself). So, what I want to know is what NSG thinks is a better quality to have. Imagine you can't have both for a moment. Would you rather have intelligence and a poor work ethic, or would you rather work hard and have a less than stellar intelligence level? Why?


Disregarding that the concept of value can be highly subjective anyhoo, I'm gona go for strong work ethic.

And in as least words as possible heres why.

A strong work ethic will garenteee an unintelegent man a job, and therefore that all important money with which to live by, for as long as he wants it.

I know plenty of highy intelegent people on the dole.

I never did anything by accident, nor did any of my inventions come by accident; they came by work.
Thomas A. Edison

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.
Thomas A. Edison

At least three of the guys on the Top of the Forbes list Dropped out of College.

that's a terrible failing according to the work ethic.

When it comes down to it, the lazy, ultra-competent man has the nerves and stomach that others could only wish for.

Not sure on the validity of this one. Why does competence = nerves of steel?

Also does the kind of thinking that goes on in the military have any bearing on non military matters?

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.
Thomas A. Edison

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.
Thomas A. Edison

Somebody is on an Edison kick huh!;)

There is joy in work. There is no happiness except in the realization that we have accomplished something.
Henry Ford

You don't build a reputation on what you're going to do.
Henry Ford

Ford was kind of more an intelligence guy despite the quote.

Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it.
Henry Ford

Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at twenty or eighty. Anyone who keeps learning stays young. The greatest thing in life is to keep your mind young.
Henry Ford

Tough call. Both of course are important but I think hard work plays more of a role.

Blimey Henry Ford came out with some bullshit.

Blimey Henry Ford came out with some bullshit.

"To keep on walking is foolish, that is why you must purchase a car - for it is wiser than walking; except of course when you need to swim."
B H. Ford

:p

some reading material for the thread:

betrand russell's "in praise of idleness" (http://www.panarchy.org/russell/idleness.1932.html)

bob black's "the abolition of work" (http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm)

john maynard keynes' "economic possibilities for our grandchildren" (http://www.eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/368keynesgrandchildren.html)


and for those that don't click links
http://deoxy.org/gif/workfree.gif


thanks for reminding me of another important bit of reading for the thread

Paul Lafargue's "The Right To Be Lazy" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/index.htm)

just bringing this back into the picture

Here is another one which kind of says both. Although I not sure wider and wider means smarter and smarter.


The most successful men in the end are those whose success is the result of steady accretion. It is the man who carefully advances step by step, with his mind becoming wider and wider - and progressively better able to grasp any theme or situation -.
Alexander Graham Bell

"To keep on walking is foolish, that is why you must purchase a car - for it is wiser than walking; except of course when you need to swim."
B H. Ford

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/DUKW.image2.army.jpg

I think the "steady accretion" has more to do with success. Something along the lines of persistence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/DUKW.image2.army.jpg

"Presenting, my new invention - the Swimmy Happy Car... with Guns."
B H. Ford

;p

See that Idea would make millions in the United States. Machine guns and fast cars. People would be falling over each other to buy one.

"Presenting, my new invention - the Swimmy Happy Car... with Guns."
B H. Ford

;p

"I'm a freaking Nazi! And people still quote me as if I'm someone you should listen to. All in all, that's a pretty sweet deal."

Henry Ford.

Needs to look more like an SUV or Mercedes. Something like what James Bond drives.

Side note if they put a 50 cal on the back of the Hummer for the US market I bet their sales would go up.