Rate Your Work Ethic

[Hustler]

How would you rate your work ethic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_ethic) on a scale of one to five? What are your thoughts on the whole concept of a work ethic in general?

[Madrigal]

In an office, do what I have to do but don't raise the bar.

For a client, do whatever I want.

[vSv]

As long as I'm not working for myself or for everyone at the same time (communal) I can't see why I should work for someone elses profit, and thus working as little as possible.

[bluebell]

I voted 30-40 hours a week. However, last week I probably did closer to 50, due to an important deadline this week that was an absolute hard deadline, plus I had to travel for a couple of days. Travel days are usually 12-14 hour days. Every few months or so, I do a few long weeks due to a temporary spike in workload. I do it because the outcomes matter to me in a big picture kinda way.

[Ptah]

Number of hours per week isnt the way I'd measure work ethic, if such a thing can even be measured...

Unless the work happens to be something I'm interesting in doing (for reasons other than the work/compensation itself -- as in I approach it as a form of "play" I'd do without pay otherwise), I'm a fairly "minimal effort" type person.

Essentially, my "work ethic" (=willingness to contribute continual attention, time and effort to see a job through?) relies on how much I, personally/privately, care about the work.

For instance. While I need money to sustain my lifestyle, if I held a job doing work I didn't privately care about or for, I'd do the bare minimum I could get away with (so that I can live the rest of my life as I like).

However, doing work that I am personally interested in (if not the particular project, the nature of the work itself), I'll work to the extent of my ability and facilitation (and continued interest) without any real boundary between "work" and "personal" life; meaning: as many (or few) hours as it takes. I'll arrange my time accordingly, attempt to facilitate myself if the workplace doesn't, etc. All this because it is personal for me, not out of any external "professional" want. I wouldn't call this a "work ethic", I'd call this a function of self-respect, a personal desire for efficacy in that which I undertake seriously.

[Lurker]

The phrase leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I work hard in spurts, then do nothing for long periods of time. When I'm "on," I can put my all into something; it can even become an obsession. Unfortunately, most of my obsessions don't pay.

Consistency is the main problem.

Edit: I relate to the previous posts regarding working for someone else at something I don't enjoy or care about. I will do the bare minimum not to be fired.

[Ptah]

The phrase leaves a bad taste in my mouth

Yeah. I've had it used against me. Basically, a manager saying I have a "poor work ethic" for coming in late here or there while X comes in on time every day like clockwork; nevermind that X fucked up everything he touched while part of my job indirectly involved fixing it and the rest of the alphabet's worth of inept people's "work" just like it, on top of the rest of what I got done (during the hours of 10am-10pm, daily, at the time).

The whole term "work ethic" is just a tool of the SJ moojority workforce.

edit: heck, I've even seen the term distended into being used as a lever to get me to attend "all hands" company meetings or whatever other cult-of-the-company bullshit.

[bergenski]

If it's something I am invested in I can work as hard as, or more than, anyone else in the pursuit of completion. I don't often invest.

[Lurker]

Yeah. I've had it used against me. Basically, a manager saying I have a "poor work ethic" for coming in late here or there while X comes in on time every day like clockwork; nevermind that X fucked up everything he touched while part of my job indirectly involved fixing it and the rest of the alphabet's worth of inept people's "work" just like it, on top of the rest of what I got done (during the hours of 10am-10pm, daily, at the time).

The whole term "work ethic" is just a tool of the SJ moojority workforce.

edit: heck, I've even seen the term distended into being used as a lever to get me to attend "all hands" company meetings or whatever other cult-of-the-company bullshit.


It's a quantity versus quality thing with them. Judging ability and actual contribution is a little complicated -- as in, not immediately apparent -- for an S to unravel, so they go with a simple, quantifiable measurement such as clock-in time.

Also, a "poor work ethic" is a moral judgment of your worth as a person. Phrases like "lazy, good for nothing [SOB, piece of shit, etc]" and "ne'er do well" devalue you in entirety based on performance in one area.

It's been used against me throughout my life. When I was a kid, I felt flustered and disappointed in myself. Basically, like a fuck up. Later, some of that feeling dissipated and I became angry and spiteful. I still haven't quite reached the ideal of detachment. I'm still at the "shove it up your ass" phase.

[djm]

I do not work any harder than I feel like doing. Sometimes it's a fair few hours, other times very little. I wouldn't call the way I earn money work anyway, it's more like a hobby.

[Ferrus]

No I don't really have a work ethic. I do what I have to do to keep life flowing, otherwise, I don't expend effort unless it is for a goal of personal import.

My parents are very big on work ethics, and attribute all success to them, and naturally seem to have a strong disdain for their lack of it. I suppose it is their manner of compensating for an inferior intellect.

[Park]

Work aholic here, what can I say, "I love what I do for a living".
Oh, and BTW, I'm not that smart so in order to obtain the results I desire, I have to try harder than most.

[starla]

I work 50-60 hours a week, but I skip the kick off meeting every morning because I'm always an hour late to work. So I'm both hard working and a slacker at the same time. Luckily, my boss chooses to only see the good in me.

Edit: I voted 4, btw.

[Anonymous]

Number of hours per week isnt the way I'd measure work ethic, if such a thing can even be measured...


Yeah, seriously. Right now I'm unemployed, but when I am, I'd say that I have a pretty decent work ethic. I try not to slack off, cut minimal amounts of corners, etc.

[Hustler]

For all you people with quibbles or qualifiers, just use your intuition and vote. I'm asking you to rate your own work ethic according to whatever standards you think are appropriate. The blurbs I put next to the numbers are merely a guideline.

CliffsNotes: Use your intuition, motherfuckers.

[earwax]

I get my work done in the time allotted. Luckily my boss usually allots a lot more time then it actually takes.

[Park]

Bunch of lazy bastards.

[Trentham]

I get my work done in the time allotted. Luckily my boss usually allots a lot more time then it actually takes.

This. I am "at work" 40 hours per week. How much of that do I spend actually working? Hmm. I'll figure it up sometime.

I have zero interest in doing more than is required as a competent employee. I've also chosen to work in a setting where long hours and lots of extra effort aren't required or expected. I don't make as much money, but the additional free time is well worth the trade.

[LastRailway]

I voted 4. I work a lot, I'm pretty efficient and it's my choice. However I don't think very highly of my work ethic on many other aspects.

[msg_v2]

My work ethic isn't that good, probably because I coasted through elementary school and high school, and only really put in a serious effort my senior year of high school.

That said, I feel like I've been a lot better about getting stuff done recently. A friend of mine told me that the brain changes at this age. (I'll be 24 next month).

[pangolin]

The poll seems actually to only measure amount of work, not actual ethic. Truthfully, I work approximately 30 hours a week, which I do fairly diligently, though this is largely out of a desire to remain busy and thus less bored, and to not have to interact with coworkers more than minimally necessary. I feel very strange being at a job and not doing something useful, and even more so if the work environment encourages this time be spent shooting the shit. At least my work is mindless and I can think about stuff while I'm doing it.

[Madrigal]

I will work as little as I can.

When working for someone else, they make a profit off your labor. That means you aren't getting paid for all the work you do, only a small part of it. The rest of that payment is kept by your employer.

So, not only will I not work any more than I have to to keep my job, I'll resist attempts to increase productivity at my expense.

When I worked at an office, I could do three times the work that was asked of me - but no way in hell was I going to.

It helps that I'm not career-oriented so I don't feel the pressure to always be better and get farther in a company. I've rejected any project management positions. Let the poor bastards who care do that.

[Helios]

I've always been delighted by the fact that I am 32 and I have pulled off not working full time (excluding special 'projects' @work) ever.

However, it can be tricky, I spend money like a motherfucker.

So far, so good

[Ferrus]

I've always been delighted by the fact that I am 32 and I have pulled off not working full time (excluding special 'projects' @work) ever.

However, it can be tricky, I spend money like a motherfucker.

So far, so good
Inherited a lot of money, eh?

[Helios]

Inherited a lot of money, eh?


Nope, drug dealer ;)

[stuck]

I have a pretty good work ethic. When it changes, it does so according to the percieved gain I'll get out of the work. That happens a lot, because I'm self-employed. I work hard as hell trying to make my clients happy.

It's shifted more as I stretch out in my 30s to trying to work more efficiently, so I can provide a greater value to my clients and more money to myself.

In short, capitalism has been something I can barely navigate, but I'm learning.

[ciphersort]

Due to the small number of responses I think that Mass of INTPness should be changed to Mass of Unemployedness.

[Hermione]

Due to the small number of responses I think that Mass of INTPness should be changed to Mass of Unemployedness.

Indeed.
Mass of skivvers and wankers perhaps.

[quantumzero]

I usually do my best even if its something I have no interest in, task for the sake of the task. We're self employed so its easy to put in a 40 to 70+ hr week. But were trying to live as off the grid as we can, we have several gardens, raise chickens, etc. I get great enjoyment out of that.

[ciphersort]

Indeed.
Mass of skivvers and wankers perhaps.

Not that there is anything wrong with that imo.

[stuck]

But were trying to live as off the grid as we can, we have several gardens, raise chickens, etc. I get great enjoyment out of that.

kewl

how do you do your water/heat?

[Promethean]

The phrase leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I work hard in spurts, then do nothing for long periods of time. When I'm "on," I can put my all into something; it can even become an obsession. Unfortunately, most of my obsessions don't pay.

Consistency is the main problem.

Edit: I relate to the previous posts regarding working for someone else at something I don't enjoy or care about. I will do the bare minimum not to be fired.

Agreed, thus no vote.

It's nothing for me to work 50-60 every week, and I did so for all of 2008, but I rarely work hard. If I'm working hard, I'm doing something wrong. I tend to try and work smart and solve difficult problems other people can't. That way my value as an employee is constantly reiterated but at the expense of minimal effort from me.

[lowtech redneck]

Virtually non-existent. I have to enjoy the process, otherwise I'm unmotivated and miserable (and I'd MUCH rather be "bored"-i.e. doing nothing-than miserable). Almost any work involves far more time than that spent on the rewards received, and I don't sufficiently enjoy any of the rewards to make up for that disparity. I also never feel satisfaction at a job well-done (if I don't enjoy the process of getting there); all I feel is relief that its over, coupled with resentment that my precious time on this earth has been wasted.

That said, I actually view a work-ethic as a virtue, for two reasons;
1.) Given the nature of human life, one is generally happier if they posses a work-ethic.
2.) A work-ethic contributes to improved living standards, both currently and for future generations.

[Nighthawk]

I have a fairly good work ethic, provided I'm jazzed about what I'm doing and can see the importance of the work in the greater scheme of things. I generally put in more than 40 hours per week. If there's nothing to do, I sometimes go look for extra things ... but more often than not spend my time in self-improvement of some sort. If it is simply busy work or something that is doomed to fail, then I have a hard time motivating myself. I also have a difficult time motivating myself to perform repetitive work, like data entry. Focalin helps in that respect.

[BAJ]

I work tremendous hours. Company policy is 45 hours, but I often work more...pushing 50 or 60 hours. I live at work (literally).

I need money.

I think it also stems from childhood violence. If you didn't finish your list, physical violence would occur. Thus, I have some fear that something bad will happen.

Next, my job is very responsible. If I don't do certain things, something bad might actually happen. In this job, tens of thousands of dollars can be lost in minutes.

I envy you all. I'm off work every other weekend, where I enjoy my relaxation. You "slackers" get off half the week.

[1104]

work ethic shouldn't matter when you're capable of thought. it's a tradeoff. at least, it should be.

[quantumzero]

kewl

how do you do your water/heat?

Man, I forgot I even posted here.

Water for the gardens we pump out of the pond with a trash pump. We're digging another pond on the North slope for a geo thermal set up. We use wood burning stoves in the shop with a propane back up, and we're installing a wood stove downstairs in the house. We have city water here but I would like to devise some sort of rain catcher, my god, it comes down in buckets here, its a shame not to grab it. Ive only been here for two years, one getting preggers, the other being preggers, so I got allot of work to do. Also, the shop roof is a giant space just begging for solar panels, hubby is kind of a hard sell on that, cant say as I blame him though, it wouldnt seem like it but it really is still an emerging technology, I was watching a show the other day where this guy had developed a new more durable solar collector, it looked like a piece of metallic tar paper. My grandparents had solar panels for hot water since the 70's, a coastal area which was overcast much of the time, always had screaming hot water. In fact, I looked the old address on google earth, and they're still up there.

[Hustler]

work ethic shouldn't matter when you're capable of thought. it's a tradeoff. at least, it should be.

It doesn't work that way. Smart, lazy people are notorious failures.

[notjeffgoldblum]

Smart people are notoriously reluctant to exert effort, lest their intelligence-based "I'm so smart I don't have to work" ego be revealed for the farce it really is.

Edit: Farce is not really appropriate. Surely intelligent people accomplish certain tasks with greater ease than a less-intelligent counterpart, but to go through life defining yourself by your intelligence is a recipe for disaster.

[1104]

oh i know, mental effort isn't effort at all. ;)

[deuteros]

When I worked at an office, I could do three times the work that was asked of me - but no way in hell was I going to.

It helps that I'm not career-oriented so I don't feel the pressure to always be better and get farther in a company.
I'm the same way. If I actually worked a full 8 hours I could accomplish an insane amount of work. Especially if it's just routine stuff. But I play on the internet more than I would care to admit. Everyone seems to feel that I do a great job even though I never feel like I am.

[1104]

so what is capability? having the mental/physical qualifications to do something, or does that include motivation as well? if i'm not motivated, then i'm not capable. is that plausible?

[Hustler]

According to the poll, INTPs on average believe they have 83% the work ethic that they perceive the average person to have.

[djm]

According to the poll, INTPs on average believe they have 83% the work ethic that they perceive the average person to have.

I was just talking to one of my former employees about work - advising him to do less.

I rarely do more than 2 hours work in a day, but that two hours I get things right. It is far better to have two hours a day of concise and useful action than 14 hours of facile and ineffective activity. Rest of the time I think - which is why the two hours is effective.

If more people had less work ethic and were more results orientated then the world would work better - too many busy fools.

[Hustler]

I was just talking to one of my former employees about work - advising him to do less.

I rarely do more than 2 hours work in a day, but that two hours I get things right. It is far better to have two hours a day of concise and useful action than 14 hours of facile and ineffective activity. Rest of the time I think - which is why the two hours is effective.

If more people had less work ethic and were more results orientated then the world would work better - too many busy fools.

Being results oriented is such a gigantic fallacy that it would deserve its own thread to fully discuss. Results are largely meaningless when evaluating someone, especially in an industry where there is any element of risk or chance. Working smarter, or even working harder, is never a guarantee for success. At best it can only increase your chances of good results, and so results must be taken for what they are.

Furthermore, what good is a train conductor who works two hours a day? Or a police officer? Perhaps a fire fighter could use his superior intellect to tell people in precisely which two hour window they may commit arson so that he could use the rest of his day to think. Perhaps a college professor deems his time so important that, despite having three classes to teach, a research project to work on, and office hours so that his students can come and ask questions, that he decides to teach all three classes at the same time in the lab where he's doing his research and then answer questions for an hour immediately afterwards, perhaps taking the students in groups of 20 so as to insure the office hours don't run too long. But somehow, I don't think that would constitute "getting it right."

There are plenty of professions where two hours a day just doesn't get it done. There are plenty of other professions where two hours a day simply cannot net you the same income that eight hours, or fourteen hours a day can. I'll be the first to agree that the above is all evidence of jobs being for suckers, but even people with a tremendous degree of professional autonomy (that generally only comes from self-employment or something entrepreneurial) will usually benefit in proportion to the amount of labor they're willing to commit to their venture.

It is also a false dichotomy to say that two hours where you "get it right" is better than fourteen hours of "facile and ineffective activity." I agree with you in principle, that it generally is better to spend two hours productively than 14 hours unproductively, but 14 productive hours is surely better than two productive hours if you just want to look at production. If Einstein had spent two hours a day doing his work, he never would have produced what he did. What's more, someone could argue that he would rather do 14 hours of work per day for two years than two hours of work per day for fourteen years, if both led to an early retirement or to some other opportunity.

Now, when you say you spend the rest of the day thinking, perhaps you are just making this an issue of semantics. Einstein spent most of the day thinking, too. Thinking about theoretical physics, which is definitely work. If, when you're thinking, you're thinking about things related to your work or ideas for future work, I don't really see a distinction. Some jobs require a lot of intellectual labor and not so much physical labor, but it's still work. I doubt Park, for instance, is doing 100 hours a week or whatever of physical or office-type labor, but is probably spending some chunk of that time thinking.

[djm]

Being results oriented is such a gigantic fallacy that it would deserve its own thread to fully discuss. Results are largely meaningless when evaluating someone, especially in an industry where there is any element of risk or chance. Working smarter, or even working harder, is never a guarantee for success. At best it can only increase your chances of good results, and so results must be taken for what they are.

I think your analysis is too black and white. There are certainly many kinds of job where what you say holds true, but there also ones where it does not. As for 'only increasing chances of good results' well I would put it to you that by - to use a French expression 'putting the chances on your side' - ensuring all the things that you can have an influence on are well thought out, then it is a more than worthwhile exercise.


Furthermore, what good is a train conductor who works two hours a day?

To be frank a train conductor probably only does work two hours a day, the majority of the day is spent waiting for a train to arrive. I would be quite happy for one to read a book inbetween times were I running a railway - so long as the trains are dealt with when they require it.


Or a police officer?

Well lets take an inspector - there are different kinds. One may solve a crime with a flash of inspiration whilst eating a burger, or having a crafty fag break. Another crime may be solved only by hours of meticulous reading through files. So long as the crime is solved and justice is served what difference does it make.

Agree that a plod on the beat needs time on the beat - horses for courses.


Perhaps a fire fighter could use his superior intellect to tell people in precisely which two hour window they may commit arson so that he could use the rest of his day to think.

Most firemen spend the majority of the time on standby (certainly that is the case here in England in any event). They may well only work two hours in a week, but if that two hours is spent pulling my arse out of a burning building then I am very happy for them to do so. A fireman is in fact a classic example of a results orientated job.


Perhaps a college professor deems his time so important that, despite having three classes to teach, a research project to work on, and office hours so that his students can come and ask questions, that he decides to teach all three classes at the same time in the lab where he's doing his research and then answer questions for an hour immediately afterwards, perhaps taking the students in groups of 20 so as to insure the office hours don't run too long. But somehow, I don't think that would constitute "getting it right."

Most University professors would do the research for free, it aint exactly work for them. Teaching, well I teach at a university gratis - I enjoy it, for others it's work. I did not mean that my observation would apply to all jobs, but it certainly applies to some.


There are plenty of professions where two hours a day just doesn't get it done. There are plenty of other professions where two hours a day simply cannot net you the same income that eight hours, or fourteen hours a day can. I'll be the first to agree that the above is all evidence of jobs being for suckers, but even people with a tremendous degree of professional autonomy (that generally only comes from self-employment or something entrepreneurial) will usually benefit in proportion to the amount of labor they're willing to commit to their venture.

Agree upto a point. Certainly in my area there is a lot of waiting, rushing things is often counterproductive - and it's also expensive so starting projects up willy nilly wreaks havoc on finances and spreads resource too thin. Biotech firms that fail generally do so due to management pandering to investors that wish to have news flow, and starting things without thinking them through and running out of money.


It is also a false dichotomy to say that two hours where you "get it right" is better than fourteen hours of "facile and ineffective activity." I agree with you in principle, that it generally is better to spend two hours productively than 14 hours unproductively, but 14 productive hours is surely better than two productive hours if you just want to look at production.

Agree in manufacturing this is normally the case. In research and other creative work I am not convinced that it holds up though. My post was really meant to convey a certain amount of contempt for the prevailing work culture in corporations in the Anglo saxon world and increasingly in Western Europe. Whereby busyness is equated wit effectiveness without proper scrutiny. In offices all over the UK, US, and elsewhere there are people working late for the sake of it so as not to be seen to be first to leave. There are countless thousands of unnecessary emails sent daily, and meetings that serve no useful purpose. I think this culture is damaging, and would far rather focus on what needs to be done, and what the results of it are. If that requires oodles of hours then so be it, if however it can be done in less then so much the better.

In a widget factory where all widgets can be sold then time spent making widgets is important. But for an author writing a book a couple of hours a day might work better. Or a frantic week of little sleep amid months of writers block - who cares if the book is a good one. Most jobs are somewhere inbetween the two.


If Einstein had spent two hours a day doing his work, he never would have produced what he did. What's more, someone could argue that he would rather do 14 hours of work per day for two years than two hours of work per day for fourteen years, if both led to an early retirement or to some other opportunity.

In cases where doing more hours has a direct link with earning more cash or earning it more quickly then I would agree. For most people working for a company this is not the case - thats what Marxism is based on (as you are well aware).


Now, when you say you spend the rest of the day thinking, perhaps you are just making this an issue of semantics. Einstein spent most of the day thinking, too. Thinking about theoretical physics, which is definitely work. If, when you're thinking, you're thinking about things related to your work or ideas for future work, I don't really see a distinction. Some jobs require a lot of intellectual labor and not so much physical labor, but it's still work. I doubt Park, for instance, is doing 100 hours a week or whatever of physical or office-type labor, but is probably spending some chunk of that time thinking.

Nail on head - I do not consider it work. Einstein I suspect did not consider theoretical physics work either. I would wager that when he was working -in a patent office - he probably spent more time thinking of his 'work' (theoretical physics) than his job (his work). I would also wager that when relaxing at home he spent as much time contemplating theoretical physics as when at his office, and that when at his office he spent as much time contemplating other things.

Conjecture about Einstein aside, I do maintain a distinction. I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking over my business and scientific ideas. This is not for me work, work is when I take action towards changing or accomplishing something. sending an email, making a phonecall, writing a paper, deciding an application rate etc. I can only do this when I feel like it, and when I feel I have properly cogitated over it. If I counted that then I would have to say I work silly hours, but for me it isn't work as I enjoy it. If I didn't I wouldn't bother.

Some of my better ideas that have worked out well for me have occured whilst reading a novel, or at the pub etc. It's about keeping you mind in a state where it is capable of having good ideas, and acting on them when appropriate. I am somewhat fortunate in being able to choose how I work, but I fervently believe that there is room for some level of this in many jobs, although obviously not all of them.

[Nighthawk]

We're currently facing the results versus time conundrum at my place of work. I find that I can often finish software work faster than the time allotted for it. This would be great if we billed a flat rate for results, but we bill by the hour ... so I have to stretch out the time it takes to "finish" the projects. Half the time I am finished already and just surfing, studying, or pursuing personal projects. There is also the issue of working from home versus working at the office. My equipment at home is far superior to what I have at work, the software is all the same, we have virtual networking, and most of our communications are via phone or instant messenger anyway. However, the SJ in charge firmly believes that in order to accomplish things, everybody's butts need to be in their designated chairs, at a designated place, for a designated time period. Very much into a designated starting time every morning, which goes a bit against my P nature. I can understand his viewpoint from having been in many SJ organizations, but it still isn't a natural fit for me. I guess I'll just keep padding my hours and delivering final products "on time" ... but it seems like a bit of a waste.

[Hustler]

Nail on head - I do not consider it work.

Right, your entire argument is just a semantic one. When a firefighter is on shift, he's working. He may not be fighting fires constantly, but it doesn't mean the time in between fires isn't work. He has to be alert and ready to go at a moment's notice. A college professor may like his research, but it's still work. Plenty of people like their work, but it doesn't mean that it's not work when they do it. There's this misconception that work is, by definition, not enjoyable and anything unenjoyable can't be work. That's simply not the case.

[Hustler]

However, the SJ in charge firmly believes that in order to accomplish things, everybody's butts need to be in their designated chairs, at a designated place, for a designated time period. Very much into a designated starting time every morning, which goes a bit against my P nature. I can understand his viewpoint from having been in many SJ organizations, but it still isn't a natural fit for me. I guess I'll just keep padding my hours and delivering final products "on time" ... but it seems like a bit of a waste.

You can file that under Jobs are for Suckers.

[Nighthawk]

You can file that under Jobs are for Suckers.
:theclap:

[C.J.Woolf]

It doesn't work that way. Smart, lazy people are notorious failures.
Unless they're constructively lazy. I like the story of Joseph Jacquard, inventor of the punch card-programmable loom. His father was a master weaver but he hated weaving. However, he pissed away his inheritance, so he returned to the family trade and invented a loom that saved time.

[elfsprin]

CliffsNotes: Use your intuition, motherfuckers.

an obvious five, blurbs ignored.

i derive immense personal satisfaction from in conjunction with my work ethic because i'm a competetive perfectionist. there are many perks to this, for me. i started listing them, but that seemed foolhearty so just take my word for it.

hustler, isn't it semantic tomfoolery to claim that your poker empire management is not a 'job?' stop picking on djm.

[Hustler]

hustler, isn't it semantic tomfoolery to claim that your poker empire management is not a 'job?' stop picking on djm.

No. I also never accused djm of having a job.

[elfsprin]

No. I also never accused djm of having a job.

so you would say that's it's work, then?

[Hustler]

so you would say that's it's work, then?

Yes.

[aether]

Rationals (NTs) tend to have a healthy work ethic.

[spamtar]

I "need" (want) lots of so called 'down time'.... but when I set my mind to it, its pure essence. Often the adrenaline of missing a deadline gets me working the midnight oil...either that or it moves me into ENTJ/INTJ mode.

Sometimes I go on strike as to a certain project. There is no point in even procrastinating and I might as well hand the task over to another.

In general, what many may confuse for tomfoolery or daydreaming is just taking in the subliminal below the radar messages and omens. It allows the brain to breath and absorb the information.