Task-absorption a key to optimal performance?

[The Voice of Time]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8yNxXAm7F4

This video (part of a Yale University lecture on "Philosophy and the Science of Human Nature"), among things, makes a point about task-absorption, that a person is entirely absorbed in their task, that this greatly increases performance but also enjoyment (the later being the more prominent point in the video).

But absorption, maybe call it "ego-absorption" (not to be confused with "self-importance" but more of "goal-importance", regardless of whom it benefits), also has a classical vice: that we become unaware of the world we live in and all the bad things in it... we become simple and/or narrow-minded.

So a question remains, should a person participating in a democracy and a globalized world, should that person allow him- or herself to get absorbed in their ego, their tasks, or should they find a balancing act where they can more effectively participate in society's choice of direction while at the same time routinely letting themselves push their performance to the maximum?

Or perhaps this absorption is only bad in a democracy that depends on people taking an actual interest in the undertakings of the state in order to function properly and not be the rule of the ignorant or maybe even worse the rule of only a few who gives a damn... ?

What do you think? Is democracy and a globalized world compatible with ego-absorption?

[Ginkgo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8yNxXAm7F4

This video (part of a Yale University lecture on "Philosophy and the Science of Human Nature"), among things, makes a point about task-absorption, that a person is entirely absorbed in their task, that this greatly increases performance but also enjoyment (the later being the more prominent point in the video).

But absorption, maybe call it "ego-absorption" (not to be confused with "self-importance" but more of "goal-importance", regardless of whom it benefits), also has a classical vice: that we become unaware of the world we live in and all the bad things in it... we become simple and/or narrow-minded.

So a question remains, should a person participating in a democracy and a globalized world, should that person allow him- or herself to get absorbed in their ego, their tasks, or should they find a balancing act where they can more effectively participate in society's choice of direction while at the same time routinely letting themselves push their performance to the maximum?

Or perhaps this absorption is only bad in a democracy that depends on people taking an actual interest in the undertakings of the state in order to function properly and not be the rule of the ignorant or maybe even worse the rule of only a few who gives a damn... ?

What do you think? Is democracy and a globalized world compatible with ego-absorption?

It could be compatible, but I don't think it is realistic. Genuine task absorption only has a limited duration in terms of time.

[The Voice of Time]

But while the enjoyment might be only occasional, I think we see a lot of ego-absorbed people in media. Whether it's athletes, business people addicted to making money, or the typical power-hungry politician... aren't these typical examples of what happens when it's the goal that matters and the rest of the world can go to hell? While you may like or not like them, don't you feel their opinions seem rather unsophisticated?

I feel that way. It's usually people with more restraint that are able to hold more sophisticated opinions and ideas, that are able to show depth as well. Because while you might consider an idea sophisticated, the person who holds it might not fully understand why it's a sophisticated idea, and this makes their opinion about it questionable.

Take for instance the way certain "dumb" celebrities can say this or that about political opinions and while you may occasionally agree with them, you'll sooner or later see that they don't really understand what they are themselves saying, and that undermines their ability to be good participants in a democracy, and their positions questionable... which is perhaps also why it's important to make fun of them so the masses don't start basing their thoughts on the random surface quality of an idea.

[Ginkgo]

But while the enjoyment might be only occasional, I think we see a lot of ego-absorbed people in media. Whether it's athletes, business people addicted to making money, or the typical power-hungry politician... aren't these typical examples of what happens when it's the goal that matters and the rest of the world can go to hell? While you may like or not like them, don't you feel their opinions seem rather unsophisticated?

I feel that way. It's usually people with more restraint that are able to hold more sophisticated opinions and ideas, that are able to show depth as well. Because while you might consider an idea sophisticated, the person who holds it might not fully understand why it's a sophisticated idea, and this makes their opinion about it questionable.

Take for instance the way certain "dumb" celebrities can say this or that about political opinions and while you may occasionally agree with them, you'll sooner or later see that they don't really understand what they are themselves saying, and that undermines their ability to be good participants in a democracy, and their positions questionable... which is perhaps also why it's important to make fun of them so the masses don't start basing their thoughts on the random surface quality of an idea.

I watched the video and I think it is very interesting.

Yes, I agree there are lot of ego-absorbed people in this world, but I am not sure if we can say an ego-absorbed personality is the same as a person who is in the zone or having a flow experience.

I think it is an interesting idea that Aristotle's virtue ethics is another name for a flow or zone experience. In that sense we are not interested in outcomes only the intrinsic experience, so in that sense it also satisfied an important requirement of virtue ethics.

It may be possible to claim that as a politician I am having a flow experience when I do political activities, and it may be possible that this has intrinsic value only. However, when it comes to sport the flow or zone experience ceases when we start thinking about the score board. Once the match is finished we can then hop out of the zone and say, "I won". The problem with politics may well be that in performing a task the politician keeps on asking himself/herself, "Am I winning."

[The Voice of Time]

but I am not sure if we can say an ego-absorbed personality is the same as a person who is in the zone or having a flow experience.

I think it is an interesting idea that Aristotle's virtue ethics is another name for a flow or zone experience. In that sense we are not interested in outcomes only the intrinsic experience, so in that sense it also satisfied an important requirement of virtue ethics.

Well what's virtuous is a manner of opinion, so everything could be subject to it, and I think those people are quite fitting of an general description, or general rule, for what is such a person. Only two objects could stand in that way, and one of them is very weak. The first, the weak one, is that it's a manner of opinion what is a virtue and that means some evil megalomaniac mass-murderer can't be "virtuous" even if he fits the description, but again this seems to be a general description so it shouldn't really matter "what" the virtue is or who makes the virtue. The second is that people in the real world doesn't always stay happy about what they do, and that those who do things we normally don't consider virtuous or even vice they are more conflicted, generally, than others, so that could be a valid objection. But it's still not very dependable, unfortunately, so not very strong an objection either.

[Ginkgo]

but I am not sure if we can say an ego-absorbed personality is the same as a person who is in the zone or having a flow experience.

I think it is an interesting idea that Aristotle's virtue ethics is another name for a flow or zone experience. In that sense we are not interested in outcomes only the intrinsic experience, so in that sense it also satisfied an important requirement of virtue ethics.

Well what's virtuous is a manner of opinion, so everything could be subject to it, and I think those people are quite fitting of an general description, or general rule, for what is such a person. Only two objects could stand in that way, and one of them is very weak. The first, the weak one, is that it's a manner of opinion what is a virtue and that means some evil megalomaniac mass-murderer can't be "virtuous" even if he fits the description, but again this seems to be a general description so it shouldn't really matter "what" the virtue is or who makes the virtue. The second is that people in the real world doesn't always stay happy about what they do, and that those who do things we normally don't consider virtuous or even vice they are more conflicted, generally, than others, so that could be a valid objection. But it's still not very dependable, unfortunately, so not very strong an objection either.

Yes, I pretty much agree. What makes a person virtuous is irrelevant to any considerations about the consequences of such an activity. Interesting enough you go on to talk about utilitarianism in a different post. As you are obviously aware utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that opposes virtue and duty based ethics. Probably why you posted it.

[The Voice of Time]

Well to me the world is a complex place and both theories can work with some adjustment with each other, they are not necessary mutually excluding, unless you take each to its extreme purity.

[Ginkgo]

Well to me the world is a complex place and both theories can work with some adjustment with each other, they are not necessary mutually excluding, unless you take each to its extreme purity.

True.

On a different matter, your competency in English is obviously excellent. Is this generally the case in Norway? Are many people in Norway bilingual?

[The Voice of Time]

We have a high average yes, but I'm probably a deal more than average, even for people my age. But I often use "onelook.com" because I often forget the meaning of words or forget their spelling. But that happens in Norwegian as well where I usually forget the Norwegian word because I spend so much time chatting with foreigners on the internet for various reasons (skype, forum, gaming, commentary fields) so that's just a feature of my person x)

I learned English through 3 ways... 1) I played World of Warcraft relatively young which obviously doesn't have a Norwegian translation (too small country). 2) For some reason I prefer writing in English occasionally and then I spent a lot of time trying to write fantasy in English and that meant I learned by try and attempt. 3) Most non-mainstream literature and websites are only in English, so the consumer is forced to know English in order to use the web at large. Also, many technical words sounds silly in Norwegian, so I'm forced to only learn the English version since there's not enough people who knows whatever the holy Norwegian dictionary council has decided for a Norwegian word

For instance, we have a Norwegian word for "timing" called "tidsklaff" (tids = time, klaffe = to fit or be fitting) but you won't find a single person in Norway which knows the word except those like me who totally randomly ended up on the site of the council while they were suggesting the word xD

We learn English from the age of 6 when we start at school. If we'd practised it more, we'd basically speak it as fluent as our mother-tongue from a pedagogical perspective.

[Ginkgo]

We have a high average yes, but I'm probably a deal more than average, even for people my age. But I often use "onelook.com" because I often forget the meaning of words or forget their spelling. But that happens in Norwegian as well where I usually forget the Norwegian word because I spend so much time chatting with foreigners on the internet for various reasons (skype, forum, gaming, commentary fields) so that's just a feature of my person x)

I learned English through 3 ways... 1) I played World of Warcraft relatively young which obviously doesn't have a Norwegian translation (too small country). 2) For some reason I prefer writing in English occasionally and then I spent a lot of time trying to write fantasy in English and that meant I learned by try and attempt. 3) Most non-mainstream literature and websites are only in English, so the consumer is forced to know English in order to use the web at large. Also, many technical words sounds silly in Norwegian, so I'm forced to only learn the English version since there's not enough people who knows whatever the holy Norwegian dictionary council has decided for a Norwegian word

For instance, we have a Norwegian word for "timing" called "tidsklaff" (tids = time, klaffe = to fit or be fitting) but you won't find a single person in Norway which knows the word except those like me who totally randomly ended up on the site of the council while they were suggesting the word xD

We learn English from the age of 6 when we start at school. If we'd practised it more, we'd basically speak it as fluent as our mother-tongue from a pedagogical perspective.

Very interesting.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that in Europe you are never far from another country. When Europeans come to Australia they cannot believe that you can get on a train and travel for 24 hours and still be in the same state, let alone the same country.

Australians tend to be interested in the rest of the world. This probably has something to do with our isolation. Even though we are interested in what is happening elsewhere, we seem somewhat reluctant to learn another language. Very few people in Australia take the opportunity to learn another language. But as you point out there is no escape when it comes to computers and the internet. The world is a smaller place because of this.