As an interesting anecdote, I was schooled in a completely traditional fashion, and yet I never really learned to finish either. I did learn to learn, but I did it through a combination of schooling and self-teaching. But all the self-teaching was in addition to a completely standard course of American schooling, up through a Bachelor's degree in computer science.

I am afraid your question is based on a misreading of my question. I didn't mean to imply that the "correct" answer was that having nothing to do was better than having to do work. I was honestly asking, so that I could provide actually useful advice, instead of simply assuming and possibly saying something stupid.

So, is your quality of life suffering because your employer is being blatantly stupid? Would you be happier if you were actually working 40 hours a week?

On another note, I don't think anyone has ever shut down their computer in the hopes that it would help them find a file. That example throws me off for a few reasons actually. I think your thoughts not being true to yourself at work are very valid, but I think the reason it happens is because we're trying to fit within a system (not such an irrational idea in many cases). Learning how that new system operates is key to mastering it--weather it's corporate culture or a new type of computer platform. I would argue that it's a lack of familiarity with a given system that makes us seem "stupid" when we try to work within it. Going back to my previous comment, it's all about communication rather than force-fitting your own more rational system. Lucky for us, computers are easy to communicate with once you learn their language--it becomes a very rational relationship in a way. Communicating with other people, however, is not so reliable and organized.

I'm in the top 30th percentile for household income in the United States. I recently had a performance review, was qualified "fully successful," and when I specifically asked my supervisor if I was doing anything wrong, he reassured me that there was not a thing I could change to do better. I receive regular monetary bonuses and praise, and was rewarded with a certificate of achievement just two days ago.

All of this despite the fact that I perform real, skilled work approximately one or two hours per week, and spend the rest of my time surfing the web, in plain view of everyone walking down the hallway, not even bothering to alt-tab when my supervisor comes into my cube to chat with me. (ETA: personally, I consider my work ethic to be atrocious, and if I were my supervisor, I would not tolerate what I have just described.)

I take the money provided and I spend it on various frivolous pursuits, and donate to SIAI. I'm not sure about long-term promotion potential, considering my lack of actual work, but it seems fairly rational in some sense that I take from the irrational and put in only what effort is required to achieve my goals, thus maximizing output/input (productivity).

The emotional impact of not making a difference is distressing, I agree, but that's a different, rather involved, topic.

Okay, now I think I see the source of our miscommunication: you're assuming humans have an important use in addition to manufacturing products, while I wasn't.

You are partially correct: I have erred in deeming the thermal efficiency of typical high-T-gradient heat engines greater than that of humans (whose organs exploit more modes of energy conversion than those in a heat engine).

However, the conclusion is robust when comparing from the appropriate baselines. To find the total energy-to-mechanical-energy conversion efficiency, you have to factor in the energy losses in generating the sugar to begin with. This gives sugar cane as having the highest photosynthetic efficiency of 8% (light energy to sugar chemical energy).

That must be applied against the 28% thermal efficiency (sugar energy to mechancial energy) I calculate for humans [1], leaving 2.2% net light-to-mechanical efficiency (neglecting distribution energy costs for the sugar).

This is still inefficient compared to other means of using the same sunlight. Taking a characteristic solar cell efficiency on the low end of 6% (light to electricity), with a characteristic efficiency of 90% (electricity to mechanical) gives a 5.4% net light-to-mechanical efficiency -- still significantly higher than that of growing sugar and feeding it to humans!

[1] Human efficiency estimated from the following assumptions: 816 Cal/hr burned by a 200 lb individual climbing stairs at 0.30 m/s; this gives an energy consumption rate of 952 W and mechanical output of 267 W, or 28% efficiency, though again this is only sugar-to-mechanical efficiency.

"Sugar" typically refers to sucrose, chemical compound C12H22O11. In humans, it is respired, with oxygen, to extract the chemical energy and leave behind chemical compounds at lower energy states, not too different from combustion of hydrocarbons.

Because of the small difference between the operating temperature of human bodies, and the temperature of the preferred environments for humans, the effeciency of this energy conversion (chemical to mechanical) is quite low compared to that achieved in well-insulated combustion chambers., which exploit the higher efficiencies possible at higher temperature gradients.

Using sugar for human consumption is, in a sense, quite wasteful.

I don't understand - how does it support the general argument? Because other people liked my soup? I daresay they'd have also liked it if I'd used sugarless beans.

I love sugar. Love it. But not on savory foods.

I don't tend to eat fast food. Don't like tomatoes. But I cook for myself a lot, and have made recipes that are savory and call for sugar, and tried them both with and without said sugar, and they're better without. I accidentally got a bunch of cans of kidney beans with added sugar a few weeks ago and made soup with them without noticing that they had sugar in them, and I could taste the difference in the soup - it was fairly unpleasant for me to eat, while others liked it fine.