It is a routine observation that many things – from wealth to health to happiness – can be conveniently displayed on a standard x-y axis graph, with (hypothetically) -1 as the most negative, least desired score, and +1 as the most desired or positive value. The same is demonstrably true with productivity. For example, yesterday was probably a +.7 (to 1s.f.) day since I got through a series of useful revisionish tasks as well as attending the wonderfully fun media awards. Today, on the other hand, is decidedly in the negative score. In fact, I would probably hypothesise (without the relevant scientific data, you understand) that today scores the inverse of yesterday at approximately -.7429 (ish, to 4s.f, or 4d.p).
I have productively read one article for crime revision. I have productively sat in the garden and listened to music. I have productively eaten ice cream and prepared a barbeque. I have productively done sod all all day and yet I would suggest that an inverse productivity to happiness correlation exists. For example, last night’s festivities were enormous fun, yet arguably probably not very productive vis-a-vis the impending examinations (of doom). Similarly, the ice cream, barbeque, music and garden did little to contribute to my overall productivity and yet were vastly enjoyable. Thus, happiness (H) is inverse to productivity (P).
As the intelligent among you may be aware, such a statement is only valid in the short term. Thus, we need to introduce a third variable, on which both H and P are dependent. For simplicity’s sake, and because its the coolest letter to use in any sort of algebra, I will describe this phenomenon as ‘n’. ‘n’ is the period of time over which one wishes to measure overall happiness into the future. Thus, if n<1, h is inverse to p, but 1>n, p correlates directly to h with an even distribution.
Thus, h / n is greater if p>1>, but over less amounts of time (say n = 2 days), h is inverse to p. Ironically, this selection of badly edited maths has decreased p further, thus affecting my overall h / n, yet leading to a temporary rise in h over a shorter n time period, since h is inversely proportional to p over 1<n (where one is an unspecified measure of time).
I would expand this further, but I may be in danger of failing my degree if I do!
Byee!
H:-) / n = p et al
