Quick Theory I Have About " Doing Your Best " No one agrees with me though :(

[Northman 0]

I have this theory about 'doing your best'.

 

When your doing your best, literally you should be doing the maximum of your capabilities? So that's 100%!

 

What if your 'not doing your best', so your slacking. Isn't it true that your then doing your best in not doing 100% of your capabilities, but like 60%?

 

So basically, your doing your best to reach that 60%. Your doing 100% your best in doing 60% of the maximum of your capabilities.

 

With the punchline at the end: Your always doing your best (100%) in everything.

 

Notice from BuffaloHELP:

Title modified

[dre 0]

100% is usually not needed. For example, to figure out the answer to 2+2, you need to use about 2% instead of 100%, but the results will be identical. What you need to be is not a hard worker, but a smart worker. And no, you don't always do your best in everything.

 

Using knowledge to supplement your effort will also result in you doing less than your 100%, but hey, would you rather be solving the problem rather than exploring the "exciting" ways of discovering the derivative formulas (beforehand)? Hence, just solving the problem=about 40-60%, doing the other will be about 90-100%. I rest my case.

Edited September 18, 2007 by dre (see edit history)

[robcozzens 0]

It's just not practical to do your best in everything. What you should do is the right amount -- for some things that means not doing them at all.

[bishoujo 0]

There's a saying that goes something like 'Work Smart, not Work Hard'. It is true that you should put in effort into everything you do, but if you can do it in a way that takes less effort and still achieve the same result, then why not? Conserve the rest of your efforts for other things

[Carson 0]

There's a saying that goes something like 'Work Smart, not Work Hard'. It is true that you should put in effort into everything you do, but if you can do it in a way that takes less effort and still achieve the same result, then why not? Conserve the rest of your efforts for other things

If you conserve you efforts for other things, you are not doing your best. I think that working smart and not hard will not give the same result. Nothing beats hard work, giving 100%. Although giving 100% is usually near impossible, where working smart is the better thing to do.

[linekill 1]

The sentence "Do your best." is actually incomplete. It should have, at least, specified what is that "thing(s)" where you'll be doing your best. And what best is it. examples: Do your best. 1. Do your best to be happy. 2. Do your best to win.And it further branch out. 1. A. Do your best to be happy with your life. B. Do your best to be happy with your work.2. A. Do your best to win the girl. B. Do your best to win the contest.When quantified, best is equal to 100%. However, as mentioned earlier, the activity and goal should be specified. What Northman was saying could be true if the statement is specified. An example, based on Northman's post. A person has a fever but has to present a project. Otherwise, he'll loss his job. Because of the fever, he'll only be able to perform (60%) of his capability.Is he doing the best of his ability? Nope, just 60% of it. Is he doing the best that he can? Yes. He's doing 100% of the best that he can at that moment. So, it's just a matter of perspective.--------------Internet so slow, i had so much time the reply. hehehe. Peace!

[mojoman 0]

I think the point is this:Just try your best. Nothing to do with 2% or 1 billion percent

[Forbez 0]

I don't really think you can put peoples efforts into percentages. You always do your best to answer a simple sum, you always do your best to answer a difficult one. Doesn't really matter. Part about slacking, you slack on other things which doesn't mean anything to you. So your not trying in the first place. If it's something you like, you are trying. There is no percentages in that, ethier you try, or not.

[dre 0]

If you conserve you efforts for other things, you are not doing your best.

Then let's clarify this. Does "doing your best" involve a useless amount of work to achieve the same exact thing, or doing enough work that needs to be done?

[salamangkero 0]

If you conserve you efforts for other things, you are not doing your best. I think that working smart and not hard will not give the same result. Nothing beats hard work, giving 100%. Although giving 100% is usually near impossible, where working smart is the better thing to do.

I find this hard to believe.

 

If I give you 50 cavans (sacks) of rice, each weighing 50 kilos and you have to deposit them in a storehouse 50 miles from where you are, do you carry each one of them, walking 100 miles each? Or do you use a trolley to transport them into a jeepney you hired (or will drive) to carry them all at once, with lesser effort might I add, to the storehouse?

 

See, in few cases, it usually is better to work hard. Jog, or ride a bike, instead of taking a cab to work. Use the stairs, instead of the elevators, when going 2 floors down, or up. Recycle post-laundry water and carry them in a bucket instead of flushing down money, err, clear water. In these cases, and other similar ones, it is beneficial to a person's health to work harder.

 

However, in our lives, most of us do not live a stone's throw away from the office. Our office might be in the 31st floor (I'd rather not climb it when I'm in a hurry, which is always) We might have the laundry in the basement while we need to flush toilets in in the third floor. Likewise, we simply do not, repeat, do not deliver 50 cavans of rice by hand 50 miles. Nor do we lug around a bagful of explosives; we hire our underlings for that, but that's another matter

 

You're right, though. Working harder and working smarter do not give identical results. Usually, working smarter has the potential to save lives, especially when the city awaiting your rice shipment is under famine. Just imagine what would happen to the poor starving people had you chosen to deliver their food ration by hand (Don't question me please; I, too, have no idea what's behind today's obsession with rice cavans)

 

If you conserve your energy, yes, you are not doing your best. However, I'd like to point out that, sometimes, you don't need to do your best, especially when you have the technology to make it easier. You conserve your energy not because you are stingy but because you have to do your best in other things that really do require your utmost strength.

 

For something a little closer to home, just imagine what would happen if your mom opted to walk to the hospital instead of taking a cab when she was about to give birth to you?

 

Wait... I think I have the solution to overpopulation. It's not rice

[sizzleBomber 0]

that is actualy a very good point! like, what if your trying your best to not do your best, then you are still trying your best. It makes sense in a weid and twisted logic. but, now we need to discover what 110% is as they say in sport etc. 'i put 110% into it', maybe its just that sports people are a bit thck

[Liam_CF 0]

I can see where you're coming from, but I dont agree with you.To do your best at a task you have to work hard, and be on top form.

[dab 0]

As mentioned, doing your best is relative. You can only do the best of your 60% which would still be doing your best to 100%. Aslo it was mentioned you can't rate your "best" which is true. My "best" at working on a car would be to open the hood and go "yep, that's an engine", while another's would be to take apart the engine and check each piece for the broken part. Bests are relative. "best" just sucks. It 's a terrible word, that has no definite meaning. "of the highest quality, excellence, or standing:" according to Dictionary.com. This states the highest, but highest is based on opinion. As is said "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". You cannot say one woman is better than another. You cannot say this one is the best. So saying you did better than another person just can't happen to where everyone agrees 100%. And that's what best assumes. All similar consensus.

[sheepdog 10]

I don't really think HOW you do a job comes into play here with this theory. Carrying a sack of rice 50 miles because you need exercise doesn't really pertain to doing things by your best. My take on this is that when you give it your all, you consider that you are giving 100%. But sometimes you can't for whatever reason, actually give it your all, so you just do what you can. So if you aren't feeling up to par, and you still do what you can, I suppose you would be giveing 100% of your abilities at the given time.

[Vistz 1]

If you look at "Doing your best" in that regard, then you do not always need to do your best. For example, if you're taking out the trash or solving some simple math problem, then there is no need to try your best. On the other hand, there may be those who are handicapped somehow and in fact need to try their best in order to take out the trash or solve a math problem.I feel like that too many times, individuals underestimate the magnitude of the problem they are trying to accomplish. Therefore, they end up putting less than "their best" and the end product does not look good.My opinion on "Doing your best" is that assess the situation, and put in 10-15% more effort, just in case the problem is more complicated than you anticipated.