Your concept of improvement making things worthy is interesting, but very subjective. What is the difference between getting better at photography and getting better at playing Dota (or chess for that matter). These kind of discussions evolve into meaning of life debates really fast.
Yeah, I guess there's really no qualitative difference. It's just that I suck too much at DotA to justify the hours upon hours I spend on it, whereas my photography is rather better without spending that much time on it. That makes the latter a more worthy pursuit.
If I had a hope of being a professional DotA player, maybe the distinction would not be as clear.
DotA is a competitive game, and if you compare yourself to other players, you're chasing a moving goalpost while your returns are diminishing. It would be the same if you were measuring your photography skills by one-upping other photographers on a some kind of daily amateur photography tournament.
I like to look at things as training skills (see my 10-100-10k model, [0], nicely improved by noahl). If you never played DotA before and sit on it for a dozen hours of so, you'll be familiar enough with it to decide whether to continue deliberately training it to get better, just play it casually for fun, or drop it altogether. The first implies that you have a goal, so I'd classify this as productive (towards that goal, maybe you really want to be on top of a local ladder, or whatever it is in DotA; I don't play it). The second means that it's just recreation for you, and it's fair to classify it as such. We all need to do something for leisure, one man plays football, another plays guitar, yet another plays StarCraft.
In other words, I classify things as something I either deliberately want to get better at (thus doing it is productive), or do just for fun without caring about improving the skill (thus this is doing things for fun). Both ways of spending time are good, but it helps to be clear about which is which.
I don't think it's as clear as that. I want to get good enough to win Dota most of the time, but the global matchmaking means that I only win 50% of games, and enjoy only a percentage of those.
Similarly, for photography, it frustrates me that I can browse the top page on 500px and see thousands of photos per hour that I can never hope to match even once. Still, I do it because I like it. I don't think I've ever done anything just because I want to get good at it, and I've been programming most of the day for 20 years, because it's fun for me.
All in all, there's a spectrum of the metrics you mention, I don't think it's discrete.
You could use an productive/unproductive distinction.
After some hours of photography, you have some photos which did not exist previously. After hours of DotA you have only some improved muscle memory and so on, nothing tangible.
This heuristic would however rule out the learning of more "worthy" pure skills, jazz piano, unicycling etc.
I think adding creative skills and skills of physical mastery both make for more worthy pursuits. This would cover your jazz piano and unicycling and would exclude the Dota example. It also excludes reading fiction, which I think is not much different from watching a movie or playing a game.
Would it not also exclude learning a foreign language, though? Not to mention that it's pretty arbitrary that those skills are considered worthy, but others aren't...
I don't think I can formalize it easily, sadly. I guess I hate Dota because I play it even though it frustrates me most of the time, and it doesn't leave me with any lasting skill other than itself.
Yeah, as icebraining says, photos by themselves aren't worth anything. It's the improvement to my skill in photography that's worth it (and that's as intangible as my skill in DotA, or programming).
This is an interesting perspective. Is the goal of learning photography not ultimately to bring beautiful (or whatever) photos into the world? Or to achieve self-expression by doing so?
To me, creative skills are not inherently meaningful until practiced. Except I suppose for improving ones self-image as a "creative person," which is ultimately a self-destructive pursuit.
If one goes around "being a maker" without actually making, that distinction exists only within ones head. Seems pretty solipsistic.
Ah, I see what you mean. There are probably extrinsic and intrinsic components in everything. In that light, Dota is like most sports, you play because you like it, but you also produce a spectacle to fans in the process.
Photography, for me, is similar. I take photos because I like the process and the output, not specifically so other people can see them. There's a tradeoff there, but I'm not sure I could say that playing basketball is useless, for example (although that has more health benefits than Dota).
It's a hard question. Similarly, learning a foreign language feels very useful to me, even though it doesn't produce anything at all.
I think it's just a matter of how much you value being better at photography vs. being better at DotA. If you care about improving a skill, I'd call actions towards it productive.
Having a subjective criterion is fine, as long as it's applied to oneself, and not to judge others. Telling other people what constitutes improvement for them won't go over well, but could be very useful way of deciding how to spend your own time.
