Remember the British form of amateurism? The Brits wanted to succeed and they wanted you to know they did it without even trying or working hard. America is exactly the opposite; I don't believe people are actually as workaholic as they'd make us believe -- at least in my limited experience. Everyone in Silicon Valley talks about 120-hour weeks, and working 7 days a week until your fingers are numb... but in reality they go skiing in Tahoe on weekends, sailing in the bay, out for dinner and sushi and drinks in Noe Valley, or Burritos in the mission, and they go to music festivals like outside lands and alternative tests like burning man, to giants games at AT&T park, to networking "events,"where they socialize yet call work. They say they don't take vacation, but what they really mean is that when they are in Hawaii for a two-week exclusive conference for "work," that since they have an iPad or MacBook Air with them, that counts as work. Don't get me wrong, some of these people are generally working 6 or 7 days/week, but only when they're just starting, and even then the total amount of hours worked is a poor measure for productivity.

And yet, everyone of these "starters," will tell you straight in the face that they work 120 hours / week ... Famously,twitter founder and square.com CEO said he works 8 hours a day at twitter and 8 hours a day at Square. 16 hours a day! Wow, what a legend. Until the NYT outed him in an article about the twitter CEO and said that this guy jack Dorsey *actually* only comes into twitter on Tuesdays. So why the 16-hour two jobs story? Because we have this perverse-reverse British culture. Maybe the guy at best works 60 hours / week, which is only 75% of what he made us believe with his brazen two job story.

In short, I think many people don't work as hard as they say they do. And if they are at "work," they are probably spending loads of time doing other non-work activities. The people who are really workaholics, in my opinion, are the ones who are working three jobs because they have mouths to feed, not because they want a badge of honor.

I don't think workaholics are heroes; I think *successful* people have a fundamental attribution error -- or let's call it survivor bias -- and inevitably that bias is that "they worked harder than everybody else." Of course, it's impossible to test; if I took 1,000 jump shots a day and worked 10,000 hours every three or four years to be great at basketball, would I be as good as Michael Jordan? And yet, Phil knight will tell us that he was the hardest working player ever -- but was also notorious for gambling, cavorting, and golfing. So which is it?

So I think people admire successful people -- executives, presidents, Olympians, professional athletes, actors/actresses -- and we create a survivor bias story about that person being a workaholic, so it makes it rather easy to understand why they succeed (instead of you know, a combination of luck, timing, talent, and perseverance). I don't think people inherently admire workaholics.

The real question I have is why Jack Dorsey lied about his involvement with Twitter.

When Jack set the record straight on actual time spent at Twitter, he explained:

"We haven't talked about this publicly because it's not what people using Twitter every day care about."

Well then why did he have to make up the story of spending 40 hours a week at Twitter in the first place?

It just shoots his credibility now that we know he lied about it.