'You CANNOT give 110% effort – an explosion of pe...

[MSE Helen]

Thread Stats

Views:

1,364

WW Factor

Coming Soon...

Share This Thread:

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "You CANNOT give 110% effort – an explosion of pent up nerd rage" Blog.

Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.

[Dave_C]

I 99.999% agree.

Dave

[lilac_lady]

I always think anything over 100% is ridiculous and I'm glad that I'm not the only one.

[jamesd]

I agree in general, but consider some useful cases where it can be an accurate and useful measure to use more than 100%:

• The Space Shuttle main engines. Normally operated today at 104.5% of design thrust with 106% and 109% available for emergency use because the chance of failures increases above 104.5%. 100% was the design rating, the others are genuine improvements or options based on experience of what is safe that can't really replace the standard 100%.
• The Working Time Regulations and both contractual and normal working hour cap that can be exceeded. 100% remains the normal contractual working week but we wouldn't want to increase the standard beyond 100% even after a long period at 110% of contractual hours.
• Martin's work week, which must surely breach the Working Time Regulations, were he not self employed.

[aliasojo]

I think the whole thing is ridiculous. It's an expression, offered simply as a way of conveying the strength of something. Pedantry at it's best.

We all have our bugbears though, so rant away.

[MSE Martin]

Originally Posted by jamesd

I agree in general, but consider some useful cases where it can be an accurate and useful measure to use more than 100%:

• The Space Shuttle main engines. Normally operated today at 104.5% of design thrust with 106% and 109% available for emergency use because the chance of failures increases above 104.5%. 100% was the design rating, the others are genuine improvements or options based on experience of what is safe that can't really replace the standard 100%.
• The Working Time Regulations and both contractual and normal working hour cap that can be exceeded. 100% remains the normal contractual working week but we wouldn't want to increase the standard beyond 100% even after a long period at 110% of contractual hours.
• Martin's work week, which must surely breach the Working Time Regulations, were he not self employed.

I agree with this but explain it in the blog.

Percentage can be used in two ways. A measure of the absolute (in which case the maximum is 100%) or a measure of increase in which case there is no maximum (e.g. turnover increased 234%). Yet as explained in the blog for effort 110% is either meaningless or not impressive depending on which you use it for.

[etruscanshades]

Of course you can give 110% of your previous effort. If you don't qualify the remark by adding "of my maximum" then there's nothing wrong with the phrase at all.

We should all strive to exceed our previous best effort.

I don't know why people get so upset about the phrase. Its just hyperbole.

[Errata]

I worry about your blood pressure sometimes
People know exactly what they mean when they say they'll give something 110% - it's no more an indication of their numeracy than them saying a cat has nine live is.

[Sceptic001]

If only someone had told Italy not to borrow 120% of its own GDP...

[User name]

I've seen somewhere before an explanation of when it sometimes makes sense to not have 100% being the maximum possible, but pegged at a specific point below that.

it goes something along the following:

a jet fighter might have a maximum possible speed of say mach 2... however in normal operations will only go up to (say) 1.6 - 1.6 is used as 100%, because operating within that limit means following the standard maintenance proceedures etc.

it can go past that up to say 1.8 but after any flight at that speed would require a complete engine rebuild, hence this is considered above the normal maximum say 112.5%

past that stage up to the operational maximum possible speed of mach 2, which would only be used in extreme circumstances - at the end of the operation the engine would need to be taken out of the plane and thrown in the bin. it makes sense again that this is not normal and is above the maximum "effort" that should normally be required, say 125%.

given these different figures, it makes sense for 100% to be the maximum it can do within normal operating proceedures.

[chardir]

I don't get why this is so upsetting? People exaggerate all the time, why is this different?

EDIT: just noticed my unintentional pun

[antonia1]

I agree that the 110% thing is pretty annoying, but it is only symptomatic of a more fundamental problem - using comparative language without a benchmark.

For instance, if I were to say "today I am 5cm taller", you would also need to know what I was 5cm taller than. Am I 5cm taller than I was when I was 10 years old, or 5cm taller than I was yesterday?

As another example, hair conditioner is often sold as ensuring hair has "5 times less damage from brushing". Less than what exactly?! Is that 5 times less than using supermarket own brand conditioner, or 5 times less than using no conditioner at all?

Giving 110% of the effort I was giving yesterday is fine (as yesterday was an average working day), but giving 110% of my maximum possible effort is impossible. It is not the phrase itself which causes a problem, it is the lack of proper explanation.

[2sides2everystory]

I think the most interesting aspect of the phrase in common usage is who is using it and what is unsaid but which they intend to convey by it.

When used in a business or political environment it is usually intended to convey a mixture of arrogant assertion designed to spin.

As we all spend so much of our lives in a spun environment it is then not surprising that we find phrases from the office end up in common (corrupted) usage too.

[Million Percent]

This is a major pet hate of mine, hence the username. I agree that Simon Cowell has a hell of a lot to answer for.


The best example I saw was in our blessed tabloid press when Gordon Brown said he supported Tony Blair 101%. The papers tried to make a story out of it because he'd said ONLY 101% as though it were meant in a negative way.

[Dave_C]

My emphasis

Originally Posted by aliasojo

I think the whole thing is ridiculous. It's an expression, offered simply as a way of conveying the strength of something. Pedantry at it's best.

We all have our bugbears though, so rant away.

The pedant in me has to point out that it should be its best.

Dave

[mathsmaster]

ROCK ON!!!!!

[edinburgher]

an explosion of pent up nerd rage

Is this a title, or a description of Martin on TV in general?

[Mobeer]

I think using 110% is ok in the short term. For example being asked to do 110% of your normal office hours on Monday is ok, so long as there is an understanding that on Friday you will only do 90% of normal. 110% becomes dangerous when it starts becoming the routine figure.

[gilligansyle]

Agree that you can't give 110 % effort, but to do so implies that previously you weren't really doing much.
Many expressions are now common usage and are frequently used in advertising - a pet hate of mine is 'now with 80% less fat' - so how much was in it originally??

[dseventy]

...to join forces to together defeat the scourge ...

..blight on the lexicon of our country and it needs to be stopped....

...annoys me so much…

Such a strong stance against 110%!

Shame this type of language and condemnation was not applied to the NOTW issue!

D70