"From each according to his ability" implies a socially productive career doesn't it?

The goal for any socialist state is full employment, doing work that benefits society in some way. Of course allowing for different definitions of employment and work, outside of the capitalist definition of "that which earns profit". Recognizing that all jobs deserve respect, that a man sweeping the floor of a factory deserves the same rights and privileges, access to the same resources, and is just as important to the overall organization, as management.

I don't understand your objections to the comment that you're replying to. Capitalism forces maladaptive social constructs that greatly impact some people, presumably including yourself. People with trouble managing time getting fired for being 5 minutes late, companies targeting people with addictive traits in order to extract profit, people who have trouble with social anxiety or social interaction being forced to "sell themselves" in interviews to get the job that they need to survive, most "menial" jobs being in customer service which requires quite a bit of emotional labor even from the most gregarious and outgoing people, these are all a result of the capitalist mode of production.

The socialist mode of production will still have some requirements, factory work does rely on punctuality, some jobs will require interacting with the public, there will always be individuals who take advantage of others. But in a socialist society everyone would be directed to socially productive careers, because the unproductive careers would be phased out and unnecessary. You don't need marketing executives to sell artisan crafted triple-ply toilet paper if the state has a monopoly on toilet paper production. And in this kind of environment, even if you're not a good fit for a job that requires extraordinary time management skills, you would be free to pursue whatever career best matches your abilities and desires without the threat of starving in the street.

I don't think I am understanding your objection to that comment above, and would appreciate if you could explain it to me.