Iād be quite interested to hear one or more people from 80k share their thoughts on this post, e.g. on questions like:
To what extent do they think there are ādisagreementsā between their advice/āframework and this one, vs something more like this just being a different framework and providing different emphases (which might still therefore lead readers in different directions, especially if readers engage quickly)?
To what extent do they think itād be good if someone thinking about career choice swapped out reading some 80k content for reading this?
E.g.,would 80k staff think itād be best to read their full key ideas article, their full career planning process article, and then this? Or maybe read this earlier? Or maybe read this only after reading some problem profiles, career reviews, etc.?
E.g., how does this differ between different types of readers?
I think Holdenās framework is useful and Iām really glad he wrote the post.
I agree with Holden about the value of seeking out several different sources of advice using multiple frameworks and I hope 80kās readers spend time engaging with his aptitude-based framing. I havenāt had a chance to think about exactly how to prioritise it relative to specific pieces of our content.
Itās a little hard to say to what extent differences between our advice and Holdenās are concrete disagreements v. different emphases. From our perspective, itās definitely possible that we have some underlying differences of opinion (e.g. I think all else equal Holden puts more weight on personal fit) but, overall, I agree with the vast majority of what Holden says about what types of talent seem most useful to develop. Holden might have his own take on the extent to which we disagree.
The approach we take in the new planning process overlaps a bit more with Holdenās approach than some of our past content does. For example, we encourage people to think about which broad āroleā is the best fit for them in the long-term, where that could be something like ācommunicatorā, as well as something narrower like ājournalistā, depending on what level of abstraction you find most useful.
I think one weakness with 80kās advice right now is that our āfive categoriesā are too high-level and often get overshadowed by the priority paths. Aptitudes are a different framework from our five categories conceptually, but seem to overlap a fair amount in practice (e.g. government & policy = political & bureaucratic aptitude). However, I like that Holdenās list is more specific (and he has lots of practical advice on how to assess your fit), and I could see us adapting some of this content and integrating it into our advice.
Iād be quite interested to hear one or more people from 80k share their thoughts on this post, e.g. on questions like:
To what extent do they think there are ādisagreementsā between their advice/āframework and this one, vs something more like this just being a different framework and providing different emphases (which might still therefore lead readers in different directions, especially if readers engage quickly)?
To what extent do they think itād be good if someone thinking about career choice swapped out reading some 80k content for reading this?
E.g.,would 80k staff think itād be best to read their full key ideas article, their full career planning process article, and then this? Or maybe read this earlier? Or maybe read this only after reading some problem profiles, career reviews, etc.?
E.g., how does this differ between different types of readers?
Hi Michael,
Just some very quick reactions from 80k:
I think Holdenās framework is useful and Iām really glad he wrote the post.
I agree with Holden about the value of seeking out several different sources of advice using multiple frameworks and I hope 80kās readers spend time engaging with his aptitude-based framing. I havenāt had a chance to think about exactly how to prioritise it relative to specific pieces of our content.
Itās a little hard to say to what extent differences between our advice and Holdenās are concrete disagreements v. different emphases. From our perspective, itās definitely possible that we have some underlying differences of opinion (e.g. I think all else equal Holden puts more weight on personal fit) but, overall, I agree with the vast majority of what Holden says about what types of talent seem most useful to develop. Holden might have his own take on the extent to which we disagree.
The approach we take in the new planning process overlaps a bit more with Holdenās approach than some of our past content does. For example, we encourage people to think about which broad āroleā is the best fit for them in the long-term, where that could be something like ācommunicatorā, as well as something narrower like ājournalistā, depending on what level of abstraction you find most useful.
I think one weakness with 80kās advice right now is that our āfive categoriesā are too high-level and often get overshadowed by the priority paths. Aptitudes are a different framework from our five categories conceptually, but seem to overlap a fair amount in practice (e.g. government & policy = political & bureaucratic aptitude). However, I like that Holdenās list is more specific (and he has lots of practical advice on how to assess your fit), and I could see us adapting some of this content and integrating it into our advice.