I see elements of a common story in EA: I’m ok at X and EA needs more X, so that’s what I’ll do, even thought I’m not super passionate about it. The value to the world will make up for my lack of enthusiasm. I will make a sacrifice for the greater good.
This is a noble ideal, but in practice, I’ve never seen it sustained over the long term. There are a lot of ways to contribute to EA, and while some on paper might look more effective than others, intrinsic motivation dwarfs any of those differences. As long as you are choosing from the options within EA (or whatever you feel is effective), finalizing based on your internal compass is the way to go.
Thanks for sharing your story. I’m confident it will help others “fail faster” and avoid spending too long on a path that doesn’t work for them.
In the broader economy there are a lot of people who successfully do a job they’re not super passionate for many decades, simply because they don’t have much choice. Even inside EA there are a lot of roles that look just like an ordinary job at an ordinary corporation, except the employer is an EA org. If ordinary people, often viewing their jobs as a necessary evil to pay the bills rather than a vocation, manage to make entire careers doing those jobs, it’s a bit surprising if EAs can’t manage to do the same thing. Perhaps EAs have such good alternative options that this looks less attractive on a relative basis?
I generally agree, but can see a few reasons this might be somewhat different in the EA population:
People in the ordinary economy who “successfully do a job they’re not super passionate” about may not do that job very well. If your job is about advertising consumer goods or something, you are less likely to feel distressed by being a mediocre performer than if your job involves an EA cause area.
Most people have enough occupational flexibility to avoid jobs that are particularly ill-suited for them (e.g., that are too unstructured, too social, too mathematical, etc.). Indeed, many can choose (at some point) between several career fields with roughly equal pay and may be able to pick a field they are relatively well-suited for even if they lack any passion for that line of work. To the extent people feel they ought work in one of a very few number of fields or roles, the risk that they’ve talked themselves into something they are ill-suited for increases.
I think this is mostly true, but doesn’t seem to take into account that it is possible (I claim) and not unlikely (I speculate) that people develop a passion for something while they work on it. So I would still want people to try their hand at things that might not intuitively seem super appealing to them, ideally with cheap tests and iterative depth.
Sure, I’m all for trial and error. But the key is to “fail fast.” If you’re white-knuckling it—or even just drifting along not really engaged—for months on end, it’s time to make a change.
That’s true but in my experience the two are related. Things you care about you’ll be better at and vice versa. The protagonist from Good Will Hunting is the exception, not the rule
I see elements of a common story in EA: I’m ok at X and EA needs more X, so that’s what I’ll do, even thought I’m not super passionate about it. The value to the world will make up for my lack of enthusiasm. I will make a sacrifice for the greater good.
This is a noble ideal, but in practice, I’ve never seen it sustained over the long term. There are a lot of ways to contribute to EA, and while some on paper might look more effective than others, intrinsic motivation dwarfs any of those differences. As long as you are choosing from the options within EA (or whatever you feel is effective), finalizing based on your internal compass is the way to go.
Thanks for sharing your story. I’m confident it will help others “fail faster” and avoid spending too long on a path that doesn’t work for them.
In the broader economy there are a lot of people who successfully do a job they’re not super passionate for many decades, simply because they don’t have much choice. Even inside EA there are a lot of roles that look just like an ordinary job at an ordinary corporation, except the employer is an EA org. If ordinary people, often viewing their jobs as a necessary evil to pay the bills rather than a vocation, manage to make entire careers doing those jobs, it’s a bit surprising if EAs can’t manage to do the same thing. Perhaps EAs have such good alternative options that this looks less attractive on a relative basis?
I generally agree, but can see a few reasons this might be somewhat different in the EA population:
People in the ordinary economy who “successfully do a job they’re not super passionate” about may not do that job very well. If your job is about advertising consumer goods or something, you are less likely to feel distressed by being a mediocre performer than if your job involves an EA cause area.
Most people have enough occupational flexibility to avoid jobs that are particularly ill-suited for them (e.g., that are too unstructured, too social, too mathematical, etc.). Indeed, many can choose (at some point) between several career fields with roughly equal pay and may be able to pick a field they are relatively well-suited for even if they lack any passion for that line of work. To the extent people feel they ought work in one of a very few number of fields or roles, the risk that they’ve talked themselves into something they are ill-suited for increases.
I think this is mostly true, but doesn’t seem to take into account that it is possible (I claim) and not unlikely (I speculate) that people develop a passion for something while they work on it. So I would still want people to try their hand at things that might not intuitively seem super appealing to them, ideally with cheap tests and iterative depth.
Sure, I’m all for trial and error. But the key is to “fail fast.” If you’re white-knuckling it—or even just drifting along not really engaged—for months on end, it’s time to make a change.
I think it’s good to remember that personal fit isn’t just about happiness, it’s also about how good you will be at the job over the long-term.
That’s true but in my experience the two are related. Things you care about you’ll be better at and vice versa. The protagonist from Good Will Hunting is the exception, not the rule