I see elements of a common story in EA: Iām ok at X and EA needs more X, so thatās what Iāll do, even thought Iām 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, Iāve 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. Iām confident it will help others āfail fasterā and avoid spending too long on a path that doesnāt work for them.
In the broader economy there are a lot of people who successfully do a job theyāre not super passionate for many decades, simply because they donāt 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, itās a bit surprising if EAs canāt 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 āsuccessfully do a job theyāre not super passionateā 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 theyāve talked themselves into something they are ill-suited for increases.
I think this is mostly true, but doesnāt 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, Iām all for trial and error. But the key is to āfail fast.ā If youāre white-knuckling itāor even just drifting along not really engagedāfor months on end, itās time to make a change.
Thatās true but in my experience the two are related. Things you care about youāll 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: Iām ok at X and EA needs more X, so thatās what Iāll do, even thought Iām 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, Iāve 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. Iām confident it will help others āfail fasterā and avoid spending too long on a path that doesnāt work for them.
In the broader economy there are a lot of people who successfully do a job theyāre not super passionate for many decades, simply because they donāt 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, itās a bit surprising if EAs canāt 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 āsuccessfully do a job theyāre not super passionateā 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 theyāve talked themselves into something they are ill-suited for increases.
I think this is mostly true, but doesnāt 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, Iām all for trial and error. But the key is to āfail fast.ā If youāre white-knuckling itāor even just drifting along not really engagedāfor months on end, itās time to make a change.
I think itās good to remember that personal fit isnāt just about happiness, itās also about how good you will be at the job over the long-term.
Thatās true but in my experience the two are related. Things you care about youāll be better at and vice versa. The protagonist from Good Will Hunting is the exception, not the rule