[Question] 20,000/​40,000 Hours- MidCareer Options

A ques­tion, framed by the con­cept of tak­ing 80,000 Hours and split­ting it up to rec­og­nize that not all peo­ple are at the start of their 80,000 Hours, but what are re­sources available to help peo­ple rec­og­nize per­sonal strengths on their ca­reer path that should be con­sid­ered when look­ing at steer­ing their ca­reer in a more EA di­rec­tion? The ad­vice from 80,000 Hours on the topic is still a sketch and I was cu­ri­ous if there have been other ar­ti­cles touch­ing on it more.

Imag­ine, for the sake of the ques­tion, some­one who has already spent 70,000 Hours on solv­ing a prob­lem (pick your fa­vorite one) and then ei­ther they them­selves or so­ciety col­lec­tively has “solved” the prob­lem. Without play­ing too much to the sunk cost fal­lacy, would it make sense that the most effec­tive course of ac­tion for that in­di­vi­d­ual (not the EA com­mu­nity as a whole) to be to stay the course, poke around the “solu­tion,” make sure it sticks, in­stead of go­ing to some­thing else?

This ties into the con­cept of ca­reer cap­i­tal as a fac­tor, but I find that there’s not a lot of dis­cus­sion of lev­er­ag­ing the ca­reer cap­i­tal you already have, ver­sus chart­ing a course to build ca­reer cap­i­tal (where most of the ad­vice seems to be, like fo­cus­ing on flex­ible ca­reer cap­i­tal). A lot of the ad­vice seems to be “Your situ­a­tion may vary.”

The dis­cus­sion of com­par­a­tive ad­van­tage by Ben­jamin Todd touches on this, but in a more thought ex­per­i­ment way to look at con­cepts to carry through to the real world in co­or­di­nat­ing ca­reers.

Is this just gen­er­ally an area that hasn’t been well de­vel­oped?