> As a young person, though, I think the best thing you can do is to ignore all of that and simply observe the older people working there.
> They are the future you. Do not think that you will be substantially different. Look carefully at how they spend their time at work and outside of work, because this is also almost certainly how your life will look. It sounds obvious, but it’s amazing how often young people imagine a different projection for themselves.
> Look at the real people, and you’ll see the honest future for yourself.
…
> This is all just to explain why, when people write me for career advice, I’m as likely to respond with something like “if I were you, I’d hitchhike to Alaska this summer instead.”
> My career advice usually falls within the framework of doing the absolute minimum amount of work necessary to prevent starvation, and then doing something that’s not about money, completely outside of supporting structures, and not simply a matter of “consuming experience” with the remaining available time.
Honestly, that seems really naive. While you probably shouldn't work a job you hate, the fact is that money enables a lot of positive life choices. If you work the "absolute minimum", you are going to be stressing about a roof over your head, about where your next meal is coming from, about how to pay those unexpected medical expenses, or whatever.
Find a job you like that pays decently. Use the money to live a good life. Instead of hitchhiking to Alaska, you can take a plane.
I've read "Die With Zero" by Bill Perkins recently.
I think Perkins would say in that case that there's a time for everything. At 20-25, it's maybe a good idea to hitchhike to Alaska. At 45, married, with children and a mortgage, it's probably a bad idea.
True, but the larger point stands: your job has a huge influence on who you become. And the organization's mission and culture also will impact your identity. I have seen a lot of former colleagues make a lot of gross compromises for career advancement over the years. People who wanted to make a positive difference in the world who end up working for weapons manufacturers and the intelligence agency cutouts that create the conditions for our forever wars.
>If there were no weapons manufacturers or intelligence agencies you would still have wars.
There would be far less of them.
>Humanity always finds a way to resolve disputes through violence and aggression.
This has been the case for a long time, doesn't mean it will persist forever. For example, slavery is mostly illegal and stamped out (except in Libya, one of the victims of US "intelligence" complex's forever war) compared to less than two centuries ago, which is a blink of an eye for human history.
Strong disagree. I am reminded of the quote: "If you don't have a plan of your own you'll become part of someone else's plan." Your job has as much of an influence on who you become as you let it have... the contention that you are your job really shows nothing more than a lack of ambition.
I don't think it's crazy that what you do for half your waking time has an effect in shaping you? It's like saying you're immune to advertising, you probably don't even notice all of the ways your work influences you.
Not sure where you have worked, but that's not most people's experience. You can have all the ambition in the world and with the wrong environment or culture you will slam into a brick wall very quickly. And sure, you can change jobs if your skillset is in demand, but guess what-- most other orgs function exactly the same. In fact, the people who are willing to compromise themselves most are often the ones who get ahead. That might be what some consider "ambition."
I think the main problem is they weren't really "experiments" in the sense of proving anything meaningful, and serious attempts to do so did not replicate.
> Zimbardo and his assistants ordered the guards to become cruel, and, moreover, that guards and prisoners alike knew what Zimbardo was trying to prove and were eager to help. [1]
My interpretation when watching Fight Club was that Tyler Durden meant you become your job. But at that point, when you're a working adult, you are that job, so you may as well say that you are your job.
I would love to hitchhike to Alaska, but I’m terrified of what would happen to my career if I did. I worked hard to get a good job, and the situation right now is bad. There are so many people waiting for me to keel over and die because they’re also good engineers who want good jobs.
I quit my Software engineering job and drove up to Alaska for a whole summer. I continued south after that, all the way to Argentina. It took 2 years, through 17 countries. Paddled with icebergs, poked lava with a stick, climbed a 20,000 foot active volcano, learned Spanish, etc. etc.
Adventure I had never dreamed possible, and adventure lifetime is an understatement.
When I got back I got the first Software Engineering job I applied for, basically at the same level I was before (junior/mid). It was easy to explain the "gap" on my resume as working on myself, learning self-reliance, people skills, Spanish, etc.
You just have to accept you won't climb the ladder as fast as people that stayed, but also you'll have two years of massive adventure instead of sitting at a desk every day.
> Be careful not to discover a career before you’ve discovered yourself
I feel it's possible to re-discover yourself more than once throughout your life. Right after finishing high school I thought that writing code is the real me. Now more than a decade has passed and I'm trying to find myself again. Our jobs define us, but we're in charge of how far we're willing to take it. There are engineers who are genuinely passionate about writing code and will happily do so outside of working hours, for free, with no intent for recognition or clout. And then there's me and the rest of average Joe's - sure our job has defined us, but it hasn't consumed us. Be careful about your career choices consuming you.
Agree 100%. First of all, this is much more of an “anecdote” or “dinner theater” than an “experiment.“
But even more so, when you take a bunch of people and _tell them to play these roles_, why are surprised when they _play the stereotype of those roles?_
That's totally fine. You're allowed to have your own brown M&Ms. There's a lot of thinkpieces out there, and you need some means of deciding which to read. Citing a debunked experiment w/o disclaimer is a totally reasonable criteria for you to close one of those hundred tabs.
But FWIW, I found the rest of the article pretty good.
No. What the experiment showed is that you can be TEMPORARILY coerced into certain behaviors in abusive environments (especially by authority figures - as was exemplified in the Milgram experiment), but it won't change who you actually are.
The SPE is really a study in toxic workplaces and abusive relationships.
I really wish people would stop quoting the SPE without researching what actually happened and why (and the fact that it was tainted due to Zimbardo's direct involvement and direction in order to get the results he wanted).
Don't worry: You are NOT your job, and your job isn't going to change you forever. This is just a scare piece.
The only thing you should keep in mind is: If it FEELS wrong to you, go with your gut, because sticking around will be traumatic.
This isn't what I took away from it. It's basically your environment really dictates a lot of who you are and what you become. From my experience, this is absolutely the case.
Your environment during your early formative years, yes. By the time you're in your mid-late teens, your moral reasoning is already pretty much solidified (and really it's more about clan loyalty than morality at that point - although we often conflate the two when it comes to inter-clan conflict).
Maybe in an ideal world, but in practically any real world scenario this isn't the case. Spend enough time somewhere and the mechanics of that place inevitably influence the way we act, in the workforce and out.
You don't think post college jobs and experiences change you? You don't think being a salaryman vs a school teacher versus world travel changes your perspective values and behaviors?
But it is healthy to keep this perspective (Tyler durdens assertion) and always try to grow in some way that isn't involved with money
I agree with both. Your job is a pretty big part of your life and, like any experience you have, it shapes you.
You’re a complex and constantly evolving human. Your job is a part of you, like it’s your family, friends, education, hobbies, media you consume, ideas, secrets…
So, you’re not your job but your job is a big part of you.
If someone gets angry, lashes out, and the following day says sorry I wasn't acting like my self the other day.. Why would that be true? Why can't it just be that it was a part of you? I don't mean when it's said casually either.
Even without the experiment, it seems odd to me that behaviors and culture you engage with for generally half of your waking hours for several decades has nothing to do with your identity. This posts reads a bit like a Joshua Fluke reaction video.
it could be, but assuming that in general implies that your behavior is genetic and there is nothing you can do to change it. which i do not believe to be true. your behavior is formed by your environment, and you can change how you behave.
> Don't worry: You are NOT your job, and your job isn't going to change you forever. This is just a scare piece.
Jobs definitely can and do change people though. For a while I worked for a financial company (and I had previously worked in videogames) and I definitely became a different person there, one whom I didn't like. I ended up leaving because I could see myself changing over time and it made me uncomfortable when looking at the "lifers" in the company and understanding that was my future.
Stanford prison experiment has very much been debunked, it does not reflect at all what would naturally happen in such a situation.
> These new criticisms include the biased and incomplete collection of data, the extent to which the SPE drew on a prison experiment devised and conducted by students in one of Zimbardo's classes 3 months earlier, the fact that the guards received precise instructions regarding the treatment of the prisoners, the fact that the guards were not told they were subjects, and the fact that participants were almost never completely immersed by the situation. [0]
> Zimbardo and his assistants ordered the guards to become cruel, and, moreover, that guards and prisoners alike knew what Zimbardo was trying to prove and were eager to help. [1]
> In other words, the sadism of the guards and the submissiveness of the prisoners in the experiment didn’t reveal the hidden darkness of the human soul, so much as the willingness of college students to please a professor. [1]
That's why I am so often disgusted with the psychology research ethics. So many experiments are impossible to reproduce (vide recent reproducibility crisis), some (like the Stanford Prison Experiment) are debunked, but it is already too late — the damage is already done. As soon as a controversial research thesis reaches the public opinion (Zimbardo made sure his thesis would become popular), it becomes part of the "folk wisdom" and is repeated as a holy truth and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fwiw I don't think an IRB would ever sign off on Zimbardo in 2023. Extremely poorly designed study; it's a travesty that we still see his mug while he narrates videos in Psych 101.
It is career advice. Whether it is pretty good is debatable. To suggest that you look at people slightly ahead of you and use that as some kind of magic mirror is just so tragically flawed.
First, it supposes that the you of now, inexperienced as you are, can properly evaluate not only what is going on in these older coworkers lives, but that you will also properly appreciate how your own tastes will change between now and then.
Secondly, you are looking at pure survivorship bias. You aren't going to see the folks that did a 5 year turn doing development and then found some other direction to take their career in. If you are a new hire and look at the 50 year old dev on the team and assume your career might go the same you are taking a very narrow vision of the future.
I always found late 40s plus developers very nice people in general. Maybe the selection bias of those who didn’t become managers or leave the profession. I agree with you though.
- If you don't come from money, and your personality desires security and safety, don't do risky stuff like wasting your 20's hitchhiking and being a ski bum. You should get skills and a career. I came from lower-middle class and have always had the nagging fear of being destitute. I am so much happier that I worked hard in my 20s (80 hours a week hard) so my 30s and 40s were more comfortable.
- Your habits chart your trajectory. If you start working out 3x a week, you will continue doing this and be physically fit. If you drink alcohol 3x a week, you will continue to do this and become wrinkled and grumpy. If you get fired from a job 3x a year, you will continue to have this happen, no matter what your excuse is about why it isn't your fault you got fired. Try and work on good habits.
- You are the company you keep. Cut out negative people who always are complaining and blaming others. Focus on wholesome, happy, well-rounded, good people who have goals that align with yours.
- Your best advocate is yourself. How often do you go out of your way to advocate for other individuals? Don't be surprised when no one is putting in the extra effort to help you. Don't be a victim - your future is in your hands - don't blame others or society for your own failings.
- Family, friends, health, purpose are all that truly matter.
- No matter what your predicament is, someone has it worse, and someone has it better. You can always be valuable to society. Don't let your disabilities and frailties stop you from finding a purpose and way to benefit society.
> If you start working out 3x a week, you will continue doing this and be physically fit. If you drink alcohol 3x a week, you will continue to do this and become wrinkled and grumpy.
What about working out 3x a week and drinking alcohol 3x a week? Potentially that could be a sweet spot for sociability and activity. Compared to doing neither 3x a week, what do you think would be better?
Both drinking and exercise mean different things to different people. Running a 10k 3x a week with a glass of wine after would be fine. Blacking out 3x a week off cheap vodka while riding the stationary bike would be a different story.
maybe not alcohol, but many of my closet friendships, which are probably the greatest sources of joy in my life (maybe romantic relationships come close), were formed around shared intoxication - weed, LSD, 2C-B, MDMA, Ketamine...
now obviously the relation has moved beyond that, we're very happy hanging out sober, and generally spend the vast majority of our time together sober, but getting intoxicated with someone is actually a good bonding mechanism.
That word "purpose" terrifies me. Along with it's sibling "meaning". I (now) understand that purpose is something you define for yourself, i.e. it's not pre-ordained in nature for you. But I feel like the need to find purpose has terrorized me my whole life. I'm only now starting to understand that I don't need a purpose to live for or to justify my existence, but it's a constant effort to remember that and fight the nagging fear that I'll never find my purpose.
Would be nice if I didn't have to say that; in so many ways the bloom is off the rose of my (admittedly high paying) corporate job. I even recently reunited with some old friends who chose a more independent career path, and was jealous and nostalgic- they're definitely working far closer to their passions with more freedom than I've felt in a decade. But man, what a decade since 2013.
I would be foolish to dismiss that I had stable employment through Covid, and I still have a paycheck through the current economic turmoil. I also have my corporate health insurance, which covers my stupidly expensive regular medication which I had no idea I would need in those nostalgic days when these friends chose their alternative careers (I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease in 2015, now in remission thanks to the meds)
So I agree with the sentiment that it's dangerous (especially to your soul) to just blindly conform and follow the money, but it's not always unjustified. In my case it was at least a little bit justified, since my parents were more or less broke and I didn't have a safety net.
I do wish I had hedged my bets better and been less of a workaholic, of course. Would be nice to be married now.
Along those lines, one of the things that I still struggle with after 20+ years of working, is squaring this feeling of not working enough/earn enough money to have a comfortable retirement, while at the same time trying to live my life and not just work myself until death (very original, I know).
So I've always had this conflict with the saying that goes something like "nobody regrets not working more, while in their deathbed".
The thing is... I'm pretty sure lots of people actually do, e.g. if they didn't manage to do well enough to have a comfortable retirement, or leave their children in a good place.
So sure, I'd love to spend my money traveling and enjoying the best years of my life... but I also see my parents struggling to get by with retirement funds that are suboptimal and I fear that I am not doing all I can to avoid the same fate.
Hopefully I'll be able to make sense of this before it's too late.
For what it's worth, working more would build a habit of doing so. A good work ethic would mean that you need a bit less motivation or discipline to get things done, due to it basically being just something you do.
It doesn't have to be just for some corporation, but also when you're trying to build some personal project, especially the ones that might get a bit bigger (writing your own blog engine or static site generator, maybe even a game engine, or planting crops or building a shed for all I care). Sometimes there won't be many shortcuts to success, but just boring slog of legwork that needs to be done.
In that regard, I definitely regret not working more, because I still need to rely on motivation, which is fleeting, or discipline, which is unpleasant, all just to get through things sometimes, even when I take care of myself in every other way (sleep schedule, nutrition, activities, mental health).
As for the whole retirement aspect, sadly I don't have answers for that, the state of the economy is concerning sometimes.
You can make beautiful music, and someone else can create a beautiful choreography for it... their achievement will probably increase your joy, not decrease it.
To some degree yes, but after a while there are so many creators that it's just noise and nobody can really stand out unless they're truly beyond exceptional. So in that sense it is more of a zero sum game in practice.
Take Steam for example. After Greenlight was superseded by Direct and you now only need $100 to get on the platform it's practically drowning in games, making for near zero discoverability.
But especially in terms of idk, government jobs or certain positions at a specific company it's usually a fixed number of seats that will be filled from a large pool of people, making it a completely zero sum game. There can only be one president of a country at a time and a fixed number of them during your lifespan. What are you gonna do, make a new country?
Ngl I have always wondered how far one would get if they just started dredging sand onto an international waters seamount and made a completely new island, then declared it a micronation. In theory there should be a lot of market interest with gambling, server hosting and the like. Sealand still has the problem of actually being on built by and stands on Britain's territory.
In all realness it would probably take about 10 minutes before the US navy rolls up like "open the country, stop having it be closed" and declared it theirs. VLS missiles will continue launching until morale improves and all that.
One third of retiring managers die quickly thereafter. The socond third finds a hobby and pursues it with the same ambition until everyone they know got gifted a perfect ship in a bottle and they need a new way to spend their time. One third keeps working.
That is a judgment on your part. There is no retirement in nature. If you keep doing what you love when you are "retired", it will be to your benefit. Both my parents teach, my father does something he likes for the first time i think. Could call it sad but why?
Obviously some professions like teaching, medicine, and a few others are different because they actually benefit society. As opposed to middle managers in a megacorp only working hard to make anonymous shareholders richer. When that guy is gone, they’ll be replaced within a couple of weeks and forgotten as they were just a cog. That’s when it’s sad to keep working imho.
I normally heard "nobody regrets not working more" in the context of work that has bad or no ROI.
For example, lots of people work themselves to burnout by not taking all their vacations, returning to work very soon after their child is born out of fear of falling behind, working extra late or weekends from peer pressure from their boss/peers, etc. Most of which won't result in additional pay, promotion, and might not even help advance your career.
There's this other addage I heard that I quite like:
"Work harder on yourself than at your job. Invest in yourself, not in your job."
The idea is, don't spend your energy on your current job stupidly, instead spend that effort trying to find a better job, or learning skills that are more valuable, in keeping yourself relevant, etc.
I feel taken together, it forms the basis of how to balance work/life so that work can build up to a good retirement, allowing you to enjoy life in your later years, but also making time in the present to enjoy life in your current and younger years.
That definitely makes sense. However I do have heard it in the context of "hey, enjoy life more!".
Which I agree with but it's also a reality that you need to think about your future/retirement and it's a hard balance to make, especially if you live in a country with a poor healthcare system and lacking other social nets.
I find this to not be a helpful frame of thinking. A divorce is not a random natural disaster that befalls you.
You have a lot of control about who you end up with, who you are inside and how you engage with your partner. So the fact that divorce happens "often" or "rarely" doesn't matter to an individual scenario - it's completely within those people's controls to make good or bad decisions.
I understand your point, agree to it somewhat, but I think is a bit unfair and simplistic.
People have externalities thrown at them (loss, grieve, missed expectations, sickness, depression,…)
Is a bit arrogant to think a person or a couple can navigate all these via their own choices. Reminds me of my hardcore catholic friends who think that divorcing equals to low commitment, willpower or maturity.
I appreciate what you are saying and I think we're mainly in agreement. You can't eliminate all risk and you can't guarantee success but you have a lot of ways to influence the outcome.
Using your example of depression. If you marry someone manic/depressive because you love how crazy and wild she is on her up days, her down days are going to hit you hard when you're living in the same house and sharing kids and responsibilities. So maybe that dynamic has a 50% divorce rate which could have been anticipated way in advance. On the other hand, there's always a chance that someone stable you marry will get into a deep funk years down the line and you won't be able to help her manage through that, but that maybe is a 2% probably. You can't control that 2% but you can manage to not be in the 50% and that's where your focus should be.
but it takes two. if your partner does not reciprocate then sometimes there is nothing you can do to fix the relationship.
but that should not prevent anyone from trying to find a partner. it just means that i would look for a partner who understands this, and is willing to look out for your needs just as much as you look out for theirs.
ok, it is in your control to pick a partner that is aware of these needs. but it is much easier said than done. and yes, not paying attention to that would be setting yourself up for failure. sadly many do.
Divorce happens often and the rates are climbing. It makes sense to follow statistical guidelines.
"Who you marry" is not in your control. People change over the years. Marriage changes your spouse, and yourself. Some people realize what they actually want as they mature.
Most of the smartest, most thoughtful people in the world get divorced. They all thought they had control over marriage.
the problem is that many get married blind. they have high expectations but ignore the tools to verify that these expectations will be met. they just hope for the best and think love will take care of the challenges. but checking your expectations takes a lot of self reflection and understanding of your own person, and consultation with your partner about your common expectations of life. pre marriage counseling is a good idea.
love alone is not enough, it's actually less important than common goals and a dedication to support each other. if love were a precondition to a happy marriage then arranged marriages (ignoring the downsides) would have had to all fail 100% of the time. when they don't fail it's because these people understand to care for each other and most likely were able to develop love for each other over time.
// I do wish I had hedged my bets better and been less of a workaholic, of course. Would be nice to be married now.
I hear you and maybe a word of caution - sometimes "I don't have X because I was too busy with Y" is a way to sweep the complexity/ambivalence of X under the rug.
After all, plenty of very busy and hard working people get married, and I doubt that it's very often "I am dying to go meet this woman but I am going to sit in the office instead" type tradeoff that's being made.
Cal Newport has a whole book about this. So good they can't ignore you. The idea is what you pointed out, and you'll be happier if you just find something to be good at. There's more nuance in the book
Ditto. I wish I found Cal's writings earlier in my life. I followed the line of thinking in OP for 5 years. Since I was following my "passion", I wasn't making that much money and thus was obsessing over my career day in and day out. Then at one point I decided to sell my soul to big tech. After some time, I realized that I actually don't care about my career that much. Ultimately all I want is to increase my hourly rate as much as possible. Making money is a problem to be solved and minimized, not something to be passionate about
I see the pragmatism of this, but can’t reconcile the cognitive dissonance.
I personally hate when quality is a nice to have rather than a first class citizen because it results in so much more misery, stress, burnout, micromanagement that is 100% avoidable. By working someplace that (dys)functions that way, I feel like I’m enabling and contributing to ruining everyone else’s lives… and that makes me feel worthless, I can’t do it.
I see the rationale reason for doing it the way you do it, but I don’t seem able to do it myself.
Yeah maybe you're right, I'm just rationalizing it. But money is sooooo important. I feel like everyone should give big tech a shot, even if it's for a few months. You get paid so much and the expectations are so low at the beginning. You can easily coast during that 6-month trial period and spend most of your time working on your own stuff. If it's remote, and you structure your time right, it's basically free money
Also, be aware that most people don't have a dream or a thing they love. The message about having a dream and "doing what you love" is so prevalent in the US culture, that the large number of people whom it does not pertain think that there's something wrong with them, and start essentially force themselves to have a passion (which is, obviously, not how it works).
Your dreams can be any passion or hobby, if it's a relatively fleeting one that's fine too. I restored a motorcycle last year, it was a great outlet, but I wasn't actually very into riding it in the end and dropped it. Onto the next one.
You like fine dining and look forward to a new restaurant every week? That's the equivalent of a dream to some people.
I think you're right in the sense that this U.S. notion of "exceptionalism" is also expected of individuals on both a professional and personal level, and "never forget your dreams" can really be reduced to "work to live, not live to work".
You can't apply the rule "look at the future versions of the people who make this choice" to criticize office drones and then not do the same to "Alaskan hitchhikers". It's perfectly plausible that most of those people's life outcomes are worse than the office drone, bad as that is. Worse, you probably only get to meet the "best" of the Alaskan hitchhikers, not a representative sample, many of which are probably in an invisible underclass.
Moxie, this is an incredibly profound perspective on careers and the very essence of life decisions. I wholeheartedly believe that growth often happens in the uncomfortable zones. Thanks for the enlightening read.
Loved the piece, but to be frank at the time when I picked software engineering as a career, most older software engineers had had extremely different life trajectories than we do nowadays.
Pretty good combined life+career advice I heard a long time ago and followed: If you're going to move countries, the best time to do it is right after college.
Starting from scratch in an entirely new country, with no connections, no professional ability to speak the native language, and rapidly dwindling cash reserves, was one of the scariest and most thrilling things I've ever done in my life. I recommend it to no one, because if you're crazy or motivated enough to actually do it, no man's recommendation for or against it is going to stop you. You will become some kind of minor force of nature for a while and you will look back on that time years later and think "I had no idea I could be that hardcore."
Sadly this is necessarily the opposite of most of Moxie's sentiments. "Throw yourself into the toughest situations you can find" is shared between us, but Moxie recs doing so amidst friends and comrades, while I merely remind you can hurl yourself into the ravine to learn to fly.
Though I suppose it speaks to my personality type that I didn't find moving country and leaving everything that scary. I was moving to a job, so didn't have the dwindling cash reserves part.
I did it myself, and right after college. It worked out OK, and I know now that making friends in your 20's is 10 times easier in your 30's, and in your 30's is ten times easier than in your 40's (though if you have kids in school that can help a little as you meet other kids' parents)
lotta universities love to charge foreign students more, tho that's mostly 1st world; if you can speak Arabic you can get some good deals on schooling.
I moved countries soon after college with not even a job lined up. From Slovenia straight into SFBA because if you're gonna do something that hard, you might as well go all the way.
To anyone asking if they should do the same, I say: Don't do it.
Because if you have to ask, the answer is no. The ones who succeed don't ask for permission, they ask for tips about how to get it done. The mind is already made up.
Same is true for starting a business. "Should I start a business/move countries/other high variance thing?" --> no. "How do I overcome <obstacle they identified>?" --> advice time!
edit:
For the downvoters -> this was, for me, the best thing I've ever done. But you really do need a lot of internal resolve to make it work. To give you an example of an unexpected difficulty: I used to practice facial expressions in the mirror because Americans had trouble reading my emotes. Like practicing your accent away, but for your face.
Exactly right. It's not even close to, say, becoming a US Marine, but they're both crazy enough moves that you can't just reason yourself into them. You have to be steeled.
Godspeed, and I hope Slovenia continues its upward trajectory as well.
As a fellow Slovenian who's also worked with Americans, the last part is both hilarious and real. It's just such a weirdly large cultural difference in general behaviour that's hard to explain. I would personally find it near impossible to adapt to that always-fake-cheerful attitude that's common on the west coast.
I had a meeting with my manager in a few months after move and he asked: hey why o you never smile, is smth wrong? And I was thinking I actually smile a lot...
I'm currently doing it right now (living abroad, working for a startup). I worked back home for a year and a half after college,but once covid cleared up I immediately started applying abroad. Its a great opportunity because not only can one still develop their career, they get to deep dive a new culture and every day feels like a vacation!
For me, I actually think it was not too hard (I think it greatly depends on where you move, your appetite for challenge and how much traveling you've done before). The process was confusing and long, but nothing a couple of trips to a consulate and a lot of reading couldn't help with.
I was lucky enough to have some friends that live in the country I moved to (albeit quite far away). I felt the hardest part was the first 3 months, it was lonely and some days I was bedridden with homesickness. But then the magic happens. You meet new people, you find your footing, you make lifelong memories.
After that life just feels like normal life but turbo charged by all the new experiences.
The new hard part is deciding if I want to come back or not, I'm having the time of my life out here!
> If you're going to move countries, the best time to do it is right after college.
Perhaps this should be reconsidered in light of remote work? I’m 45 and thinking about moving to another country, mostly for lower cost of living and lower taxes (I’m Swedish). I’m basically a remote freelancer, so the step doesn’t feel huge.
don't do it to save money, because you unlikely will. lower cost of living is associated with a lower quality of life. things are cheaper in other places because they have less quality. what you save on some things, you end up spending on others.
before you move somewhere, make sure you like it there regardless of the cost or quality of life, because if you don't you will end up spending more on things to compensate for what you are missing.
i can't judge that for myself as i have not been to houston yet but i remember seeing articles about people moving from california to austin and being disappointed. if houston is anywhere similar to austin then that should prove the point.
it really depends on what you consider quality of living. to me that includes access to interesting activities, people etc. if i don't get that, i will do something else to compensate. in houston that could mean more travelling. so the money you save on the house you then spend on airplane tickets or on gas for your car.
not everyone is going to be the same. it could be that you absolutely love living in houston, spend all your time hanging out at the space center, or some other local activity that is not expensive and really do save money.
but what i said actually applies more for living in a different country, because i assure you, at a minimum you will miss food from home and spend money on imported food or going to restaurants.
I would say that is a pretty good time to re-evaluate a lot of things: 20s behind you, slightly matured, more time alone, able to do healthier introspection. At least it was, in my own timeline! I didn't begin climbing out of my mess until 30 :)
> “if I were you, I’d hitchhike to Alaska this summer instead.”
I agree 100%, best advice there is.
After a couple of years working as a Software Engineer, I sold all my stuff and drove my little Jeep up to Alaska to a whole summer of camping, hiking and exploring. I hiked into the Magic Bus (of Into the Wild Fame), paddled with icebergs, and saw more bears, moose, bald eagles, salmon and mountains than I can count.
It changed my life, and I'm extremely, extremely happy I walked away from the golden handcuffs and go away from that desk. Getting perspective and learning how I wanted to spend my life BEFORE I got saddled with a car loan or mortgage was paramount.
Thanks! I actually finished up in Australia, I'm back in Canada saving and planning for the next one. I'm building another vehicle to tackle much colder climates, and parts of the world I've never been to before.
Okay. The reason I find that heading painful to read is it seems to miss the entire point of the quote. The line is said in the context of a world where everyone already is defining themselves by their jobs, possessions, etc. it’s not descriptive, it’s prescriptive. So it can’t really even be wrong.
My memory of the book is it’s fairly philosophical, getting at modernity and the human condition. It’s quite traditionally masculine and violent and I get that that turns a lot of people off. Love it or hate it, quotes of it probably don’t belong in a LinkedIn-style “here’s some advice kids” article.
Moreover, it’s just too easy — low hanging fruit, e.g.
Tyler Durden said “once you you lose everything you’re free to do anything” but that’s not right because many activities are expensive and you’ll need money.
I spent my twenties riding freight trains across the US and cycling across Europe and Asia, living off of music.
I'm not sure I would recommend that to anyone who is looking for career advice - Now I'm trying to build a solid career for myself as a software developer and I have no idea if it is easier with all that behind me or not. While I'm hoping that the soft skills and self knowledge I may have acquired over the years pay off on this new path, there is no guarantee. But there generally isn't. I certainly agree with this interpretation of Treyf and I'm glad that I have at least Moxie to look up to as freight hopping software engineer who has tried avoiding a lot of the same futures that I have, but it certainly is a path less traveled.
Alternative biography: "Concerned I would never know my authentic self, I left home at the age of 5 to live in the wilderness. Now, I am struggling to begin my career as a software developer due to my failure to acquire human language - all thanks to your 'career advice', Moxe."
But I mean, yes of course we can learn and grow and be many things in life. I think that it's always easy to follow well defined, structured routes, and easier to know if you are succeeding at it. But if you feel you have a calling to do something else, something unusual, there isn't much anyone can advise you on, and most people will probably tell you not to risk it.
I wouldn’t necessarily expect that you gained some discrete skills that will help you in software. Probably what you gained is something more valuable: perspective, and peace.
Now when you are 45 or 50, rather than a crushing feeling of having wasted your life behind a desk you will hopefully feel happy that you spent your good years living life.
In a way after 45 the rush and ocd of younger, inexperienced years subsides you do see life at a slower pace, take more in and that can be a satisfying thing. For me personally the quality vs quantity thing that came more into focus in my 40s.
for me personally my 45 have been a full throttle. Lived in 4 countries in the last two years, learned tons of stuff and met super cool people. The "45 years old's salary" enabled that. In the last two months I've been learning surfing in my spare time. Total woah. Looking forward to the years to come, it's not true that quantity doesn't have quality :)
Woah indeed :) You seem to have figured out how to have tons of quality time.. I mostly was thinking about my personal happiness being in less and me discovering that in my 40s after other things slowed down a bit in life - having a partner and kids you kind of don't always have total control over your life.
My gf asked me to apply for a big company job (she’s worked for all of FAANG). The second time a recruiter asked me to explain to them what the “narrative” was in my resume cause they couldn’t see it, I figured I had good reason not to work for one of those places.
They were looking for a simple A -> B -> C while my life has been more A -> G -> B -> -> -> Q...
I haven’t worked for a big company in 35 years, and I can’t imagine they are any more interested in me than I am in them. Even my own companies...by the time they get to a couple of hundred people they are too big for me.
177 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 193 ms ] thread> They are the future you. Do not think that you will be substantially different. Look carefully at how they spend their time at work and outside of work, because this is also almost certainly how your life will look. It sounds obvious, but it’s amazing how often young people imagine a different projection for themselves.
> Look at the real people, and you’ll see the honest future for yourself.
…
> This is all just to explain why, when people write me for career advice, I’m as likely to respond with something like “if I were you, I’d hitchhike to Alaska this summer instead.”
> My career advice usually falls within the framework of doing the absolute minimum amount of work necessary to prevent starvation, and then doing something that’s not about money, completely outside of supporting structures, and not simply a matter of “consuming experience” with the remaining available time.
Find a job you like that pays decently. Use the money to live a good life. Instead of hitchhiking to Alaska, you can take a plane.
I think Perkins would say in that case that there's a time for everything. At 20-25, it's maybe a good idea to hitchhike to Alaska. At 45, married, with children and a mortgage, it's probably a bad idea.
If there were no weapons manufacturers or intelligence agencies you would still have wars.
Humanity always finds a way to resolve disputes through violence and aggression.
There would be far less of them.
>Humanity always finds a way to resolve disputes through violence and aggression.
This has been the case for a long time, doesn't mean it will persist forever. For example, slavery is mostly illegal and stamped out (except in Libya, one of the victims of US "intelligence" complex's forever war) compared to less than two centuries ago, which is a blink of an eye for human history.
[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/beware-the-epiphany-industrial-c...
> Be careful not to discover a career before you’ve discovered yourself.
Words to live by.
> There is a tremendous amount of support for these decisions, and very little support for making any deviating choices.
Adventure I had never dreamed possible, and adventure lifetime is an understatement.
When I got back I got the first Software Engineering job I applied for, basically at the same level I was before (junior/mid). It was easy to explain the "gap" on my resume as working on myself, learning self-reliance, people skills, Spanish, etc. You just have to accept you won't climb the ladder as fast as people that stayed, but also you'll have two years of massive adventure instead of sitting at a desk every day.
Reach out if I can help in any way.
I feel it's possible to re-discover yourself more than once throughout your life. Right after finishing high school I thought that writing code is the real me. Now more than a decade has passed and I'm trying to find myself again. Our jobs define us, but we're in charge of how far we're willing to take it. There are engineers who are genuinely passionate about writing code and will happily do so outside of working hours, for free, with no intent for recognition or clout. And then there's me and the rest of average Joe's - sure our job has defined us, but it hasn't consumed us. Be careful about your career choices consuming you.
As far as I can tell this experiment was largely debunked, or at best widely questioned and not reproducible.
It’s one of those stories that lives on because it’s simultaneously so implausible yet seems to say something believable about human nature.
But I suspect it was between 90 and 100% b.s.
But even more so, when you take a bunch of people and _tell them to play these roles_, why are surprised when they _play the stereotype of those roles?_
But FWIW, I found the rest of the article pretty good.
It's definitely diminished by it's non qualified citation of Zimbardo, but there's some insight there regardless.
Ultimately the point Moxie is making is served by the stanford prison drama play just as well as if it had been an actual experiment.
The SPE is really a study in toxic workplaces and abusive relationships.
I really wish people would stop quoting the SPE without researching what actually happened and why (and the fact that it was tainted due to Zimbardo's direct involvement and direction in order to get the results he wanted).
Don't worry: You are NOT your job, and your job isn't going to change you forever. This is just a scare piece.
The only thing you should keep in mind is: If it FEELS wrong to you, go with your gut, because sticking around will be traumatic.
But it is healthy to keep this perspective (Tyler durdens assertion) and always try to grow in some way that isn't involved with money
You’re a complex and constantly evolving human. Your job is a part of you, like it’s your family, friends, education, hobbies, media you consume, ideas, secrets…
So, you’re not your job but your job is a big part of you.
Even without the experiment, it seems odd to me that behaviors and culture you engage with for generally half of your waking hours for several decades has nothing to do with your identity. This posts reads a bit like a Joshua Fluke reaction video.
it could be, but assuming that in general implies that your behavior is genetic and there is nothing you can do to change it. which i do not believe to be true. your behavior is formed by your environment, and you can change how you behave.
Jobs definitely can and do change people though. For a while I worked for a financial company (and I had previously worked in videogames) and I definitely became a different person there, one whom I didn't like. I ended up leaving because I could see myself changing over time and it made me uncomfortable when looking at the "lifers" in the company and understanding that was my future.
But who is anyone, anyway? How do you know? Is the old advice is profound or meaningless:
> These new criticisms include the biased and incomplete collection of data, the extent to which the SPE drew on a prison experiment devised and conducted by students in one of Zimbardo's classes 3 months earlier, the fact that the guards received precise instructions regarding the treatment of the prisoners, the fact that the guards were not told they were subjects, and the fact that participants were almost never completely immersed by the situation. [0]
> Zimbardo and his assistants ordered the guards to become cruel, and, moreover, that guards and prisoners alike knew what Zimbardo was trying to prove and were eager to help. [1]
> In other words, the sadism of the guards and the submissiveness of the prisoners in the experiment didn’t reveal the hidden darkness of the human soul, so much as the willingness of college students to please a professor. [1]
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31380664/ [1]: https://www.wired.com/story/beware-the-epiphany-industrial-c...
They are clearly very different at 18 years old freshman vs 23 graduate, and most would say it is because of their university experience.
First, it supposes that the you of now, inexperienced as you are, can properly evaluate not only what is going on in these older coworkers lives, but that you will also properly appreciate how your own tastes will change between now and then.
Secondly, you are looking at pure survivorship bias. You aren't going to see the folks that did a 5 year turn doing development and then found some other direction to take their career in. If you are a new hire and look at the 50 year old dev on the team and assume your career might go the same you are taking a very narrow vision of the future.
- If you don't come from money, and your personality desires security and safety, don't do risky stuff like wasting your 20's hitchhiking and being a ski bum. You should get skills and a career. I came from lower-middle class and have always had the nagging fear of being destitute. I am so much happier that I worked hard in my 20s (80 hours a week hard) so my 30s and 40s were more comfortable.
- Your habits chart your trajectory. If you start working out 3x a week, you will continue doing this and be physically fit. If you drink alcohol 3x a week, you will continue to do this and become wrinkled and grumpy. If you get fired from a job 3x a year, you will continue to have this happen, no matter what your excuse is about why it isn't your fault you got fired. Try and work on good habits.
- You are the company you keep. Cut out negative people who always are complaining and blaming others. Focus on wholesome, happy, well-rounded, good people who have goals that align with yours.
- Your best advocate is yourself. How often do you go out of your way to advocate for other individuals? Don't be surprised when no one is putting in the extra effort to help you. Don't be a victim - your future is in your hands - don't blame others or society for your own failings.
- Family, friends, health, purpose are all that truly matter.
- No matter what your predicament is, someone has it worse, and someone has it better. You can always be valuable to society. Don't let your disabilities and frailties stop you from finding a purpose and way to benefit society.
What about working out 3x a week and drinking alcohol 3x a week? Potentially that could be a sweet spot for sociability and activity. Compared to doing neither 3x a week, what do you think would be better?
Both drinking and exercise mean different things to different people. Running a 10k 3x a week with a glass of wine after would be fine. Blacking out 3x a week off cheap vodka while riding the stationary bike would be a different story.
now obviously the relation has moved beyond that, we're very happy hanging out sober, and generally spend the vast majority of our time together sober, but getting intoxicated with someone is actually a good bonding mechanism.
Would be nice if I didn't have to say that; in so many ways the bloom is off the rose of my (admittedly high paying) corporate job. I even recently reunited with some old friends who chose a more independent career path, and was jealous and nostalgic- they're definitely working far closer to their passions with more freedom than I've felt in a decade. But man, what a decade since 2013.
I would be foolish to dismiss that I had stable employment through Covid, and I still have a paycheck through the current economic turmoil. I also have my corporate health insurance, which covers my stupidly expensive regular medication which I had no idea I would need in those nostalgic days when these friends chose their alternative careers (I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease in 2015, now in remission thanks to the meds)
So I agree with the sentiment that it's dangerous (especially to your soul) to just blindly conform and follow the money, but it's not always unjustified. In my case it was at least a little bit justified, since my parents were more or less broke and I didn't have a safety net.
I do wish I had hedged my bets better and been less of a workaholic, of course. Would be nice to be married now.
So I've always had this conflict with the saying that goes something like "nobody regrets not working more, while in their deathbed".
The thing is... I'm pretty sure lots of people actually do, e.g. if they didn't manage to do well enough to have a comfortable retirement, or leave their children in a good place.
So sure, I'd love to spend my money traveling and enjoying the best years of my life... but I also see my parents struggling to get by with retirement funds that are suboptimal and I fear that I am not doing all I can to avoid the same fate.
Hopefully I'll be able to make sense of this before it's too late.
Almost everyone regrets not having achieved more.
For what it's worth, working more would build a habit of doing so. A good work ethic would mean that you need a bit less motivation or discipline to get things done, due to it basically being just something you do.
It doesn't have to be just for some corporation, but also when you're trying to build some personal project, especially the ones that might get a bit bigger (writing your own blog engine or static site generator, maybe even a game engine, or planting crops or building a shed for all I care). Sometimes there won't be many shortcuts to success, but just boring slog of legwork that needs to be done.
In that regard, I definitely regret not working more, because I still need to rely on motivation, which is fleeting, or discipline, which is unpleasant, all just to get through things sometimes, even when I take care of myself in every other way (sleep schedule, nutrition, activities, mental health).
As for the whole retirement aspect, sadly I don't have answers for that, the state of the economy is concerning sometimes.
You can make beautiful music, and someone else can create a beautiful choreography for it... their achievement will probably increase your joy, not decrease it.
Take Steam for example. After Greenlight was superseded by Direct and you now only need $100 to get on the platform it's practically drowning in games, making for near zero discoverability.
But especially in terms of idk, government jobs or certain positions at a specific company it's usually a fixed number of seats that will be filled from a large pool of people, making it a completely zero sum game. There can only be one president of a country at a time and a fixed number of them during your lifespan. What are you gonna do, make a new country?
If technically you want to be the Prince of a constitutional monarchy, it might work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand)
In all realness it would probably take about 10 minutes before the US navy rolls up like "open the country, stop having it be closed" and declared it theirs. VLS missiles will continue launching until morale improves and all that.
Depends on the culture. This my be true in the US, but most other cultures aren't as obsessed with achieving.
One third of retiring managers die quickly thereafter. The socond third finds a hobby and pursues it with the same ambition until everyone they know got gifted a perfect ship in a bottle and they need a new way to spend their time. One third keeps working.
[Edit] add header
For example, lots of people work themselves to burnout by not taking all their vacations, returning to work very soon after their child is born out of fear of falling behind, working extra late or weekends from peer pressure from their boss/peers, etc. Most of which won't result in additional pay, promotion, and might not even help advance your career.
There's this other addage I heard that I quite like:
"Work harder on yourself than at your job. Invest in yourself, not in your job."
The idea is, don't spend your energy on your current job stupidly, instead spend that effort trying to find a better job, or learning skills that are more valuable, in keeping yourself relevant, etc.
I feel taken together, it forms the basis of how to balance work/life so that work can build up to a good retirement, allowing you to enjoy life in your later years, but also making time in the present to enjoy life in your current and younger years.
Which I agree with but it's also a reality that you need to think about your future/retirement and it's a hard balance to make, especially if you live in a country with a poor healthcare system and lacking other social nets.
While the idea and ideal are nice, it often does not work out that way in practice. Lots and lots of unhappy marriages and divorces.
You have a lot of control about who you end up with, who you are inside and how you engage with your partner. So the fact that divorce happens "often" or "rarely" doesn't matter to an individual scenario - it's completely within those people's controls to make good or bad decisions.
People have externalities thrown at them (loss, grieve, missed expectations, sickness, depression,…)
Is a bit arrogant to think a person or a couple can navigate all these via their own choices. Reminds me of my hardcore catholic friends who think that divorcing equals to low commitment, willpower or maturity.
Using your example of depression. If you marry someone manic/depressive because you love how crazy and wild she is on her up days, her down days are going to hit you hard when you're living in the same house and sharing kids and responsibilities. So maybe that dynamic has a 50% divorce rate which could have been anticipated way in advance. On the other hand, there's always a chance that someone stable you marry will get into a deep funk years down the line and you won't be able to help her manage through that, but that maybe is a 2% probably. You can't control that 2% but you can manage to not be in the 50% and that's where your focus should be.
but that should not prevent anyone from trying to find a partner. it just means that i would look for a partner who understands this, and is willing to look out for your needs just as much as you look out for theirs.
"Who you marry" is not in your control. People change over the years. Marriage changes your spouse, and yourself. Some people realize what they actually want as they mature.
Most of the smartest, most thoughtful people in the world get divorced. They all thought they had control over marriage.
There's a huge difference between "not at all" or "not fully" in my control. I can't guarantee my outcome, but I have deep influence over my chances.
love alone is not enough, it's actually less important than common goals and a dedication to support each other. if love were a precondition to a happy marriage then arranged marriages (ignoring the downsides) would have had to all fail 100% of the time. when they don't fail it's because these people understand to care for each other and most likely were able to develop love for each other over time.
I hear you and maybe a word of caution - sometimes "I don't have X because I was too busy with Y" is a way to sweep the complexity/ambivalence of X under the rug.
After all, plenty of very busy and hard working people get married, and I doubt that it's very often "I am dying to go meet this woman but I am going to sit in the office instead" type tradeoff that's being made.
which i think can also be interpreted as: if you didn't think about finding a partner, then maybe you weren't ready to get married.
but you are ready now, because now you know why you want a partner, and now you can look for the right kind of person.
'follow your dream' is too risky for most of us and might be misleading for most young people in my opinion.
make a living first, and never forget your dream in the process
I personally hate when quality is a nice to have rather than a first class citizen because it results in so much more misery, stress, burnout, micromanagement that is 100% avoidable. By working someplace that (dys)functions that way, I feel like I’m enabling and contributing to ruining everyone else’s lives… and that makes me feel worthless, I can’t do it.
I see the rationale reason for doing it the way you do it, but I don’t seem able to do it myself.
You like fine dining and look forward to a new restaurant every week? That's the equivalent of a dream to some people.
I think you're right in the sense that this U.S. notion of "exceptionalism" is also expected of individuals on both a professional and personal level, and "never forget your dreams" can really be reduced to "work to live, not live to work".
Well, then my "dream" is to play MtG and lay in bed reading random stuff on the Internet. Seems like too broad of a definition :)
it is the parents and societies job to develop your ambitions. if you don't have any then that's not your failure, but ours.
Those choices are further defined, shaped, and limited by experiences.
Companies, organizations, groups and people further refine a personality.
Our choices are arrayed by self, formed by both experience and circumstance and then refined by contact with others.
We become our work because our personality led us to that original choice. Life then shaped that choice. And, finally, coworkers refine us.
We’re molded by this process, fitting ourselves into the form with extreme prejudice.
Starting from scratch in an entirely new country, with no connections, no professional ability to speak the native language, and rapidly dwindling cash reserves, was one of the scariest and most thrilling things I've ever done in my life. I recommend it to no one, because if you're crazy or motivated enough to actually do it, no man's recommendation for or against it is going to stop you. You will become some kind of minor force of nature for a while and you will look back on that time years later and think "I had no idea I could be that hardcore."
Sadly this is necessarily the opposite of most of Moxie's sentiments. "Throw yourself into the toughest situations you can find" is shared between us, but Moxie recs doing so amidst friends and comrades, while I merely remind you can hurl yourself into the ravine to learn to fly.
Though I suppose it speaks to my personality type that I didn't find moving country and leaving everything that scary. I was moving to a job, so didn't have the dwindling cash reserves part.
But why not do it _in_ college?
People do it, though. That's why most of the foreign students at any given college beat the pants off of the locals. I speak from experience :D
To anyone asking if they should do the same, I say: Don't do it.
Because if you have to ask, the answer is no. The ones who succeed don't ask for permission, they ask for tips about how to get it done. The mind is already made up.
Same is true for starting a business. "Should I start a business/move countries/other high variance thing?" --> no. "How do I overcome <obstacle they identified>?" --> advice time!
edit:
For the downvoters -> this was, for me, the best thing I've ever done. But you really do need a lot of internal resolve to make it work. To give you an example of an unexpected difficulty: I used to practice facial expressions in the mirror because Americans had trouble reading my emotes. Like practicing your accent away, but for your face.
Godspeed, and I hope Slovenia continues its upward trajectory as well.
For me, I actually think it was not too hard (I think it greatly depends on where you move, your appetite for challenge and how much traveling you've done before). The process was confusing and long, but nothing a couple of trips to a consulate and a lot of reading couldn't help with.
I was lucky enough to have some friends that live in the country I moved to (albeit quite far away). I felt the hardest part was the first 3 months, it was lonely and some days I was bedridden with homesickness. But then the magic happens. You meet new people, you find your footing, you make lifelong memories.
After that life just feels like normal life but turbo charged by all the new experiences.
The new hard part is deciding if I want to come back or not, I'm having the time of my life out here!
Perhaps this should be reconsidered in light of remote work? I’m 45 and thinking about moving to another country, mostly for lower cost of living and lower taxes (I’m Swedish). I’m basically a remote freelancer, so the step doesn’t feel huge.
before you move somewhere, make sure you like it there regardless of the cost or quality of life, because if you don't you will end up spending more on things to compensate for what you are missing.
it really depends on what you consider quality of living. to me that includes access to interesting activities, people etc. if i don't get that, i will do something else to compensate. in houston that could mean more travelling. so the money you save on the house you then spend on airplane tickets or on gas for your car.
not everyone is going to be the same. it could be that you absolutely love living in houston, spend all your time hanging out at the space center, or some other local activity that is not expensive and really do save money.
but what i said actually applies more for living in a different country, because i assure you, at a minimum you will miss food from home and spend money on imported food or going to restaurants.
I agree 100%, best advice there is.
After a couple of years working as a Software Engineer, I sold all my stuff and drove my little Jeep up to Alaska to a whole summer of camping, hiking and exploring. I hiked into the Magic Bus (of Into the Wild Fame), paddled with icebergs, and saw more bears, moose, bald eagles, salmon and mountains than I can count.
It changed my life, and I'm extremely, extremely happy I walked away from the golden handcuffs and go away from that desk. Getting perspective and learning how I wanted to spend my life BEFORE I got saddled with a car loan or mortgage was paramount.
I am reminded of the Hebrew Lech lecha, which occupies a certain amount of commentary space and has some alignments.
There is something to be said for being normie. But also it should be a choice, and moxie points out that it... often isn't, really.
The spe, btw, I think has gotten much more popularly discredited since 2013.
So cringe.
Okay. The reason I find that heading painful to read is it seems to miss the entire point of the quote. The line is said in the context of a world where everyone already is defining themselves by their jobs, possessions, etc. it’s not descriptive, it’s prescriptive. So it can’t really even be wrong.
My memory of the book is it’s fairly philosophical, getting at modernity and the human condition. It’s quite traditionally masculine and violent and I get that that turns a lot of people off. Love it or hate it, quotes of it probably don’t belong in a LinkedIn-style “here’s some advice kids” article.
Moreover, it’s just too easy — low hanging fruit, e.g.
Tyler Durden said “once you you lose everything you’re free to do anything” but that’s not right because many activities are expensive and you’ll need money.
Yuck.
But I feel like he's putting unnecessary pressure by treating first full-time job as "forever". Quitting is a thing...
OTOH there seems to be a developmental window for some specific skills, e.g. phoneme acquisition 6-12 months; (human) language acquisition < 7 years.
Now when you are 45 or 50, rather than a crushing feeling of having wasted your life behind a desk you will hopefully feel happy that you spent your good years living life.
They were looking for a simple A -> B -> C while my life has been more A -> G -> B -> -> -> Q...
I haven’t worked for a big company in 35 years, and I can’t imagine they are any more interested in me than I am in them. Even my own companies...by the time they get to a couple of hundred people they are too big for me.
They're just looking for a compelling reasoning behind it. Source: interviewed for FAANG companies with a similar resume