- Watch this.
- So Good They Can't Ignore You: Why Skills Trump Passion in the Quest for Work You Love, by Cal Newport. The premise is that choosing a career based on a pre-conceived passion is both foolish and self-centered. The better way is to focus on developing rare and valuable skills first, and using them as leverage to create an ideal lifestyle. Frankly, this is one of the best career books I've ever read. Check out Cal's blog for more great insights.
- How I Evaluate Each Position by Bill Walsh.
- Jerry Seinfeld Intends to Die Standing Up.
- No to NoUI. The more time I spend reading about design theory, the more fascinated I become.
4.16.2013
Recommended Consumption (April 2013)
4.01.2013
Humility
Paradoxically, I find that the less I focus on my own state of well-being - and instead divert my attention towards how I can deliver value to my environment - the happier I become. Conversely, the benefits of time that I spend attending to my own needs (with the exceptions of food, sleep, exercise, etc.) are fleeting at best, and counterproductive at worst.
Obviously, this isn't groundbreaking insight; but it's a pretty reliable truism. My relationship with my girlfriend demonstrates this every day: when I dwell on what I'm not getting out of the relationship, a gulf opens between us. Communication breaks down, feelings are hurt, antipathy grows. My need to satisfy my own desires ends up ruining things for the both of us. Yet when I leave my apartment with the thought of what can I do to make her happy? in my head, well, that's exactly what happens. And as any man will tell you, when mama's happy, everybody's happy.
Cal Newport devotes a lot of real estate in his book to examining the same phenomenon from a career perspective. He explains that when we chase careers that are passion-based (that is, focused on our own interests and desires), disaster ensues because we didn't consider whether those passions are even remotely valuable to others. Basically, a breakdown of product market fit. Instead, he advocates that we build careers that are skills-based, which means seeking every opportunity to acquire competence in abilities that are valued by the market.
This is the career equivalent of "when mama's happy, everybody's happy." Instead of a girlfriend or wife, we're talking about "people who would consider paying us for services rendered."
There's also a philosophical basis for delivering value in lieu of satiating oneself. Buddhists and neuroscientists might make the argument that there is no "oneself" at all, and if that's the case, it's a pointless exercise to satisfy such a non-entity. Who is doing the consuming, anyways?
Instead of taking the sollipsist's point of view that "I know I must exist, but I'm unsure whether anybody else does," I'd prefer to take refuge in self-ignorance. A far more useful heuristic is "I'm not sure that I even exist, but good things seem to happen when I behave as if everybody else does. So I might as well try to make somebody's day."
I'm certainly a long way from mastering this perspective. But the more time I spend on becoming a process - a machine that spits out value into the surrounding environment - and not a primary recipient of that value, the better I seem to do.
Obviously, this isn't groundbreaking insight; but it's a pretty reliable truism. My relationship with my girlfriend demonstrates this every day: when I dwell on what I'm not getting out of the relationship, a gulf opens between us. Communication breaks down, feelings are hurt, antipathy grows. My need to satisfy my own desires ends up ruining things for the both of us. Yet when I leave my apartment with the thought of what can I do to make her happy? in my head, well, that's exactly what happens. And as any man will tell you, when mama's happy, everybody's happy.
Cal Newport devotes a lot of real estate in his book to examining the same phenomenon from a career perspective. He explains that when we chase careers that are passion-based (that is, focused on our own interests and desires), disaster ensues because we didn't consider whether those passions are even remotely valuable to others. Basically, a breakdown of product market fit. Instead, he advocates that we build careers that are skills-based, which means seeking every opportunity to acquire competence in abilities that are valued by the market.
This is the career equivalent of "when mama's happy, everybody's happy." Instead of a girlfriend or wife, we're talking about "people who would consider paying us for services rendered."
There's also a philosophical basis for delivering value in lieu of satiating oneself. Buddhists and neuroscientists might make the argument that there is no "oneself" at all, and if that's the case, it's a pointless exercise to satisfy such a non-entity. Who is doing the consuming, anyways?
Instead of taking the sollipsist's point of view that "I know I must exist, but I'm unsure whether anybody else does," I'd prefer to take refuge in self-ignorance. A far more useful heuristic is "I'm not sure that I even exist, but good things seem to happen when I behave as if everybody else does. So I might as well try to make somebody's day."
I'm certainly a long way from mastering this perspective. But the more time I spend on becoming a process - a machine that spits out value into the surrounding environment - and not a primary recipient of that value, the better I seem to do.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)