Berthold Brecht once said:"The opposite of good is not evil, it's good intention". Unfortunately, this article is filled to the brim with good intentions.
If I could talk to my 20 year old self I would recommend this: Stay away from the Internet as much as possible and don't look for general advice.
Most information is of little use no matter whether it's right, wrong, deep, entertaining, scientific, religious, whatever... Many may realize that but they continue to consume. The common trap is that most of us think there is no downside to consuming information and this, in my humble opinion is a huge mistake! It seems to me that the more stuff we shovel into our heads, the less able we are to get active.
There is constantly such a long queue of inputs our brain wants to process that we have little energy left to actually develop intentions. When intention crystallize, motivation follows and so does action. I'd argue that people of average intelligence are not lacking success because they miss precious advice. It's because they don't actually have intentions! They can't allow themselves (mainly for financial oder societal reason, I assume) to relax and wait for curiosity to kick in. Instead they have it backwards: They hear about people who are having a career, they hear about others forming families, they hear the news telling them how the IOT is the future, they read up on cool stuff on wikipedia, read the biographies of celebreties, random stuff on reddit, they read career advice .... And then, from all that garbage, they try to deduce what to do. In most cases, that doesn't truly work because the result is not in line with their natural appetites and abilities.
My 16-year-old self had to catch a bus and a train to get to a reference library in order to answer any but the most trivial questions.
My 20-year-old self got 90%+ of the information I needed to succeed from the internet. I taught myself coding, 3D graphics, game development, rendering, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
My present-day self still relies on the internet for a huge percentage of my information, and you know what? Having done it both ways, it's far more efficient and far more effective than catching a bus to the library.
"If I could talk to my 20 year old self I would recommend this: Stay away from the Internet as much as possible and don't look for general advice."
While I generally agree that you shouldn't overvalue general advice I don't find your argument very believable when you then go on to offer your own advice. Seems more like a convenient way to not having to address the article.
I'm all for going your own way, but it can't be just a reaction to something else. Especially in a relatively free industry like technology I increasingly see people who find themselves disliking the consequences of their decisions (often without realizing they made them in the first place).
"Much other advice is just one person’s opinion, or useless clichés."
This article is similar to just that: useless clichés. I clicked to read more about the evidence backing up each item, but it's only in the footnotes? In other words, the footnotes are MUCH more interesting than the article.
Agreed, mostly worthless fluff. I'd challenge the authors to remove any reference to a study that has insufficient power or that has not been replicated.
> The world’s ten largest urban economic regions hold only 6.5% of the world’s population, but account for 57% of patented innovations, 53% of the most cited scientists and 43% of economic output. That means the people in these regions are about eight times more productive than the average person.
Wow, they probably have no idea where their bananas come from. More productive than the average person if you look at scientific output only, but science is what improves our lives in the long run. The rest of the population does the work that needs doing to stay alive.
Agree, and I'd like to add that I know at least two companies in the Netherlands where the 'actual work' in innovation is done at big chemical plants in the south-east of the country, but patenting and other administrative stuff however is done at the company HQ in Amsterdam, the capital.
This will probably be counted in their "Amsterdam-Brussels-Antwerp" statistic, but no real-life innovation has taken place there.
The other side to this story is that non-Europeans would probably still consider this place part of the "Amsterdam-Brussels-Antwerp" axis since it is only 100km outside of it, while for Dutch people this is 'the other side of the country' and thus, considered far away.
This is clearly targeted as individual advice for a specific kind of individual. If you want to be a damned good banana farmer, it's not for you, and I think that should be fairly obvious.
> Wow, they probably have no idea where their bananas come from.
They certainly do. You should apply the principle of charity here. It's a site about effective altruism. They definitely know where bananas come from.
More importantly, bananas (and other food production) are captured in economic output and measures of economic productivity. They're referencing quantitative comparisons of productivity.
> The rest of the population does the work that needs doing to stay alive.
A very very small percentage of the population works in food production.
Love you comment.
I often hear scientists complaining that doctors make big paycheck and get all the credits for saving lives while, behind them, 100s of scientists are responsible for the tools that the doctors use to diagnose and treat their patients. To which I point out the 1000s of coffee growers, that are even less acknowledged, making even less money, and having a completely different perspective on work/life balance.
Agreed. I'm quite glad your comment is near the top. I normally read the comments before the article. Fortunately, after seeing your post, I went to the article first. If I just looked at the comments here I would have skipped it, to my detriment. It was well written, with lots of actionable advice. Most of the comments here are either nitpicking slightly clickbaity headings (and ignoring the useful content beneath them) or complaining about 'science/evidence', again probably without reading more than the headings.
I agree. It's remarkable - and rather depressing - that a well-meaning article aiming to help people improve their lives, and mostly offering decent advice, is attracting such intense dislike.
The article seems to be quite reductionist in it's approach. Like many things claiming to be "evidence-based".
Most of such advice works quite well for people who don't need it. Especially for the people with low income, low social capital, poor health and low personal skills, much of the advice will be outright wrong. And for some accomplished ones, it will serve as an extra prod to shame the former:
"Well of course they are not successful, they don't follow what scientists say."
How is this voted to second place on front page? Feels like Reddit where people obviously vote on the headline before reading the article.
A side point form this, it would be interesting if HN/Reddit or other platforms brought in a quality score to peoples upvotes to negate people who do tend to upvote catchy headlines.
That or 287 people other than me found this article interesting and useful...
Given that the title contains "evidence-based" I was surprised how little evidence you offer. In many chapters only self-help books and alike are quoted and no scientific studies.
Also... given the current state of psychology research even the points where you refer to research are probably quite weak. E.g. the whole field of positive psychology is... not exactly a prime example of robust evidence-based practice.
You're getting a lot of sarcastic replies here, but I found your article is full of good life advice that applies to more than just being successful in a job. I've already read a lot of the books your article linked to, and after applying the lessons to my own life, I know they are sound.
The criticisms you are receiving about the article not being "evidence-based" is probably the most true in the sense that it may lead people to expect more scientific links and notes (which you do provide a decent amount in the Notes & References). So perhaps the title could have been better worded.
However, I think you were going for something more practical that people can apply to their lives and you linked to additional resources (books and web sites) for people to dive deeper if they want. That's a good approach IMO.
I like the article and bookmarked it for future reference, there's a lot of advice worth considering. One thing I'd like to point out, is that I don't like the way the "becoming a better person" is embedded in "how to be successful in any job". I do think strongly that it's the other way round: the job is only a part of me as a person, and doesn't define me. There are other values and people around me who are way more important than any job will ever be.
Do you truly think a nuclear physicist with five patents on his name and a thousand citations is N times more productive than the farmer that provides this physicist with food?
I too am someone who does work that helps us improve in the long run, I don't put the literal bread on anyone's table. (I hope that saying translates from Dutch.) So I don't identify as someone doing the hard work while scientists do "the important work", but I do think everyone's work is important. In terms of wages, I have trouble with the idea of farmers that earn less than me while working more hours and taking more risks in terms of job security and physical safety, but there's little I can do at the moment.
To make sure you get what I'm referring to, this is what I'm talking about:
> The world’s ten largest urban economic regions hold only 6.5% of the world’s population, but account for 57% of patented innovations, 53% of the most cited scientists and 43% of economic output. That means the people in these regions are about eight times more productive than the average person.
More productive on some narrow measure. What a snobby statement.
The problem with much of this advice is that all the difficulty is in the implementation. Like telling somebody the way to be healthy is to eat well, get enough sleep and exercise: knowing that is not sufficient to implement it successfully in general.
Knowing good habits to develop is much less than half the battle. I already have a pretty good idea what I should be doing, all the difficulty is in effective implementation. Progress is often two steps forward and one step back and dedicating time and other limited resources (money, willpower) to one area (e.g. health and fitness) can often conflict with progress in another area (e.g. time to work or socialize).
Knowing good habits is a good place to start but I'm much more interested in actionable advice to effectively develop and sustain good habits.
First, the items do not tend to be mutually exclusive - there's a lot of overlap with each other. I interpret that as a sign of poor organization. It makes the whole thing hard to follow.
Second, most of this stuff isn't remotely evidence based! Plus, there's no way to understand the effect size even when some technique does have evidence supporting it.
Overall, this is too much of a data dump to be helpful. The author should have ranked ordered these items based on the cumulative evidence supporting each one - that would have been extremely useful.
> In many cases, the evidence isn’t as strong as we’d like. Rather, it’s the best we’re aware of. We’ve tried to come to an all-considered view of what makes sense to try, given (i) the strength of the empirical evidence, (ii) whether it seems reasonable to us, (iii) the size of the potential upside, (iv) how widely applicable the advice is, and (v) the costs of trying. The details are given in the further reading we link to and the footnotes.
> We’ve put the advice roughly in order. The first items are easier and more widely applicable, so start with them, then move on to the more difficult areas later. The order is also partly based on an upcoming analysis of which skills are most valuable.
I agree some of the advice overlaps, but it's a little hard to avoid. Most of the areas are inter-related. I'd be interested in ideas on how to reorg.
One of the most important determiners of whether you're happy and satisfied in your job is your commute time. Happiness, job satisfaction and longevity at your job decrease significantly as your commute time extends more than 20 minutes.
We software engineers do not need to operate heavy machinery, perform surgery, or do anything physical at all, and we even have this fine invention called "Skype". Why anybody in the profession has commute time greater than zero -- I can't understand.
BenjaminTood, thank you for this guide. It definitively paints a picture where society is heading.
Naturally comes the question: Where does the guide
guide you to? To what person does it guide you?
Everything about this reminded me of the movie The Ticket, where the previously truly blind main character becomes blinded by the superficial in his pursuit of "The Successful Life".
What world is this, in which every human interaction happens in background of some kind of utility function?
In the end we all want to be happy, right? Numerous studies find, that 'the most salient characteristics shared by students who were very happy and showed the fewest signs of depression were "their strong ties to friends and family and commitment to spending time with them." ("The New Science of Happiness," Claudia Wallis, Time Magazine, Jan. 09, 2005).' [1]
I'm very sorry to say this: sadly enough, it's not how good you perform, but where you are born, what has the biggest impact on your career. [2]
From the About page of 80000hours:
Our aim is to help as many people as possible lead
high-impact careers.
We do this by providing career advice for talented
young people who want to have a social impact.
Over a third of young graduates want to make a
difference with their careers,1 but they have
little idea what to do
Maybe that's the main problem here? "[Having] little idea what to do". Being raised as sheep doesn't really teach you, how to stand for your own ideals.
[2]: In Germany 85% of all chairmen are emerging from the upper 3.5% (income-wise) families [3]. This is especially remarkable as it's only a very thin slice, which makes up basically everybody in these positions. These upper 3.5% want you to become as high-performing as possible. Guess, why?
> What world is this, in which every human interaction happens in background of some kind of utility function?
Nobody tells anyone to live their lives by an explicit utility function (if you could even specify one in full, you'd be half-way to solving Friendly AI). But utilitarianism is an useful framework for decisionmaking in many contexts, especially as an alternative to going by your gut, and especially in situations to which your gut is not used.
> In the end we all want to be happy, right?
Right, but if this is most important goal of one's life, then 80000hours is not a guide for them. This is a guide for people who want to have positive impact on the world. There are better and easier ways for improving personal happiness. For example, even the Bible suggests alcohol as useful in achieving a happy (if not impactful) life.
> Maybe that's the main problem here? "[Having] little idea what to do". Being raised as sheep doesn't really teach you, how to stand for your own ideals.
The context implies this talks about people who know they want to make a meaningful social impact, but don't know how. In other articles, 80000hours provides advice for figuring out that "how".
--
TL;DR: 80000hours don't publish articles aimed at everyone, but at those who want to make a positive impact on the world with their career.
You nailed it. The article contains a lot of good advice but unfortunately seems to be based on the incorrect assumption that you are either successful in your job or unsuccessful in your job (a false dichotomy), or that you always need to strife to be more and more successful.
Maybe they should read Heinrich Böll's Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral - Anecdote Concerning the Lowering of Productivity.
"Your location is important in many other ways. One survey of 20,000 people in the US found that satisfaction with location was a major component of life satisfaction.10
This is because where you live determines many important aspects of your life. It determines the types of people you’ll spend time with. It determines your day-to-day environment and commute."
So much this. I moved to a town with much higher quality people and my happiness has taken a big positive bump.
I like this a lot - a nice balance of strongly evidence-based ways of being happier and more productive, and a summary of more anecdotal (but likely still useful) self-help techniques. To those kvetching about the latter, I think they're still valuable - particularly as it saves me wading through hundreds of self-help books for the occasional gem.
While probably not wrong, such lists about how to optimize my lifestyle make me anxious if anything. It kinda suggests if I don't start my fitness diary, self-improvement plan and life goal milestone list right now, I'm wasting my time.
Bah. Another listicle... although, #5 (social skills) and #6 (great people) are good enough for me. If you surround yourself with great people, your motivation to do great work is high. If you develop good social skills, you're more effective working in teams. Great people + great collaboration = great career in the long run.
Good article.
I am unsure about point 7 "Consider changing where you live"
I accept that for some careers this might be inevitable but in a truly connected world it's also nice to follow the opposite advise and spot opportunities where you are
For the objective of the OP, my single most important piece of advice is: And may I have the envelope please? And the nominees are, work harder, improve your knowledge and skills relevant to the job, get noticed by the C-level people, come in early and leave late, and play politics. And the winner is [drum roll, please] by a wide margin
Play politics.
For more, usually assume that your direct supervisor does not want you to do more or better because that might get you promoted over him. Instead, he wants you to do not very well. Then he can have an excuse to fire you. Then he can argue that he has to pay your better replacement more, and then, since the supervisor gets paid at least 15% more than his highest paid subordinate, the supervisor gets paid more. And he is sure to hire someone, really, less good than the one he fired. Really, what the supervisor wants as subordinates is a lot of people who can't challenge him and, from their large number and relatively high salaries, get him paid more.
For more, there may be some cliques; join them and appear to be loyal to them.
A lot of the advice in the OP will scare your supervisor and cause him to try to get rid of you.
Net, play politics.
For one step more, the politics you are playing is well known in the literature of public administration, organizational behavior, and sociology and is called goal subordination where the workers subordinate the goals of the organization to their own goals.
Goal subordination is common in middle management in an organization big enough to have several levels of management. There commonly a middle manager wants to arrange that his position is relatively well paid and stable. To this end he wants to build an empire of subordinates who will not challenge him. The middle manager gets paid more because of his relatively large number of subordinates.
In a lot of medium to large organizations, an employee who is a star gets attacked. E.g., an employee A who sells more makes the other employees look bad, and they can retaliate by sabotaging employee A.
E.g., in a research university, never tell the others how your research is going. Instead, say nothing until the corresponding papers are PUBLISHED -- then it is too late for the others to sabotage the research, e.g., cause you to waste time by constantly dropping by your office to talk, putting you on silly committees, assigning you new courses to teach where you have to do new preparations, etc.
Net, instead of working to make the organization more successful, it is super common to replace reality with easier to do/defend processes and to fight with others in the company, especially just down the hall.
I don't think the Charisma Myth is worth reading, but the first 3 tips she gives are great.
1) Don't end your sentences on a rising inflection. Makes you sound unsure.
2) Don't nod you heard more than once during a sentence when someone else is speaking. Makes you look to eager.
3) Take a breath before you speak. Doing so makes you come across as confident, prepared, thoughtful, and composed.
I dislike the popular phrase "evidence-based" to describe practices/advice. All reasoning should be evidence-based. Experience can be a source of evidence. The results of double-blind studies require interpretation, about which reasonable people will disagree. Many "evidence-based" findings could correctly be viewed as "one person's opinion".
[+] [-] cJ0th|9 years ago|reply
If I could talk to my 20 year old self I would recommend this: Stay away from the Internet as much as possible and don't look for general advice.
Most information is of little use no matter whether it's right, wrong, deep, entertaining, scientific, religious, whatever... Many may realize that but they continue to consume. The common trap is that most of us think there is no downside to consuming information and this, in my humble opinion is a huge mistake! It seems to me that the more stuff we shovel into our heads, the less able we are to get active. There is constantly such a long queue of inputs our brain wants to process that we have little energy left to actually develop intentions. When intention crystallize, motivation follows and so does action. I'd argue that people of average intelligence are not lacking success because they miss precious advice. It's because they don't actually have intentions! They can't allow themselves (mainly for financial oder societal reason, I assume) to relax and wait for curiosity to kick in. Instead they have it backwards: They hear about people who are having a career, they hear about others forming families, they hear the news telling them how the IOT is the future, they read up on cool stuff on wikipedia, read the biographies of celebreties, random stuff on reddit, they read career advice .... And then, from all that garbage, they try to deduce what to do. In most cases, that doesn't truly work because the result is not in line with their natural appetites and abilities.
[+] [-] taneq|9 years ago|reply
My 20-year-old self got 90%+ of the information I needed to succeed from the internet. I taught myself coding, 3D graphics, game development, rendering, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
My present-day self still relies on the internet for a huge percentage of my information, and you know what? Having done it both ways, it's far more efficient and far more effective than catching a bus to the library.
Maybe you meant 'stay off Facebook'?
[+] [-] wolly|9 years ago|reply
While I generally agree that you shouldn't overvalue general advice I don't find your argument very believable when you then go on to offer your own advice. Seems more like a convenient way to not having to address the article.
I'm all for going your own way, but it can't be just a reaction to something else. Especially in a relatively free industry like technology I increasingly see people who find themselves disliking the consequences of their decisions (often without realizing they made them in the first place).
[+] [-] chplushsieh|9 years ago|reply
... which is also a piece of general advice, coming from the Internet.
[+] [-] tomludus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamredwoods|9 years ago|reply
This article is similar to just that: useless clichés. I clicked to read more about the evidence backing up each item, but it's only in the footnotes? In other words, the footnotes are MUCH more interesting than the article.
[+] [-] BenjaminTodd|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iandanforth|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morgante|9 years ago|reply
Uh, footnote citations for any advice are exactly what I expect when something says it's evidence-based.
[+] [-] henryaj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucb1e|9 years ago|reply
Wow, they probably have no idea where their bananas come from. More productive than the average person if you look at scientific output only, but science is what improves our lives in the long run. The rest of the population does the work that needs doing to stay alive.
[+] [-] apexalpha|9 years ago|reply
This will probably be counted in their "Amsterdam-Brussels-Antwerp" statistic, but no real-life innovation has taken place there.
The other side to this story is that non-Europeans would probably still consider this place part of the "Amsterdam-Brussels-Antwerp" axis since it is only 100km outside of it, while for Dutch people this is 'the other side of the country' and thus, considered far away.
[+] [-] arjie|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morgante|9 years ago|reply
They certainly do. You should apply the principle of charity here. It's a site about effective altruism. They definitely know where bananas come from.
More importantly, bananas (and other food production) are captured in economic output and measures of economic productivity. They're referencing quantitative comparisons of productivity.
> The rest of the population does the work that needs doing to stay alive.
A very very small percentage of the population works in food production.
[+] [-] mortehu|9 years ago|reply
The whole purpose of this website is effective altruism. I'm sure they're aware that people are struggling out there.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity#Labor_productivit...
[+] [-] Amygaz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lazyasciiart|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iamhere67|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hedgew|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] basisword|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thenomad|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kolinko|9 years ago|reply
Most of such advice works quite well for people who don't need it. Especially for the people with low income, low social capital, poor health and low personal skills, much of the advice will be outright wrong. And for some accomplished ones, it will serve as an extra prod to shame the former:
"Well of course they are not successful, they don't follow what scientists say."
The question is: why don't they.
[+] [-] johnfn|9 years ago|reply
A few constructive negative comments are fine, but this...
I wish there was a community similar to HN but without the toxic negativity. :(
[+] [-] Gustomaximus|9 years ago|reply
A side point form this, it would be interesting if HN/Reddit or other platforms brought in a quality score to peoples upvotes to negate people who do tend to upvote catchy headlines.
That or 287 people other than me found this article interesting and useful...
[+] [-] BenjaminTodd|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hannob|9 years ago|reply
Also... given the current state of psychology research even the points where you refer to research are probably quite weak. E.g. the whole field of positive psychology is... not exactly a prime example of robust evidence-based practice.
[+] [-] jonmb|9 years ago|reply
The criticisms you are receiving about the article not being "evidence-based" is probably the most true in the sense that it may lead people to expect more scientific links and notes (which you do provide a decent amount in the Notes & References). So perhaps the title could have been better worded.
However, I think you were going for something more practical that people can apply to their lives and you linked to additional resources (books and web sites) for people to dive deeper if they want. That's a good approach IMO.
[+] [-] janwillemb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucb1e|9 years ago|reply
I too am someone who does work that helps us improve in the long run, I don't put the literal bread on anyone's table. (I hope that saying translates from Dutch.) So I don't identify as someone doing the hard work while scientists do "the important work", but I do think everyone's work is important. In terms of wages, I have trouble with the idea of farmers that earn less than me while working more hours and taking more risks in terms of job security and physical safety, but there's little I can do at the moment.
To make sure you get what I'm referring to, this is what I'm talking about:
> The world’s ten largest urban economic regions hold only 6.5% of the world’s population, but account for 57% of patented innovations, 53% of the most cited scientists and 43% of economic output. That means the people in these regions are about eight times more productive than the average person.
More productive on some narrow measure. What a snobby statement.
[+] [-] mattnewport|9 years ago|reply
Knowing good habits to develop is much less than half the battle. I already have a pretty good idea what I should be doing, all the difficulty is in effective implementation. Progress is often two steps forward and one step back and dedicating time and other limited resources (money, willpower) to one area (e.g. health and fitness) can often conflict with progress in another area (e.g. time to work or socialize).
Knowing good habits is a good place to start but I'm much more interested in actionable advice to effectively develop and sustain good habits.
[+] [-] tryitnow|9 years ago|reply
First, the items do not tend to be mutually exclusive - there's a lot of overlap with each other. I interpret that as a sign of poor organization. It makes the whole thing hard to follow.
Second, most of this stuff isn't remotely evidence based! Plus, there's no way to understand the effect size even when some technique does have evidence supporting it.
Overall, this is too much of a data dump to be helpful. The author should have ranked ordered these items based on the cumulative evidence supporting each one - that would have been extremely useful.
[+] [-] BenjaminTodd|9 years ago|reply
> In many cases, the evidence isn’t as strong as we’d like. Rather, it’s the best we’re aware of. We’ve tried to come to an all-considered view of what makes sense to try, given (i) the strength of the empirical evidence, (ii) whether it seems reasonable to us, (iii) the size of the potential upside, (iv) how widely applicable the advice is, and (v) the costs of trying. The details are given in the further reading we link to and the footnotes.
> We’ve put the advice roughly in order. The first items are easier and more widely applicable, so start with them, then move on to the more difficult areas later. The order is also partly based on an upcoming analysis of which skills are most valuable.
I agree some of the advice overlaps, but it's a little hard to avoid. Most of the areas are inter-related. I'd be interested in ideas on how to reorg.
[+] [-] theprop|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BenjaminTodd|9 years ago|reply
https://80000hours.org/career-guide/job-satisfaction/
[+] [-] atemerev|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rawland|9 years ago|reply
What world is this, in which every human interaction happens in background of some kind of utility function?
In the end we all want to be happy, right? Numerous studies find, that 'the most salient characteristics shared by students who were very happy and showed the fewest signs of depression were "their strong ties to friends and family and commitment to spending time with them." ("The New Science of Happiness," Claudia Wallis, Time Magazine, Jan. 09, 2005).' [1]
I'm very sorry to say this: sadly enough, it's not how good you perform, but where you are born, what has the biggest impact on your career. [2]
From the About page of 80000hours:
Maybe that's the main problem here? "[Having] little idea what to do". Being raised as sheep doesn't really teach you, how to stand for your own ideals.And that's why I'm proud of HN. Because we are!
Sources:
[1]: http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/science-of-happiness/com...
[2]: In Germany 85% of all chairmen are emerging from the upper 3.5% (income-wise) families [3]. This is especially remarkable as it's only a very thin slice, which makes up basically everybody in these positions. These upper 3.5% want you to become as high-performing as possible. Guess, why?
[3]: https://www.amazon.de/Gestatten-Elite-Spuren-M%C3%A4chtigen-...
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|9 years ago|reply
Nobody tells anyone to live their lives by an explicit utility function (if you could even specify one in full, you'd be half-way to solving Friendly AI). But utilitarianism is an useful framework for decisionmaking in many contexts, especially as an alternative to going by your gut, and especially in situations to which your gut is not used.
> In the end we all want to be happy, right?
Right, but if this is most important goal of one's life, then 80000hours is not a guide for them. This is a guide for people who want to have positive impact on the world. There are better and easier ways for improving personal happiness. For example, even the Bible suggests alcohol as useful in achieving a happy (if not impactful) life.
> Maybe that's the main problem here? "[Having] little idea what to do". Being raised as sheep doesn't really teach you, how to stand for your own ideals.
The context implies this talks about people who know they want to make a meaningful social impact, but don't know how. In other articles, 80000hours provides advice for figuring out that "how".
--
TL;DR: 80000hours don't publish articles aimed at everyone, but at those who want to make a positive impact on the world with their career.
[+] [-] jonathanstrange|9 years ago|reply
Maybe they should read Heinrich Böll's Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral - Anecdote Concerning the Lowering of Productivity.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] orasis|9 years ago|reply
This is because where you live determines many important aspects of your life. It determines the types of people you’ll spend time with. It determines your day-to-day environment and commute."
So much this. I moved to a town with much higher quality people and my happiness has taken a big positive bump.
[+] [-] henryaj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Asdfbla|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvpu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cypher303|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sAbakumoff|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lorenzosnap|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logfromblammo|9 years ago|reply
7. Abandon your current social network and move to a city where you can make better friends.
Both of those things may help generate career success individually, but probably not both of them together, in that order.
[+] [-] graycat|9 years ago|reply
For more, there may be some cliques; join them and appear to be loyal to them.
A lot of the advice in the OP will scare your supervisor and cause him to try to get rid of you.
Net, play politics.
For one step more, the politics you are playing is well known in the literature of public administration, organizational behavior, and sociology and is called goal subordination where the workers subordinate the goals of the organization to their own goals.
Goal subordination is common in middle management in an organization big enough to have several levels of management. There commonly a middle manager wants to arrange that his position is relatively well paid and stable. To this end he wants to build an empire of subordinates who will not challenge him. The middle manager gets paid more because of his relatively large number of subordinates.
In a lot of medium to large organizations, an employee who is a star gets attacked. E.g., an employee A who sells more makes the other employees look bad, and they can retaliate by sabotaging employee A.
E.g., in a research university, never tell the others how your research is going. Instead, say nothing until the corresponding papers are PUBLISHED -- then it is too late for the others to sabotage the research, e.g., cause you to waste time by constantly dropping by your office to talk, putting you on silly committees, assigning you new courses to teach where you have to do new preparations, etc.
Net, instead of working to make the organization more successful, it is super common to replace reality with easier to do/defend processes and to fight with others in the company, especially just down the hall.
[+] [-] kelukelugames|9 years ago|reply
1) Don't end your sentences on a rising inflection. Makes you sound unsure. 2) Don't nod you heard more than once during a sentence when someone else is speaking. Makes you look to eager. 3) Take a breath before you speak. Doing so makes you come across as confident, prepared, thoughtful, and composed.
[+] [-] raleighm|9 years ago|reply