Item — HN Reader

Cal Newport became famous for his books "Deep Work" and "Digital Minimalism", but my favorite / most underrated book by him is actually "So Good They Can't Ignore You": https://www.calnewport.com/books/so-good/

In SGTCIU, he really goes deep on the idea that pre-existing passion is unlikely to lead you to a happy career and presents an alternate, more-compelling framework for job satisfaction.

1. Acquire rare & valuable skills (career capital) 2. Use said career capital in exchange for job / life properties you care about (remote work, working less hours, working for 'better' companies, higher pay, more autonomy, managing more people, w/e those are for you).

There are happy & fulfilled people in every career and, of course, unhappy people in every career / walk of life. But pretty much everyone wants the same thing in their career: mission, autonomy, impact, and creativity.

These traits ^ are mostly independent of a specific job / field

3 comments

>'There are happy & fulfilled people in every career and, of course, unhappy people in every career / walk of life. But pretty much everyone wants the same thing in their career: mission, autonomy, impact, and creativity.

These traits ^ are mostly independent of a specific job / field'

I think this is untrue. It depends on how one understands mission, autonomy, impact and creativity whether they can be achieved independent what specific job one works. If by creativity you mean self-expression, few jobs give you the space for true self-expression, rather than expression within the confines of instrumental problem-solving. If by autonomy you mean the ability to choose one's own tasks then, again, few jobs allow that. If by impact you mean the probable consequences one's work will have for the good of humankind, then clearly one can - and people do - try and rank more and less impactful work, among which there is wide variance. There are a small number of jobs which are extremely high-impact, e.g., working on nuclear proliferation, public health in the global south, climate change. Most jobs have a real but comparatively mundane impact. 'Mission' is entirely relative to the person, not the job.

These traits are like salary. There's a level which meets your needs, a level which makes you happy, and a level that anything beyond is superfluous. And the levels aren't fixed either; more of one may make up for less of another, and different people have different needs.

I personally don't need a lot of mission; it's nice, and having a mission frame helps me accept an offer, but once I'm in the job, it's kind of whatever.

Autonomy can be picking your tasks from anything possible, or picking your tasks from a small menu, or just doing your assigned tasks in peace. Or having 'flexible' start times of 7-9 AM. Different people have different needs.

I love having global impact, but really all I need is for my code to actually make it out to users. I hate doing a bunch of work and it never ships. But if like one or two people use it, that's enough for me.

Creativity is relative too. Some people want to create totally new things. I just don't want to do the same thing every day for years. In software that's not too hard though; if it's the same every day, it's begging to be automated.

Look for enough of these things to make you happy, not to find the maximum available. And yeah, some jobs won't have enough to meet your needs; they might meet other people's needs though.

I’ve heard of similar frameworks that replace “creativity” with “a skill you can hone”.

Both creativity and working at the edge of your ability can create flow states. Being lost in the moment might be what both of these are ultimately after

The substitution might work better, you're right, but that's also effectively admitting that most jobs aren't creative. There is a qualitative difference between working close to the limit of one's abilities in a flow state, and having one's own ideas, following through the implications, and executing it using one's own wits. That's creative, and in my experience a lot more gratifying than just being engrossed in work.

In any case I think it's a mistake to become too transfixed by what features of work are most conducive to happiness. Yes, happiness is important. Perhaps it's the single most important criteria for choosing a line of work. But there are other, larger objectives - e.g., helping humankind, producing great things, being authentic to oneself, and leading a good life.

I agree that most jobs are not creative in the typical definition, which is why in think the distinction between creative and flow state is important.

I think it’s a mistake to focus on happiness because it’s a mind state and by definition transitory. With that said, I think you can cultivate happiness without checking all those boxes because we can affect our mind state by deliberately choosing our perspective. From that stance, almost any job can lead to happiness. I also think those other things you mention are the means to continuing on with a job when it’s not creating happiness. They can create the perspective to develop motivation when happiness is lacking. Maybe “fulfillment” is a better goalpost than “happiness”. “Happy” is the experience in the moment, “fulfillment” is the experience in reflection.

> But pretty much everyone wants the same thing in their career: mission, autonomy, impact, and creativity

There’s another model I use that I’ve found to be pretty accurate for most people: SCARF.

Status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness.

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/SCARF.htm

The problem with status is that it’s completely relative and ultimately not in your control.

You might be the team captain but there’s likely another athlete who’s better. Status is driven by comparison and, as Teddy Roosevelt said, comparison is the thief of joy. Beyond that, it means putting stock largely into what other people think which can be in a natural juxtaposition to autonomy

I remember reading his "How to win at College" when finishing graduate school; his first book made me feel smug because I was already doing all his recommendations.

I feel extremely blessed, as I have held a series of "dream jobs": 1) video game studio owner at age 17; 2) graphics researcher working for Mandelbrot on his research in '83; 3) Beta Tester for the original Macintosh; 4) 3D graphics researcher back when how to do 3D graphics was unsolved research; 5) video game console OS developer (3D0 & first PSX), 6) video game lead engineer (15 years), 7) I was one of the first people to get Live Interactive Video working on the Internet (Rotor Communications, '99), 8) VFX digital artist & developer for 9 major release feature films; 9) I pioneered and global patented Deep Fakes back in '08 (trying to commercialize that bankrupted me, I was trying to launch Personalized Advertising); and today 10) I'm lead developer of one of the leading facial recognition systems used by 3-lettered organizations world wide.

I get these positions by being irritatingly enthusiastic, technologically deep when first meeting the interviewers, and I try to get right into what their immediate problems to be solved and try to engage in that solution during my interviews. If given make work for evaluation, I simply refuse and ask them what problems they are actually facing: let's solve one of those. This gets the actual problem solvers engaged and I can judge them and they can judge me in our compatibility when problem solving. I tend to cinch the deal trying to get tje job by including 360 degree financial, long term maintenance, and a schedule for planned enhancements achieving expense reduction when executing whatever solution. I tend to minimize having an MBA, because my development achievements speak for themselves; but when I close with financial managers assessment of the company and act like the prospect of working there will be good for them, they tend make an offer. I never act like I need the job. I act like they need me, and without me they would face me working for their competition. Basically, I act like a force, and they can have me on their team of they want. Yes, this is arrogant; it is intentionally so. In many ways, I find I need to treat management like an asshole peer, and be an asshole right to them, and suddenly I'm their favorite guy. People are strange.

I would not call these last ones dream jobs. More like dream-crushing jobs...

I pursued Personalized Advertising because I foresee automated actor replacement as inevitable, and if that is the case why not be it's Edison?

My work in facial recognition is partially because I can do the work at all, few can, and I also do this work to know what it is, it's capabilities and limits, so I'm not in the dark and can influence it's use. I'm an ethical person, and I voice my ethical concerns constantly, insuring the systems cannot be easily abused.

I think it’s a case of different strokes for different folks.

Those “three letter agencies” may offer resources and projects that one would struggle to find elsewhere.

To some people, being a Marine is a dream job. To others, that lifestyle would be soul-crushing.

That post sound sounds like it was written by someone who dreams of getting power and status. If power us your dream, working for a 3 letter is one way of getting it.

I dream of being left alone with a pile of computers and unlimited time. Frankly, I'm a curmudgeon when it comes to others socially. I prefer literature and philosophy discussion.

But you don't normally blurt it out like that :-)

I suspect that jobs in a TLA are closer to the Laundry files than James Bond.

They are 60-80 hour weeks, over and over and over again...

3 letter organization aka NSA?

This is a fantastic representation of how developers should present themselves and work to get their dream jobs. It's hard work up front, but the dividends yield. Kudos

This guy is an elite researcher, so this approach works for him. Try doing that as a regular backend guy and you'll get a puzzled look from management, followed by a boot to the posterior.

It requires past achievements that are beyond questioning, such as working with Mandelbrot, OS developer for the PlayStation, and having written and acquired a global technology patent. I am very aware the unfair game I'm playing when being interviewed. Working in a Capitalist economy is an unfair game, so fuck em and get what ya can. It's all a pointless prestige game anyway.