= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SarahC comments on Optimal Employment - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (267)
Upvoted. This is really interesting.
I'd very likely not do this myself, though. I've noticed there are two kinds of attitudes toward jobs (and I've seen rationalists of both stripes). Some people really want their career to be an extension of their interests and identity and perhaps their prestige: "I'm a scientist," "I'm an artist," "I'm a programmer," "I'm a doctor," "I'm a teacher," etc. They wouldn't want to make the same money in less time by a different route, they want to work in that particular field.
Some people, on the other hand, basically see their job as a source of income, which they can use to pursue their interests elsewhere. They're optimizing for money and free time, which means they look at a much wider range of money-making possibilities. (The most extreme example would be The 4-Hour Workweek, in which the money comes from a passive income stream, not a "career" at all.)
Your advice is geared more to people in the second category. I'm in the first. That doesn't mean it's not good advice -- if you want money and free time to pursue an interest, then hospitality jobs in the outback sound like a great idea, given your evidence.
I'm curious, though -- does anyone think that one attitude is better than the other? Or is it just a matter of individual preference? Job-as-income-stream, or career-as-personal-identity?
I've always been interested in why personal identity was tied up in a career. If you self identified as a mathematician, why couldn't you earn more money being a bartender in Australia while spending your free time doing math and participating in the mathematical community?
I know "scientists", "artists", and "teachers" who identify as such and make their money doing other things. At the extreme end, if you identify as a teacher why not spend 15 hours a week making a very high income doing XYZ and maybe 35 hours a week volunteering/working for low wages at a tutoring center? You're undeniably a teacher, and you likely have more disposable income.
The straightforward answer: you can do a lot more with an interest, and use social reinforcement to your advantage, if you're plugged into an institution. Trying to go it alone is a serious challenge: you're isolated, you'll have motivation problems, you'll have a higher probability of getting yourself into eccentric dead ends if you don't have guidance.
Also, a lot of people really care what others think of them. We seem to disapprove of that on LessWrong, but I don't see why it's any more selfish or venal to want approval than to want money.
The thinking presumably is that money can be donated to approved causes, and hence people here are allowed to not think of making money as "selfish".
...to which the reply is: approval (status) can be converted into money, and for some people, that may be the most efficient route given their motivation psychology.
Status can also be "donated to" (that is, used in the service of) a cause.
So can time/labor, but....
And yet --
Sure, for the right sort of people, a direct donation of status can be effective (maybe even optimally so), just like there are some people who should actually work at SIAI.
Probably not the case for typical academic high-status, however. Perhaps the endorsement of Andrew Wiles or Stephen Hawking would be worth more than either of them could actually afford to donate; but your typical leader-of-a-subfield would probably be more effective by donating money from their atypically-high academic salary.
Also note that the status of people like Thiel and Kurzweil is itself intimately connected to the money they've made.
That wouldn't have been my observation.