Thanks for the link! That’s a very well written article, and comparing it to what I wrote has allowed me to see some ways to improve my writing. Basically I should aim to be more sparse and conversational, and have an overall emotional arc to the whole piece, rather than just make a series of carefully argued intellectual points that the readers should evaluate one by one. I wonder if other people feel the same way about my writing?
I wonder if other people feel the same way about my writing?
I think there’s room in the world for both writing styles. Actually, I’d strengthen that: I’m glad there are people writing in a loosier, chattier style with bite-size paragraphs, and I’m glad there are people writing in a more systematic A-then-B-then-C form. I like a degree of variety.
Edit: I guess I didn’t really address your question directly. To be explicit, I was fine with your writing style here, and I liked the care you took to connect what you were saying to specific cognitive biases. I don’t recall ever thinking “whoa, this cousin_it article is too dry for me” when reading one of your non-decision-theory posts. (And I don’t know how easy it is to add emotional arcs to more technical posts about decision theory!)
The article is indeed well-written, if misleadingly titled. The point it is really making, “don’t pick a high-status career, unless you are super exceptional” is masked by the stated conclusion, “don’t do what you love or you will starve”, which does not follow. There are plenty of opportunities to “do what you love” in “mundane” jobs.
And yes, you could use some practice writing in a more engaging way. Is there Writing for non-Vulcans 101?
Paul Graham has a similar essay, called How To Do What You Love which is somewhat less pessimistic, but still agrees that there are a lot of things people can love that they can’t make a living doing.
A lot of this article feels like “Everyone can be a winner! Everyone can get a trophy for participation! Yay!” As a result, I’m having a hard time restraining my cynicism. For example:
Plenty of “cool careers” sound better than they turn out to be.
How convenient; now you have a great excuse for why you don’t have a “cool career”.
Status is often the enemy of success.
How convenient; now you have a great excuse for why you’re not high status.
Just remember is this one rule: Don’t innovate. Replicate. Copy a successful simple business. Innovations are too risky
How convenient; now you have a great excuse for why you’re not innovating.
At the end of the day though, everyone has a different definition of success; I think that if you’ve honestly determined that your own definition of success doesn’t require a “cool career” (or high status, or innovation, or whatever), then this article offers exceptional advice.
Possibly related:
Do What You Love and Starve?
Thanks for the link! That’s a very well written article, and comparing it to what I wrote has allowed me to see some ways to improve my writing. Basically I should aim to be more sparse and conversational, and have an overall emotional arc to the whole piece, rather than just make a series of carefully argued intellectual points that the readers should evaluate one by one. I wonder if other people feel the same way about my writing?
I think there’s room in the world for both writing styles. Actually, I’d strengthen that: I’m glad there are people writing in a loosier, chattier style with bite-size paragraphs, and I’m glad there are people writing in a more systematic A-then-B-then-C form. I like a degree of variety.
Edit: I guess I didn’t really address your question directly. To be explicit, I was fine with your writing style here, and I liked the care you took to connect what you were saying to specific cognitive biases. I don’t recall ever thinking “whoa, this cousin_it article is too dry for me” when reading one of your non-decision-theory posts. (And I don’t know how easy it is to add emotional arcs to more technical posts about decision theory!)
Thanks!
The article is indeed well-written, if misleadingly titled. The point it is really making, “don’t pick a high-status career, unless you are super exceptional” is masked by the stated conclusion, “don’t do what you love or you will starve”, which does not follow. There are plenty of opportunities to “do what you love” in “mundane” jobs.
And yes, you could use some practice writing in a more engaging way. Is there Writing for non-Vulcans 101?
Paul Graham has a similar essay, called How To Do What You Love which is somewhat less pessimistic, but still agrees that there are a lot of things people can love that they can’t make a living doing.
Great article! Thanks for sharing.
A lot of this article feels like “Everyone can be a winner! Everyone can get a trophy for participation! Yay!” As a result, I’m having a hard time restraining my cynicism. For example:
How convenient; now you have a great excuse for why you don’t have a “cool career”.
How convenient; now you have a great excuse for why you’re not high status.
How convenient; now you have a great excuse for why you’re not innovating.
At the end of the day though, everyone has a different definition of success; I think that if you’ve honestly determined that your own definition of success doesn’t require a “cool career” (or high status, or innovation, or whatever), then this article offers exceptional advice.