The article is a great example of over-thinking things that should be really simple.
Whatever you are doing, you should choose a career you can enjoy. Some people are really picky of what (in their view) constitutes meaningful and fulfilling work. Others may consider any work that generates money to be fulfilling by this definition alone.
One person feels they have to solve the world hunger to feel good about themselves. Someone else feels fulfilled just working on better advertising technologies. Yet another person has to start Wikileaks or become a martyr of some kind to feel like they have accomplished something.
Stop over-thinking the meaning of life and just find a career that makes you happy! If your work feels like fun you'll be motivated to achieve in whatever path you have chosen.
EDIT: To address the comment that definitions of "fulfillment" can change over lifetime, let me repeat the famous quote: "in the long run we are all dead". If you are not enjoying the journey you are probably not very excited about your supposed destination. But I am sure the debates about the "meaning of life" and the "search for the right path, etc" is a way to happiness for many people. Go for it!
The above post is a great example of under-thinking things. It takes as read that one can easily determine what enjoyment and happiness is, something that is incredibly hard to get right over the course of a lifetime.
Most things that are fulfilling in life require a great deal of self-denial for longer term ends. And that self-denial can break you. Likewise, a life of hedonism can leave you feeling unfulfilled and unhappy with your lot.
That depends on what 'hard' means; it's hard to take the step, not to actually do it. People are very scared and security seeking. I don't like the ex CEO of godaddy much, but 'security is for corpses' is definitely something he was right about. When you are born, you are almost dead. There is no reason to be so careful; I mean, don't drunk-drive or inject yourself with random stuff to get a maybe-high, but doing only stuff you like? Whats the harm in that? You're going to die if there is a mistake? No, you'll have a maybe temporary hard time. At least you did what you like. It's incredible what small amount of people actually do this. Most people agree with this though but they don't do because of BUNCH_OF_SECURITY_EXCUSES.
Edit: I seem to have remembered the phrase from Bob Parsons incorrectly. It's "Security is for cadavers." (http://www.bobparsons.me/bp_16_rules.php). I hoped that it actually was from someone else :)
If you come from a middle-class family that can provide a safety net for you, or live in a social-democratic country that provides a safety-net for everyone, then yes; you end up with some unpleasant months and get back on your feet. But in the U.S. you can end up in some pretty bad situations, perhaps homeless, and lacking things such as internet access, nice clothes, or a permanent address that are very useful for getting jobs or otherwise making money. If you end up in that kind of position, it can be very hard to get back out of it, so most people, especially from less-well-off backgrounds, put a large premium on minimizing the risk of getting into it in the first place. Hence, a preference for "safe" jobs at larger companies.
(Part of the problem is that what does exist of a safety net in the U.S. moves at a glacial pace, and is geared towards chronically poor people. For example, housing assistance programs typically have years-long waiting lists, so they serve the exact opposite use-case from the person who needs a place to live ASAP, but only for a few months until they can pay their own rent again.)
in the U.S. you can end up in some pretty bad situations, perhaps homeless, and lacking things such as internet access, nice clothes, or a permanent address ... it can be very hard to get back out of it
True, if you are relying on government/social programs to get you out. Such programs tend to keep you in your bad situation, as doing so perpetuates the survival of the social program and its budget.
There are examples of people who have experimentally, deliberately put themselves in such circumstances and worked their way out in a relatively short time.
I've seen the latter examples, but am skeptical of them as evidence. They seem to be people who do have safety nets, from middle-class or upper-middle-class families, doing it as a sort of game so they can blog about it, with a bail-out option available at any time.
The U.S. social programs do seem particularly poorly managed compared to most first-world countries, especially because they aren't integrated or at all set up for rapid but temporary assistance.
Here in Denmark (I'm American, but moved), the social programs are much more responsive on both ends: they are fast to get into, and intended to provide a path out. A social worker can get you into a rented apartment paid for by a housing-assistance program this week, possibly even on the same day—not next year—so you're instantly off the streets, with a regular mailing address. Together with that, you'll also have job-placement assistance, internship opportunities, and generally a support network intended to get you paying your own rent in short order. So the assistance is fast but intended to be temporary, and generally works well for most people who temporarily find themselves in dire straits. The main exceptions are people with psychiatric problems or drug addictions, who are treated separately.
In my (limited, i'm only around 40 years on this planet) experience it's far from simple for people who don't want to know/learn. But I learned from my 94 year old grandfather who was not intelligent as in IQ but who knew how 'life' works and what is important and what not. People who know 'better' do usually (again, personal experience; it's easy to spot the sour people at a party) not achieve this happiness. It's quite easy for most people who just listen to older people.
The people who are truly not happy who I know personally almost all (2 exceptions) have a hangup about money; they want money to buy stuff. What stuff is unclear; once they get stuff (over the years), they usually don't do anything with it. Or if they do it didn't turn out the magic bullet they thought it was, which is of course the reason people don't buy it in the first place. It's like the 4 hour work week book; you can have your dream X TODAY but a lot of people will not do that because when they finally do their dream X it's very disappointing. And you didn't gain much happiness from it in the end.
The happiest people I know, who, I would say, scored a 10/10, are people who do not reason about their existence AND do what they like most all the time. My neighbor (who is a small goat herder) is 24/7 happy; I have only one creature who seems to have the same happiness and that's my little dog (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6134596/Screenshots/y835c9xw_lg~.png). I don't think people who meta-live in any way can do a 10/10 or would they want to; I think a part of happiness is misery but I don't know exactly how that works yet. Might be my Calvanistic-ish upbringing though. People (I like to think i'm one of them) who do 9/10 on the scale, in my experience, do what they like and work only as their hobby, never for money(I know at least 2 people who rather live under a bridge than do something which is not their passion, and they both have in the past, but now they are doing well). I have no exceptions in my circles to this. Again; might be who I attract or not.
I think if you accept 'how it works' from people who actually are what you want to be (and no, that doesn't mean millionaires in my eyes as that's the biggest let down on earth if it takes you, as it usually does, a lot of time to achieve and it's really not very interesting; it's nice, but not for the reasons you might think and I don't have anything I wouldn't be able to 'do' which contribute to my happiness level).
Also, to me, not native EN speaker, enjoyment != happiness. Enjoyment, if you would want it 24/7, is a heroine drip. If you manage to make it so you cannot meta-live then maybe that means happiness as well (I never tried), but if you have 1 moment to contemplate, your happiness is gone.
Comments
The article is a great example of over-thinking things that should be really simple.
Whatever you are doing, you should choose a career you can enjoy. Some people are really picky of what (in their view) constitutes meaningful and fulfilling work. Others may consider any work that generates money to be fulfilling by this definition alone.
One person feels they have to solve the world hunger to feel good about themselves. Someone else feels fulfilled just working on better advertising technologies. Yet another person has to start Wikileaks or become a martyr of some kind to feel like they have accomplished something.
Stop over-thinking the meaning of life and just find a career that makes you happy! If your work feels like fun you'll be motivated to achieve in whatever path you have chosen.
EDIT: To address the comment that definitions of "fulfillment" can change over lifetime, let me repeat the famous quote: "in the long run we are all dead". If you are not enjoying the journey you are probably not very excited about your supposed destination. But I am sure the debates about the "meaning of life" and the "search for the right path, etc" is a way to happiness for many people. Go for it!
The above post is a great example of under-thinking things. It takes as read that one can easily determine what enjoyment and happiness is, something that is incredibly hard to get right over the course of a lifetime.
Most things that are fulfilling in life require a great deal of self-denial for longer term ends. And that self-denial can break you. Likewise, a life of hedonism can leave you feeling unfulfilled and unhappy with your lot.
It's very far from simple.
"just find a career that makes you happy!"
Looking at my friends, relatives and neighbours I would say this is a lot harder than it sounds.
That depends on what 'hard' means; it's hard to take the step, not to actually do it. People are very scared and security seeking. I don't like the ex CEO of godaddy much, but 'security is for corpses' is definitely something he was right about. When you are born, you are almost dead. There is no reason to be so careful; I mean, don't drunk-drive or inject yourself with random stuff to get a maybe-high, but doing only stuff you like? Whats the harm in that? You're going to die if there is a mistake? No, you'll have a maybe temporary hard time. At least you did what you like. It's incredible what small amount of people actually do this. Most people agree with this though but they don't do because of BUNCH_OF_SECURITY_EXCUSES.
Edit: I seem to have remembered the phrase from Bob Parsons incorrectly. It's "Security is for cadavers." (http://www.bobparsons.me/bp_16_rules.php). I hoped that it actually was from someone else :)
> No, you'll have a maybe temporary hard time.
If you come from a middle-class family that can provide a safety net for you, or live in a social-democratic country that provides a safety-net for everyone, then yes; you end up with some unpleasant months and get back on your feet. But in the U.S. you can end up in some pretty bad situations, perhaps homeless, and lacking things such as internet access, nice clothes, or a permanent address that are very useful for getting jobs or otherwise making money. If you end up in that kind of position, it can be very hard to get back out of it, so most people, especially from less-well-off backgrounds, put a large premium on minimizing the risk of getting into it in the first place. Hence, a preference for "safe" jobs at larger companies.
(Part of the problem is that what does exist of a safety net in the U.S. moves at a glacial pace, and is geared towards chronically poor people. For example, housing assistance programs typically have years-long waiting lists, so they serve the exact opposite use-case from the person who needs a place to live ASAP, but only for a few months until they can pay their own rent again.)
in the U.S. you can end up in some pretty bad situations, perhaps homeless, and lacking things such as internet access, nice clothes, or a permanent address ... it can be very hard to get back out of it
True, if you are relying on government/social programs to get you out. Such programs tend to keep you in your bad situation, as doing so perpetuates the survival of the social program and its budget.
There are examples of people who have experimentally, deliberately put themselves in such circumstances and worked their way out in a relatively short time.
I've seen the latter examples, but am skeptical of them as evidence. They seem to be people who do have safety nets, from middle-class or upper-middle-class families, doing it as a sort of game so they can blog about it, with a bail-out option available at any time.
The U.S. social programs do seem particularly poorly managed compared to most first-world countries, especially because they aren't integrated or at all set up for rapid but temporary assistance.
Here in Denmark (I'm American, but moved), the social programs are much more responsive on both ends: they are fast to get into, and intended to provide a path out. A social worker can get you into a rented apartment paid for by a housing-assistance program this week, possibly even on the same day—not next year—so you're instantly off the streets, with a regular mailing address. Together with that, you'll also have job-placement assistance, internship opportunities, and generally a support network intended to get you paying your own rent in short order. So the assistance is fast but intended to be temporary, and generally works well for most people who temporarily find themselves in dire straits. The main exceptions are people with psychiatric problems or drug addictions, who are treated separately.
In my (limited, i'm only around 40 years on this planet) experience it's far from simple for people who don't want to know/learn. But I learned from my 94 year old grandfather who was not intelligent as in IQ but who knew how 'life' works and what is important and what not. People who know 'better' do usually (again, personal experience; it's easy to spot the sour people at a party) not achieve this happiness. It's quite easy for most people who just listen to older people.
The people who are truly not happy who I know personally almost all (2 exceptions) have a hangup about money; they want money to buy stuff. What stuff is unclear; once they get stuff (over the years), they usually don't do anything with it. Or if they do it didn't turn out the magic bullet they thought it was, which is of course the reason people don't buy it in the first place. It's like the 4 hour work week book; you can have your dream X TODAY but a lot of people will not do that because when they finally do their dream X it's very disappointing. And you didn't gain much happiness from it in the end.
The happiest people I know, who, I would say, scored a 10/10, are people who do not reason about their existence AND do what they like most all the time. My neighbor (who is a small goat herder) is 24/7 happy; I have only one creature who seems to have the same happiness and that's my little dog (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6134596/Screenshots/y835c9xw_lg~.png). I don't think people who meta-live in any way can do a 10/10 or would they want to; I think a part of happiness is misery but I don't know exactly how that works yet. Might be my Calvanistic-ish upbringing though. People (I like to think i'm one of them) who do 9/10 on the scale, in my experience, do what they like and work only as their hobby, never for money(I know at least 2 people who rather live under a bridge than do something which is not their passion, and they both have in the past, but now they are doing well). I have no exceptions in my circles to this. Again; might be who I attract or not.
I think if you accept 'how it works' from people who actually are what you want to be (and no, that doesn't mean millionaires in my eyes as that's the biggest let down on earth if it takes you, as it usually does, a lot of time to achieve and it's really not very interesting; it's nice, but not for the reasons you might think and I don't have anything I wouldn't be able to 'do' which contribute to my happiness level).
Also, to me, not native EN speaker, enjoyment != happiness. Enjoyment, if you would want it 24/7, is a heroine drip. If you manage to make it so you cannot meta-live then maybe that means happiness as well (I never tried), but if you have 1 moment to contemplate, your happiness is gone.