Slashdot Mirror
How to Do What You Love
fnord_ix writes "Paul Graham has another interesting essay talking about How to Do What You Love. He talks about the lies that adults tell kids about what work is, and how work is equal to pain." From the article: "I'm not saying we should let little kids do whatever they want. They may have to be made to work on certain things. But if we make kids work on dull stuff, it might be wise to tell them that tediousness is not the defining quality of work, and indeed that the reason they have to work on dull stuff now is so they can work on more interesting stuff later. "
I agree with what you said and want to add one more common case, which is, not working on what you love to support a living you absolutely love. (Spouse, kids, friends, lifestyle, gadgets, etc.)
In the Netherlands there are a few types of education for young kids, that are radically different. It's called 'Vrije school', free school. In this system, if kids don't want to do something, they are allowed to do something else, and do the task later.
There even is a more radical aproach called 'eigenwijs' which literelly means something like stubborn, but in this case means self-thought. In this system children get to decide what they want to do.
I personally don't think that this is the way education should be. Children are too young to make too many decisions. But to rigid is also wrong. I think you need a more Yin-Yang aproach. Work hard, relieve with something fun.
That said, I think s/he might have focused more on finding ways to experience wonder from moment-to-moment. This isn't easy when you're slinging hash, or heading toward the 11th straight hour of wrapping up a code project for a manager named Godzilla.
Life really is moment-to-moment, and very, very non-linear. There are ways - without becoming a mindless new age fanatic - to deal with the everyday.
Many years ago I read a book on Aesthetics called "Art in the Everyday"; it had a big impact. (I think it's out of print, and most people would probably find it pedantic).
Wittgenstein had a great way of dealing with this; he said (to paraphrase) "don't wonder about why you are, or what you are, or how you came to be, etc. - simply wonder THAT you are.
Again, this is not about contemplating one's navel, but rather using good, time-worn techniques (meditation, etc.) to get beyond all the stuff that weighs us down, and use that weight as a lever to achieve some internal peace.
It's tough drilling down to the moment in difficult times, but there's peace there, no matter what. I wish we could teach our kids more about how to do that.
Lastly, none of this means quiting the world, and withdrawing. On the contrary, it's about finding ways to pay more attention to the world on a moment-by-moment basis. that's deosn't preclude anyone from being/doing in this world in any number of ways - i.e. agressive entrepreneur, waiter, writer, coder, nanny, stay-at-home-mom, etc.
As a kid I was taught that I had to learn Math. An no one explained to me WHY I had to learn math. To me it was more fun to play with my Commodore 64 and the Philips EE2003- electronics kits. I was very curious as a kid, and every time I asked those who tried to teach me math what X and Y meant they never explained it to me but just told me to concentrate on the math formula itself and just solve it the way it has been told and explained. They told me I did not need to know what X and Y stands for. This is just ONE event of my childhood and why the fun of math became a chore to me instead of the fun it really could be.
... 8-bit assembly back then. Food for thoughts.
Back then, teachers where not advanced enough with computers to know that the stuff I coded in assembly actually where pretty advanced math. And since I was only 11 years old I had no clue it was advanced, to me it was just pure fun and I could not get enough of it. Too much later in life I discovered the connection between the school math and the computer programming that occupied my childhood.
I think teachers should be more creative in showing kids how they could use the things they learn in real life. Because of these experiences in my childhood - I got very bad math grades and did terribly in school. Later in life - I got a job as a service technican, but still I had many holes and lack of real knowledge on how things worked because of my lack of schooling.
Much later in life I rediscovered math and how fun it could be - because it rewared my personal projects with results that I really needed, that made math a lot of fun. Now I just really wish I knew the connection as a kid, maybe I was not smart enough to see the connection - but its kind of funny that I actually performed very advanced math formulas and calculations in an even more difficult environment
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Someone wrote a whole essay expanding on the above. A
w hards.htm
choice quote:
"These essays and this writing style are tempting to people outside the subculture at hand because of their engaging personal tone and idiosyncratic, insider's view. But after a while, you begin to notice that all the essays are an elaborate set of mirrors set up to reflect different facets of the author, in a big distributed act of participatory narcissism."
The whole essay, "Dabblers and Blowhards" is here:
http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blo
Matt
Hey, don't we need gargage men, factory workers, and clerks?
This article is a lot of manure. "Unproductive pleasures pall eventually. After a while you get tired of lying on the beach. If you want to stay happy, you have to do something." He speaks for himself, obviously, as there are whole legions of people who prefer this over their work.
"So one thing that falls just short of the standard, I think, is reading books." Is this guy serious? I guess he never ever read a book, or, if he did, he didn't get it.
Why does this get mentioned on Slashdot? Just because the guy is a programmer?
I'm pretty lucky with my job. I get pwid very well, I'm not that easy to replace, colleagues are ok or great for the most part. Higher management is making lots of stupid decisions and cleanung up after other peoples messes isn't that much fun. But overall I have it it pretty well. But the only reason I have this job, is because I didn't take any other job until I got this one. I had no job for almost 2 years after graduating. I did program and learn on for myself, helped a little on some open source projects, went on backpacking tours etc. But I never went for a crappy job, just because I needed the money. I was living from what I have accumulated during studies (sounds strange, but I actually had lots of money left after studying, that's what happens when you are a geek and barely go out ;) ). I was living for to years off the money I now make in one month. If I had taken a crap job, I wouldn't have learned that much about myself and also I wouldn't have aquired the exact skills I needed to get this current job. And most important of all, I wouldn't have had the open eyes and perspective to even see the opportunity.
So...accept that there will be meager times financially, and that there are more important things than that. Doing things you hate on other peoples terms just for the money is self-destructive prostitution. Doing things you love on other peoples terms just for the money is just prostitution. I may prostitute myself now. But at least it will allow me not having to work for money anymore in a few years.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
I can only agree with this. I Had thesame problem for a long time, studying technical physics and astrophysics and after a while it occurred to me that the main reason I studied that was because I was afraid of other peoples reactions if I did something else but I was quite miserable at that study.
So I changed to mechanical engineering, a little bit less difficult and now I'm in my final year of a study I love going towards a job I love!
It's harder to change if you've already got a job etc (stigma's on going back to school etc are a bit higher then just changing school) but in many cases it IS possible to do what you like rather then what has been "dictated" by the public (family and/or friends etc).
Manuals are your last resort only
I have a career that I love. I work for people I love. The work I do (write niche software facilitating education) is a cause I love.
I get paid rather well, to do work I love, for people I like working with. It wasn't at all easy to get here but I persisted in doing what I love, and what I get passionate about.
And I love it.
Seriously, the only problems with doing what you love is
A) Figuring out how to make doing what you love create wealth desired by somebody else, and
B) Finding that somebody else.
People that are passionate about what they do are more productive than those who dread monday morning. So, it's easy to see why somebody, passionate about their work, following their dreams, can live without the political infrastructure of an existing company.
In short, if you really love what you do, do as Paul suggests and consider a startup! It's risky, and it's hard, HARD work. It requires that you give all you've got and then some, and you're more likely to blow it than not, sometimes in embarrassing ways. If it wasn't hard and risky, everybody else would do it, too!
I've been involved with 5 startups, 1 was barely break-even (actually, net loss unless my time was free) and 1 was profitable. The one that's profitable is the one I'm still with, that I love doing.
So ask yourself: how much do you value your own happiness and satisfaction? Be honest. If you don't much care about "putting in the time", then get up tomorrow morning at 7:30 AM, spend 20 minutes on the freeway, and make sure you get to your job 10 minutes early, so that the boss notices and gives you that $1.00/hr raise you're hoping for at the annual employee review next summer!
But, if you value your satisfaction, sense of accomplishment, and love of life, consider what you really like to do, what would bring satisfaction day in and day out, and what legacy you want to leave behind you. Decide who you want to be, and be that person.
And go for it!
My story? Well, I've always been at least peripherally involved with IT. I knew all about the 386DX vs the 386SX vs the 486DLC back in the day. I've nearly always had a computer of some type, and took some programming classes in college - but never found my passion.
In 1996 I started a computer store, with $2,000 and some card tables set up in a shop downtown. In a short while, working, hustling and selling, I had a decent business going. But it sucked. Windows driver conflicts were such a pain, customers returned computers when they visited porn sites and got a virus, you name it. I got sick of "wipe and reload". I hated it.
But I was making pretty good money! Not like, wealthy or anything, but considerably better than most jobs. During this time, I met a gentlemen who mentioned Linux for the first time. I did some searching. I bought "Red Hat Linux for Dummies" complete with a copy of Red Hat 5.1. I experimented with it, and discovered that I LIKED it. It blew me away when I hacked together a relational database with BASH! (simple/stupid, but it worked)
Very quickly, I wanted to do Linux and databases full time, and after alot of discussion, I got my wife to agree.
In the spring of 2000, I gave the shop to my manager for just $10,000. (basically, the money that I owed) I pursued a contract that would give some immediate money, and worked HARD on honing my skills. I read books, websites, etc. every chance I got. Work got hard to find, and things got very tight for a while. (You may recall a certain recession going on about 2002/03) I almost lost my house. Repeatedly. I worked long, 14-hour days, coaxing whatever money I could out of the meager contracts I managed to close.
Bills weren't getting paid, kids needed new clothes and shoes, and I was stressed to the max. I started having trouble with high blood sugars, and terrible insomnia - often several days without sleep.
But the turnaround was so sudden, it was very difficult to adjust to. In a single month, my income quintupled! And, not
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Go home to my wife and family. And do whatever we want. Well, afford.
I don't love my job, and I don't expect I ever will, nor will I need to. I do enjoy my job, however, and I'd look elsewhere if I didn't. Wanna do what you love? Try the missus.
Graham has knocked the humanities before, implying they have less worth than the sciences (French literature being intrinsically easier than the hard sciences, IIRC)--which I find odd coming from him especially, whose personal selling points include a mixed background in computers and painting.
You shouldn't find it odd - you should find it more convincing, being that he's someone saying "subject A is harder than subject B" when he has experience in both.
Graham's point seems to be that in the hard sciences there are definite answers for questions, a clear "right" and "wrong", whereas in subjects like literature there are not (except in the trivial sense of a grade-school-style quiz that simply tests whether or not you actually read the book). Hence, a college degree in literature is easier than one in the hard sciences because in literature you have a much broader range of what can be considered "correct."
I believe the comparison you're referring to is along those lines: that most Physics graduates could complete a degree in French Literature rather easily, while most French Lit grads would have considerably more difficulty completing a degree in physics. Based on my experience, that comparison is dead-on accurate.
To put it yet another way, imagine how far you'd get in a physics program writing papers on the postmodern ennui of electrons.
One of the oldest quotes about loving your work i know is this:
"If you do something you truly love, you'll never work a day in your life."
This is certainly true, but i don't know anybody who is *this* fortunate. Most of us simply work to live, and then there's that batch of people who live to work. We usually call them Workaholics. I'd say that most of those people do it compulsory, and are not actually having fun doing the thing they do.
I have done helldesk work for 5 or 6 years, and then got a shot at becoming a network/sysadmin. I started working for a detaching agency here in The Netherlands and although i had some crappy assignments, i had my little gems too. The project im on right now is the best ive had so far, and im absolutely loving it. I have no doubt that i'll get crappier assignments after this one tho, but im willing to take it in stride. I guess thats just life for you, taking the good with the bad. I dont think there *is* a job that doesnt have its drawbacks.
"Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)
As someone from NW-Europe, this kind of story always amazes me. Visiting Americans from the company HQ are always absolutely shocked when people are muttering obscenities while programming. On the other hand, people here would NEVER put up with a manager raising his voice. Cultural differences?
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
My Dad was a physician.
Everybody assumed that I would be one too--take over the practice when he retired.
Dad always told me "Do whatever you want to do in life. But do it well. Son, I don't care if you're a ditch-digger. But if you choose that path, you better be the best damned ditch-digger around." Dad also taught me that if you're working hard, you're doing good. Worst thing you can say about a someone is "That boy don't like to work."
Wound up being an engineer. Turns out, I'd always been an engineer; just didn't know it.
Folks tell me I'm pretty good at it, too.
So, as I sit here waiting for something to break (should't be long...)..
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
The main point of the article is to do what you love.
The discussion point I was addressing was Graham's contention that the humanities are easier than the hard sciences, which was written in a different article entirely.
And while people most certainly love literature and many will write artistic criticism without being paid to do so (just look at how many offer unsolicited movie reviews on myspace), nobody would write papers on gender bias in postmodern literature unless they were eyeing the carrot of tenure or some other extrinsic reward. On the other hand, plenty of people would still work on problems in number theory regardless of whether or not they were getting paid.
The problem with America today stems from one root: defeatism.
People feel that things will never change, never get better, they're too stupid, everyone else is too mean.... Argh!
If there's one bit of advice I hope you can take away from what follows, it's this: Don't keep company with negative people. They'll drag you down and make you believe their religion of self-deprecation and delusional despair.
My mom died of cancer when I was very young, and we lived just above the poverty line in rural town for many years. I left college when my money ran out and my student loans got too high. I've only been in the tech industry for 5 years. I've spent most of it in work environments with bad management, complainers, backstabbers, layoffs, and bad equipment. Can I list more complaints? Sure, I could name a few doosies, but I think you probably get the point.
Has all of this gotten me down into a universe of self-pity, constantly bitching and moaning about how awful life is? When a boss responded to a request for a meager raise by saying "you're just a kid. Be happy with what you have, sit back, and learn something", did I get all depressed and say "maybe he's right?" The answer to all of this and more is an emphatic "NO!". In that particular case, I engineered events at the company to force him to raise me by (ready for this?) TEN FOLD the amount I was originally asking for. You might say that this would only cause tension with the boss -- and you'd be right. But hey -- stick it out a little while until you fulfill your obligation (the reason for the raise), put the new salary plus a little pad as your asking price, and go elsewhere. Not so bad if you plan it out.
The point is that I didn't get all depressed or defeated. I used my accumulated value at the company to my advantage, forcing them to pay me what I wanted and was actually worth by waiting for an opportune time when they absolutely could not lose me, and pressing my advantage. (Another quote from the boss: "You know that if I could fire you right now, I would. And I think you know that.") Dirty? Maybe. But so is "You're just a kid", [so I'm not going to pay you what you're worth]. (I'm not making this up! BTW - this "kid" was 23 at the time and would be married within the year.) Fire with fire. Not my normal approach, but used as required.
This brings up another important aspect of success: the willingness to move or accept change. Don't grow roots. Move every couple years. Salary increases will almost never keep up with your market value unless you have a smart employer, which you probably don't.
In all of this, I don't want to understate the importance of hard work. I've busted my butt, but I've also made damn sure I was rewarded for it in the long run. I learned early on not to work for free. Your life is worth something, and if you choose to spend it serving someone else, make sure you're duly compensated in spite of your employer's and colleague's best efforts to the contrary.
To be sure, I act honorably and fairly as much as possible, but I don't take spit from people. I don't let complainers get me down and tell me how things will never improve. I make them improve. I take action. I create opportunity to make myself valuable to the company I work for. I do work I wasn't specifically asked to do (in spare time) because I see a need for it.
Now I'm doing what I want to do, and being paid well for it. A little self confidence and attitude can go a long way. In other words, "Geeks -- go grow a set and quit yer bitchin."
You're looking at the wrong issue. Plenty of people would write about the social effects of gender bias in media (e.g. literature) even if they weren't getting paid. Secondly, you're promoting the fantasy of a passionate scientist working alone with pencil and paper which, since around 1300, just ain't so. Modern-day contributions (after Galileo) to mathematics require institutional support. Everything is else is just amateurism.
The only way what you said could be true is if you defined "institutional support" only in the most trivial sense possible (e.g. "Kentucky Fried Chicken is the institution that supports my Playstation gaming career.") Einstein wasn't being paid by the patent office to work on relativity, as I recall.
So I can find nothing wrong with your argument, aside from the fact that every bit of evidence suggests the exact opposite.