Elites embrace “do what you love” mantra. But it devalues work & hurts workers(slate.com)
slate.com
Elites embrace “do what you love” mantra. But it devalues work & hurts workers
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/do_what_you_love_love_what_you_do_an_omnipresent_mantra_that_s_bad_for_work.html
39 comments
I think it's interesting that you love what you do and also work in a high demand field. I don't think those are actually coincidental.
All the chemical engineers I know (I know a few) are pretty happy. Most find their work interesting.
All the humanities academics I know (I know very many, having been one in a former life) are more or less unhappy. Many find their day to day work uninteresting and unexciting.
Chemical engineering is a high-demand field. Not many people's dream job.
Humanities academia is a low-demand field. Many people's dream job.
I think "work in a high demand field" is better advice for any young person than "do what you love," with or without qualification. Especially if they are the sort of young person who wants to be passionate and interested in their work.
Doing the hyperspecialized Hot Field of the Day may be a bad idea, but perennials like [software] engineering, K-12 education, finance, nursing, medicine etc. are generally going to be the best use of an intelligent student's time.
Low-demand fields mean a lot of down time due to lack of funding or lack of employment. That kills passion. High-demand fields mean there's always something to do and a new problem to solve. I think that's more important for actually loving what you do.
All the chemical engineers I know (I know a few) are pretty happy. Most find their work interesting.
All the humanities academics I know (I know very many, having been one in a former life) are more or less unhappy. Many find their day to day work uninteresting and unexciting.
Chemical engineering is a high-demand field. Not many people's dream job.
Humanities academia is a low-demand field. Many people's dream job.
I think "work in a high demand field" is better advice for any young person than "do what you love," with or without qualification. Especially if they are the sort of young person who wants to be passionate and interested in their work.
Doing the hyperspecialized Hot Field of the Day may be a bad idea, but perennials like [software] engineering, K-12 education, finance, nursing, medicine etc. are generally going to be the best use of an intelligent student's time.
Low-demand fields mean a lot of down time due to lack of funding or lack of employment. That kills passion. High-demand fields mean there's always something to do and a new problem to solve. I think that's more important for actually loving what you do.
This ignores that often the high demand is there because it is a tough job for folks to do. Not everyone can physically/mentally do any job. Even if they would love to do so. That you know successful people appears at face value to simply be survivorship bias.[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Academia, nonprofit work, the arts and other low-demand "dream" jobs are also extremely demanding and not possible for everyone to do.
My argument was that being one of the (high percentage of) chemical engineers with a job is better than being one of the (low percentage of) humanities academics with a job. I'll acknowledge that survivorship bias is a potential problem.
Do you think humanities PhD washouts are generally happier than Chem E washouts?
My argument was that being one of the (high percentage of) chemical engineers with a job is better than being one of the (low percentage of) humanities academics with a job. I'll acknowledge that survivorship bias is a potential problem.
Do you think humanities PhD washouts are generally happier than Chem E washouts?
My argument is that the "high percentage of chemical engineers" are the survivors. I knew quite a large number of chemical engineers that failed out of college. Or, amusingly enough, had to switch majors to a humanities degree. :)
So, if your point is to strive high at what you are good at, provided that what you are good at is in demand, then yeah. Kind of easy to see. If your point is to simply pick an in demand position and be good at it, that is a bit tougher.
So, if your point is to strive high at what you are good at, provided that what you are good at is in demand, then yeah. Kind of easy to see. If your point is to simply pick an in demand position and be good at it, that is a bit tougher.
Cut policies at chem e programs are brutal and I sympathize. However, an unsuccessful chem e student who becomes a coder, or uses his prereqs to get into nursing school or become a K-12 teacher is still following my advice. It's not about which specific field, it's about what kind of probability distribution of finding a job in a field.
But you are completely ignoring all of the kids that are just drop outs. Those that don't ever get a degree, because they got their asses handed to them in pursuit of one.
And, as I said, more amusingly, you do not count the folks that started in chemE only to switch to humanities. Just pursuing a degree in a desirable degree is by no means a guarantee that you will get a good job. Just as merely throwing a dart in the general direction of the board is no guarantee that you will hit it.
And, as I said, more amusingly, you do not count the folks that started in chemE only to switch to humanities. Just pursuing a degree in a desirable degree is by no means a guarantee that you will get a good job. Just as merely throwing a dart in the general direction of the board is no guarantee that you will hit it.
a. My bad for using chem e as an example. Switch in K-12 teachers instead and the comparison vs. humanities academics works out about the same, modulo more complaints about working conditions.
b. Humanities PhD programs also have enormous dropout rates. And many dropouts also end up in bad shape. I'm ignoring them too, so in the context of the breathtakingly unscientific anecdote, it's even.
c. Besides which, survivorship bias is probably not even in the top three things that make my personal anecdote not a valid scientific experiment. It's obviously not good empirical evidence for many other reasons.
Look, the basic point is, fields that people "love" but which are very hard to get jobs in, such as academia, the arts, architecture, nonprofit human services work, journalism, modeling, video game design, etc. do not tend to actually make them happy in my personal observation and experience. Another point is that I think people in high-demand fields tend to have more life satisfaction.
Things I did not address: getting a degree vs. getting a job/career; are the humanities terrible?; which specific high-demand career should one choose?; what happens if one can't hack chem e/nursing school?
I don't know the answers to most of those questions. Failing out of nursing school? I really don't know what to tell you. Would it have been better if you passed as a fine arts major? Possibly. But I'm more concerned about careers than about degrees here. If you graduate with a fine arts degree and go into banking you may be better off than the nursing school dropout, if you try to seriously pursue a career as a sculptor you are probably going to be worse off, unless you have family money.
I really am not offering advice on what career to choose, besides pointing to one big superclass of jobs that are probably a bad idea to pursue and another big superclass that are probably a better idea.
Sorry this got stuck on chem e. I don't know any chiropractors, otherwise I would have used them.
b. Humanities PhD programs also have enormous dropout rates. And many dropouts also end up in bad shape. I'm ignoring them too, so in the context of the breathtakingly unscientific anecdote, it's even.
c. Besides which, survivorship bias is probably not even in the top three things that make my personal anecdote not a valid scientific experiment. It's obviously not good empirical evidence for many other reasons.
Look, the basic point is, fields that people "love" but which are very hard to get jobs in, such as academia, the arts, architecture, nonprofit human services work, journalism, modeling, video game design, etc. do not tend to actually make them happy in my personal observation and experience. Another point is that I think people in high-demand fields tend to have more life satisfaction.
Things I did not address: getting a degree vs. getting a job/career; are the humanities terrible?; which specific high-demand career should one choose?; what happens if one can't hack chem e/nursing school?
I don't know the answers to most of those questions. Failing out of nursing school? I really don't know what to tell you. Would it have been better if you passed as a fine arts major? Possibly. But I'm more concerned about careers than about degrees here. If you graduate with a fine arts degree and go into banking you may be better off than the nursing school dropout, if you try to seriously pursue a career as a sculptor you are probably going to be worse off, unless you have family money.
I really am not offering advice on what career to choose, besides pointing to one big superclass of jobs that are probably a bad idea to pursue and another big superclass that are probably a better idea.
Sorry this got stuck on chem e. I don't know any chiropractors, otherwise I would have used them.
I should have been clearer myself on some of this. I think the "do what you love" proponents are pretty much a poster child of survivor bias. Doesn't matter what you are attaining to, if you are able to get it, you are likely decently happy with yourself. If you failed at one thing and switch gears to another out of necessity, it is not that surprising that you would be less happy about it.
Consider the rock stars of academia in CS. Most are fairly happy and well off people with (or without, to their desire) families. Same for many studio artists. Not just the rock stars.
I think I get what you are saying, though. That to a large extent it is supply/demand. It is easier to attain a job if those two values are at least closer to equal than otherwise. Sports/musician/artist/professor/etc, in particular, are atrociously bad choices, just by the numbers.
I just fear that knowing which fields have a high demand is not enough to decide what field to go for. Many of them have higher demand than supply due to very valid reasons of physicality or mental difficulty. Though, I fully agree that this is a better decision attribute than "what do you love to do?"
Consider the rock stars of academia in CS. Most are fairly happy and well off people with (or without, to their desire) families. Same for many studio artists. Not just the rock stars.
I think I get what you are saying, though. That to a large extent it is supply/demand. It is easier to attain a job if those two values are at least closer to equal than otherwise. Sports/musician/artist/professor/etc, in particular, are atrociously bad choices, just by the numbers.
I just fear that knowing which fields have a high demand is not enough to decide what field to go for. Many of them have higher demand than supply due to very valid reasons of physicality or mental difficulty. Though, I fully agree that this is a better decision attribute than "what do you love to do?"
I HATED chemical engineering. No idea why I finished my degree.
I also tell the people that ask for my advice that it is ok to live in a $500/month shithole if it means you get to do what you love. Don't accept what people expect of you (nice house, car, etc) do what you want to do if at all possible.
Oh boy. Anarchism on HN. Time for my flame-proof suit.
Actually, I agree with basically everything written here. The definition of "work" is "instrumentally useful activities that don't match our final desires". Trying to force your career to be a final desire, by altering your career or altering your desires, sounds noble but simply can't work for the vast range of occupations that genuinely are instrumentally necessary to make the world run.
Anyone who demands that you have a life-changing passion for digging ditches, flipping burgers, or writing SQL joins is a jerk. Careerism is a subgoal stomp.
Actually, I agree with basically everything written here. The definition of "work" is "instrumentally useful activities that don't match our final desires". Trying to force your career to be a final desire, by altering your career or altering your desires, sounds noble but simply can't work for the vast range of occupations that genuinely are instrumentally necessary to make the world run.
Anyone who demands that you have a life-changing passion for digging ditches, flipping burgers, or writing SQL joins is a jerk. Careerism is a subgoal stomp.
> The definition of "work" is "instrumentally useful activities that don't match our final desires"
Could you please give the source for the "quote"?
Could you please give the source for the "quote"?
That one's mine, actually.
I agree with the initial premise, but disagree with the class warfare premises later on in the article.
DWYL is a proverb sold by Hollywood, fiction, non-fiction, speeches, news, parents, older friends who are successful, etc.
The fundamental problem is that most work is scut work that very - very - few people enjoy. Throwing trash out. Handling DMV paperwork. Roofing houses. The list goes on. The dreams we have are far, far different: CEO, fashion model, rock star, game designer, writer, race car driver. That list goes on.
Regrettably, this is a place where supply and demand become actualized reality: when everyone (or lots of people) wants to be a rock star, the market won't support it. Worse, certain professions don't have a average high demand on good days (writer). But, what is the right choice under DWYL? Pick the thing you want to be. Then, chances of that not working are high, so then you wind up with an unwanted job. "I don't deserve this". Or, underpaid.
I saw this many times in college and high school. We - my friends and I - all had bought into the DWYL ideal. Zero of us attained it, to the best of my knowledge today. We found other things along the way that satisficed us. I still remember my old friend who has worked in a (nearly) minimum wage job at a department store for maybe ten years (I hope he has broken into management). He was going to be a rock star, so education wasn't useful. It was a waste. The conflation of DWYL and real life rarely work out.
I don't advise anyone to DWYL. I advise a grim analysis of the job prospects and likely outcomes, and determining choices based upon that. If you're willing to be paid minimum wage and have to struggle through your life and have to ask your spouse to support you and work full-time - go on - be the Creative Writing major focusing on "fine art" writing as your profession.
The author points up another aspect: Work - all honest work - has dignity. Bringing home value for value has inherent worth, whether you shovel poop at a zoo or become a director at a Fortune 100 company. Selling DWYL as an ideal removes dignity from unlovable and unwanted work.
Count the costs: sometimes selling all you have for the pearl is worth it. Inform your choices and prepare for the financial and life costs.
There's a joke - a successful musician is one who only has to be a part-time barista.
DWYL is a proverb sold by Hollywood, fiction, non-fiction, speeches, news, parents, older friends who are successful, etc.
The fundamental problem is that most work is scut work that very - very - few people enjoy. Throwing trash out. Handling DMV paperwork. Roofing houses. The list goes on. The dreams we have are far, far different: CEO, fashion model, rock star, game designer, writer, race car driver. That list goes on.
Regrettably, this is a place where supply and demand become actualized reality: when everyone (or lots of people) wants to be a rock star, the market won't support it. Worse, certain professions don't have a average high demand on good days (writer). But, what is the right choice under DWYL? Pick the thing you want to be. Then, chances of that not working are high, so then you wind up with an unwanted job. "I don't deserve this". Or, underpaid.
I saw this many times in college and high school. We - my friends and I - all had bought into the DWYL ideal. Zero of us attained it, to the best of my knowledge today. We found other things along the way that satisficed us. I still remember my old friend who has worked in a (nearly) minimum wage job at a department store for maybe ten years (I hope he has broken into management). He was going to be a rock star, so education wasn't useful. It was a waste. The conflation of DWYL and real life rarely work out.
I don't advise anyone to DWYL. I advise a grim analysis of the job prospects and likely outcomes, and determining choices based upon that. If you're willing to be paid minimum wage and have to struggle through your life and have to ask your spouse to support you and work full-time - go on - be the Creative Writing major focusing on "fine art" writing as your profession.
The author points up another aspect: Work - all honest work - has dignity. Bringing home value for value has inherent worth, whether you shovel poop at a zoo or become a director at a Fortune 100 company. Selling DWYL as an ideal removes dignity from unlovable and unwanted work.
Count the costs: sometimes selling all you have for the pearl is worth it. Inform your choices and prepare for the financial and life costs.
There's a joke - a successful musician is one who only has to be a part-time barista.
Through lots of study of psychology and sociology, I've changed from believing in do-what-you-love to believing in doing anything useful for mankind (but which has some interest for you) with people that you love (i.e., role models). Psychological flourishing has so many ties to our feedback from our social capital. The do-what-you-love mantra is too self-focused to really capture our requirements for total happiness. I've witnessed many people pursue their careers surrounded by assholes, living in misery, despite working on what they really like. Girls have it right by avoiding the tech industry (which has few role models for them, even if they like the subject matter).
I think you need to do both. Work hard, get a useful education, and do whatever else is necessary to set yourself up for financial success. And also aim those efforts towards things you enjoy. And finally find something specific in that set that you really love, and do it.
That way, if you can't find something you love that pays well, at least you have something that you don't hate that pays enough.
Either of those outcomes is much better than what I see a lot of people around me doing. They just give up on their careers because they hate their first few jobs, decide not to pursue education or skills, and coast unhappily.
That way, if you can't find something you love that pays well, at least you have something that you don't hate that pays enough.
Either of those outcomes is much better than what I see a lot of people around me doing. They just give up on their careers because they hate their first few jobs, decide not to pursue education or skills, and coast unhappily.
I agree with this article and love it but take it one step further.
I think doing 'what you love' is a failed premise for several reasons.
a>When you turn your passion into a job your passion becomes a job.
b>You only 'think' you love it. Your social circles have conditioned you to love a certain subject. An inner city kid is going to be more likely interested in the NBA and Rapping, than social media and solar power. Just like the average person from the middle east will be more interested in Islam than the average person from the South. (Stereotypes can be proven by statistics.)
c>You will change. As you get older think of all the new things you've fallen in love with. New passions. New interests. And the things you have fallen out of love with. I'm not convinced people are static enough to love 'one thing' for 40 years.
I think what people really want out of a career is freedom. Intellectual freedom, freedom to manage their time,prestige, respect, expertise, etc.
I think these are the things one should be pursuing instead of doing 'what you love'.
I think doing 'what you love' is a failed premise for several reasons.
a>When you turn your passion into a job your passion becomes a job.
b>You only 'think' you love it. Your social circles have conditioned you to love a certain subject. An inner city kid is going to be more likely interested in the NBA and Rapping, than social media and solar power. Just like the average person from the middle east will be more interested in Islam than the average person from the South. (Stereotypes can be proven by statistics.)
c>You will change. As you get older think of all the new things you've fallen in love with. New passions. New interests. And the things you have fallen out of love with. I'm not convinced people are static enough to love 'one thing' for 40 years.
I think what people really want out of a career is freedom. Intellectual freedom, freedom to manage their time,prestige, respect, expertise, etc.
I think these are the things one should be pursuing instead of doing 'what you love'.
"You only think you love it."
Feels close enough. ;)
"I'm not convinced people are static enough to love 'one thing' for 40 years." Who said anything about sticking with the same career for 40 years? As my interests have changed, I've changed my profession. My profession lags which is less than ideal but it's still worked quite well for me.
Why do you find it necessary to define what the general masses "really" want out of a career? It sounds like you know what you want and if you don't care to "DWYL" that's fine. That's you.
"I'm not convinced people are static enough to love 'one thing' for 40 years." Who said anything about sticking with the same career for 40 years? As my interests have changed, I've changed my profession. My profession lags which is less than ideal but it's still worked quite well for me.
Why do you find it necessary to define what the general masses "really" want out of a career? It sounds like you know what you want and if you don't care to "DWYL" that's fine. That's you.
Once you commit years of education to a particular field and years of worktime and experience the 'momentum' of your direction in life can get pretty hard to shift.
You passion for being a veterinarian turns to 'just a job'.
You passion for being a veterinarian turns to 'just a job'.
I get that. I'm almost 32 and had been doing software development priors to becoming an analyst where my coding skills weren't even inquired upon during my interview.
It's been hard psychologically as I try to define my role outside of building.
So you're right it's hard but it's possible if you're a) lucky and b) committed.
It's been hard psychologically as I try to define my role outside of building.
So you're right it's hard but it's possible if you're a) lucky and b) committed.
Oh yes. The elite that "love their physics and science" and so on. Who needs the technology that makes modern agriculture possible? What drives doctors and students through grueling training? Who builds world-spanning transportation and communication networks? If you enjoy your work, or you are damned good at it, then you must be exploiting someone?
Stratification exists. It's going to continue to exist. The "solutions" to it have historically been worse than the disease.
Can we do better? Sure. Can we make them worse than they are? This article certainly points in that direction.
I have a great job and a career that I love, and I give to charities that I think are worthwhile. I could do more, sure. But I'm not going to find work as a dishwasher [done that!] or on a farm just because other people are stuck in those jobs.
Stratification exists. It's going to continue to exist. The "solutions" to it have historically been worse than the disease.
Can we do better? Sure. Can we make them worse than they are? This article certainly points in that direction.
I have a great job and a career that I love, and I give to charities that I think are worthwhile. I could do more, sure. But I'm not going to find work as a dishwasher [done that!] or on a farm just because other people are stuck in those jobs.
So, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Relying on the work of others is not exploitation. Embracing a philosophy that essentially erases their existence is rather brash and betrays a sense of exploitation, though.
Essentially, don't presume that if you are in the upper stratosphere that your fortune to "do what you love" is some sort of directive that has made you successful. That, if all of those "lower and presumably unhappy" people would just "follow their love" they would be successful.
Instead, be grateful for what you are able to do. While it is certainly great to continue to pitch in when and where you can, I think it is more important to acknowledge the humanity and dignity of those still doing other jobs. Especially if there are jobs that you find so terrible as dishwashing. Be incredibly thankful there is someone that will still do it and do not demean them by saying if they would "only do what they love they would find success."
Essentially, don't presume that if you are in the upper stratosphere that your fortune to "do what you love" is some sort of directive that has made you successful. That, if all of those "lower and presumably unhappy" people would just "follow their love" they would be successful.
Instead, be grateful for what you are able to do. While it is certainly great to continue to pitch in when and where you can, I think it is more important to acknowledge the humanity and dignity of those still doing other jobs. Especially if there are jobs that you find so terrible as dishwashing. Be incredibly thankful there is someone that will still do it and do not demean them by saying if they would "only do what they love they would find success."
This article is the result of greatly over-thinking a good and ultimately innocent thing.
"Do what you love" is not the latest Agile methodology. It is not a political philosophy, or some new moral treatise claiming to be your personal salvation... nor is it an underhanded attack on Labor or the hardworking people your grandfather rubbed elbows with.
"Do what you love" is a simple, honest phrase intended only to remind you that you can, in fact, be happy while making money, if you can manage to find work doing something you love. Not everyone can, of course, but that doesn't diminish the meaning or intention of this wall-plaque motto.
This journalist needs to start taking some attivan or something.
EDIT: The fact that this journalist was paid to write this article, while obviously taking pleasure in over-thinking every possible corner, is proof that you can Do What You Love and the world won't end.
"Do what you love" is not the latest Agile methodology. It is not a political philosophy, or some new moral treatise claiming to be your personal salvation... nor is it an underhanded attack on Labor or the hardworking people your grandfather rubbed elbows with.
"Do what you love" is a simple, honest phrase intended only to remind you that you can, in fact, be happy while making money, if you can manage to find work doing something you love. Not everyone can, of course, but that doesn't diminish the meaning or intention of this wall-plaque motto.
This journalist needs to start taking some attivan or something.
EDIT: The fact that this journalist was paid to write this article, while obviously taking pleasure in over-thinking every possible corner, is proof that you can Do What You Love and the world won't end.
Yah, I got the same feeling too. Like, the author needs to step back and take a deep breath.
First off, I'm not an elite. Second, I don't think 'elites' (whomever they may be) are saying this so people become reality distortion-ified and just zombie off to devalue themselves making straw birdies because they love stick art the most. That's silly.
Instead, I look at some people like Elon Musk or Richard Branson or Jobs or Peter Diamandis as ones that have made their own way previously doing or currently doing what they love. For me it seems, once you clear away the FUD, that you are confident on your own self, realize you have little time on this planet, and therefore you see no value in wasting your time helping someone else pursue their dreams.
I must also add that this is not just captains of industry either. There are so many doctors, educators, and scientists around the world that I'm sure love what they do and actually do make an impact. I would encourage anyone to go on Youtube or Netflix, etc, and find a documentary about planning a mission to Mars or even launching a satellite. So many of these people think in terms of decades and it's unbelievable that they can create machines, put them into space, and collect data that expands the understanding of all humanity. Any time I watch one of these, I am just blown away by the people who do this. They are truly on another level and thinking in terms of mankind and not just 'me'. I don't see any elitism or devaluing of ones labor or mental faculties at all..
I look back on my life and see two passions that emerged: music and programming. Luckily for me, both of these things are still highly lucrative and highly expressive. I also love astronomy, philosophy, physics, construction, cooking, and more. I could probably pick any one of these and really love doing them (I actually did for construction for a while - building physical things with your hands and tools is awesome).
For me, it all comes down to being in love with life. I bet if you ask any person that's excelled in their industry (or like Branson and Musk) what they think about life, they will probably tell you it's beautiful and they love it. Perhaps it's because they're successful, but it doesn't matter. Your mind and your mindset are your greatest tools and channeling creativity and determination through a focused mind can lead to great things.
I wonder if the author loves writing? Critiques are fine, but does their story inspire anyone to do anything? Or is it just to help keep people in the same mindset of negativity and division? I've made some negative posts here on HN and I'll be the first one to say, yah, dumb. Whether it's a bad day or just getting wrapped up on others negativity, in the end it serves no purpose to actually bring about any change for good. It just joins the chorus of negativity and goes no where.
So, ultimately, I couldn't disagree more with the author. If anything I think people that do what they love (calling them elite's also just serves to simplify and brand as bad) and are successful doing it are some of the highest examples of what we could aspire to be or achieve.
First off, I'm not an elite. Second, I don't think 'elites' (whomever they may be) are saying this so people become reality distortion-ified and just zombie off to devalue themselves making straw birdies because they love stick art the most. That's silly.
Instead, I look at some people like Elon Musk or Richard Branson or Jobs or Peter Diamandis as ones that have made their own way previously doing or currently doing what they love. For me it seems, once you clear away the FUD, that you are confident on your own self, realize you have little time on this planet, and therefore you see no value in wasting your time helping someone else pursue their dreams.
I must also add that this is not just captains of industry either. There are so many doctors, educators, and scientists around the world that I'm sure love what they do and actually do make an impact. I would encourage anyone to go on Youtube or Netflix, etc, and find a documentary about planning a mission to Mars or even launching a satellite. So many of these people think in terms of decades and it's unbelievable that they can create machines, put them into space, and collect data that expands the understanding of all humanity. Any time I watch one of these, I am just blown away by the people who do this. They are truly on another level and thinking in terms of mankind and not just 'me'. I don't see any elitism or devaluing of ones labor or mental faculties at all..
I look back on my life and see two passions that emerged: music and programming. Luckily for me, both of these things are still highly lucrative and highly expressive. I also love astronomy, philosophy, physics, construction, cooking, and more. I could probably pick any one of these and really love doing them (I actually did for construction for a while - building physical things with your hands and tools is awesome).
For me, it all comes down to being in love with life. I bet if you ask any person that's excelled in their industry (or like Branson and Musk) what they think about life, they will probably tell you it's beautiful and they love it. Perhaps it's because they're successful, but it doesn't matter. Your mind and your mindset are your greatest tools and channeling creativity and determination through a focused mind can lead to great things.
I wonder if the author loves writing? Critiques are fine, but does their story inspire anyone to do anything? Or is it just to help keep people in the same mindset of negativity and division? I've made some negative posts here on HN and I'll be the first one to say, yah, dumb. Whether it's a bad day or just getting wrapped up on others negativity, in the end it serves no purpose to actually bring about any change for good. It just joins the chorus of negativity and goes no where.
So, ultimately, I couldn't disagree more with the author. If anything I think people that do what they love (calling them elite's also just serves to simplify and brand as bad) and are successful doing it are some of the highest examples of what we could aspire to be or achieve.
Just ask Musk, or Jobs if they would do what they love (running a company) for peanuts while on welfare. They will then spin you a tail that people who own, or who bring "value" should get what they deserve.
The thing is, they will choose to work at walmart over living on the street...
The thing is, they will choose to work at walmart over living on the street...
If you live a charmed life, you shouldn't go around preaching that everyone should simply muster the determination and grit to live a life as charmed as yours. You should thank God for your good fortune and do what you can to add to the fortune of others.
>This article is the result of greatly over-thinking a good and ultimately innocent thing
Something repeated often, writ in books, told in graduation speeches and ingrained in popular culture is not just "a simple, honest phrase" anymore.
Believing that such stuff is "over-thinking" is not understanding the power of (seemingly) naive and "innocent" ideas and notions to have great impact on how we live.
It's a problem that most people consider thinking about something as "over-thinking" -- they'd rather go with the thought-less, "all is what it is", "what harm can it do" etc defaults.
>The fact that this journalist was paid to write this article, while obviously taking pleasure in over-thinking every possible corner, is proof that you can Do What You Love and the world won't end.
Well, he didn't say that the world will end. Just that doing "what you love" has certain social implications.
And those, only if you do it in the way people like VCs preying on overworked founders and businessmen preying on overworked employes want you to do it.
In fact, being aware of the potential issues that arise from the "doing what you love" dictum, as he is, makes it more shielded from the negative implications of it.
Something repeated often, writ in books, told in graduation speeches and ingrained in popular culture is not just "a simple, honest phrase" anymore.
Believing that such stuff is "over-thinking" is not understanding the power of (seemingly) naive and "innocent" ideas and notions to have great impact on how we live.
It's a problem that most people consider thinking about something as "over-thinking" -- they'd rather go with the thought-less, "all is what it is", "what harm can it do" etc defaults.
>The fact that this journalist was paid to write this article, while obviously taking pleasure in over-thinking every possible corner, is proof that you can Do What You Love and the world won't end.
Well, he didn't say that the world will end. Just that doing "what you love" has certain social implications.
And those, only if you do it in the way people like VCs preying on overworked founders and businessmen preying on overworked employes want you to do it.
In fact, being aware of the potential issues that arise from the "doing what you love" dictum, as he is, makes it more shielded from the negative implications of it.
Sorry, nope. It's tripe peddled to high school and college students, who eat it up because, in fact, they have generally not had to make money to survive. So they wind up in ridiculously unemployable fields that are cool and interesting to them.
You also wind up - in SW development at least- with a pernicious workplace state where working more is glorifed; where the reality of business (exchange of goods for goods) is obscured by these foggy ideals and pressure is placed to demonstrate your personal devotion to the god of 'loving your job'.
You also wind up - in SW development at least- with a pernicious workplace state where working more is glorifed; where the reality of business (exchange of goods for goods) is obscured by these foggy ideals and pressure is placed to demonstrate your personal devotion to the god of 'loving your job'.
Yup - often peddled by people with conflicts of interest - deriving their income from that education.
Honestly, I disagree with that. A lot of the time, it's people who have found a comfortable niche (often mediated by decades of experience, giving them freedom of choice which neophytes simply don't have[1]), and want to see others find that comfortable niche too too. "Speaking from privilege" is, I believe, the proper way to describe the situation.
[1] This merits a digression. Suppose that your advice-giving friend is a stonemason in his 40s. At this point, he has about 20 years of experience, along with a solid professional network. He works hard, but is paid well for experience and expertise. If there is work to be had, he will likely get tapped as a lead on the job, due to his 20 years of experience. He is trusted and capable; he likes his job well enough. He advises you to follow your dreams (he has a good life and enjoys it). You decide to follow his example...
Regrettably, you find in your first summer doing stonemasonary that you lack his 20 years of experience; literally are fetching and carrying, doing backbreaking work and being paid poorly. You are not trusted; you have no freedom to pick and choose, and you're the back of the line for jobs.
His experience means that you have to crank down his advice to the entry level world and what that's like, not the place of experience, trust, and competence that the advisor lives in.
[1] This merits a digression. Suppose that your advice-giving friend is a stonemason in his 40s. At this point, he has about 20 years of experience, along with a solid professional network. He works hard, but is paid well for experience and expertise. If there is work to be had, he will likely get tapped as a lead on the job, due to his 20 years of experience. He is trusted and capable; he likes his job well enough. He advises you to follow your dreams (he has a good life and enjoys it). You decide to follow his example...
Regrettably, you find in your first summer doing stonemasonary that you lack his 20 years of experience; literally are fetching and carrying, doing backbreaking work and being paid poorly. You are not trusted; you have no freedom to pick and choose, and you're the back of the line for jobs.
His experience means that you have to crank down his advice to the entry level world and what that's like, not the place of experience, trust, and competence that the advisor lives in.
Sometimes I feel like "do what you love" is a kind of psychic barrier-to-entry for certain fields. People say "you really have to love this field in order to be successful at it". Which implies that just being hardworking, disciplined, and determined to improve aren't enough. You have to love practicing the craft more than food, sleep, sex, or any other hobby or recreation imaginable. You have to feel like you were born to do it and when you aren't that's all you can think about. That the idea of a perfect day is 16 hours at the task with as little time as possible left over for anything else like food or sleep.
That's what comes to my mind when people tell me "make sure you love this stuff before you try to become a professional. You wont succeed otherwise."
That's what comes to my mind when people tell me "make sure you love this stuff before you try to become a professional. You wont succeed otherwise."
Isn't this just an effect of supply and demand? with so many people wanting to be actors or musicians, working for almost nothing, how can you compete in that market if you don't love it?
That's right - the article is also saying that because there are many people who love doing it - that they would be willing to be paid less than someone who doesn't want.
It's competition between workers perhaps?
It's competition between workers perhaps?
A bit of trivia I find interesting: the etymology of the word passion is "to suffer (as christ did) [1]". I think in reality, DWYL advice is quixotic. But from within the head of an undeclared major, it sounds great. "Kid, just do whatever you like, and people will pay you for it!" And from the perspective of an employer, it sounds even better. "A passionate employee will put in 120% because he wants to do it anyway." So from both party's perspective, it's a win-win. I think this is primarily why DWYL is perpetuated.
[1] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=passion&allowed_in_...
[1] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=passion&allowed_in_...
Scott Adams (of "Dilbert") has been rumbling publicly about this subject for the past year or so: http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/follow_your_passion/ and http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121...
Ricardo Semler is the CEO of Semco, a multinational manufacturing conglomerate, who has also wrestled with the concept of "passion", especially as applied to assembly-line workers. For some, the ability to grow in expertise and quality of work is what drives the passion, not the content of the work itself. For others, passion lies in the off-hours activities that their factory job makes possible.
Not hiring a great worker because he lacks passion for the job function is short-sighted. That worker may just be maximizing his pursuit of "doing what you love" outside the 9-to-5.
Ricardo Semler is the CEO of Semco, a multinational manufacturing conglomerate, who has also wrestled with the concept of "passion", especially as applied to assembly-line workers. For some, the ability to grow in expertise and quality of work is what drives the passion, not the content of the work itself. For others, passion lies in the off-hours activities that their factory job makes possible.
Not hiring a great worker because he lacks passion for the job function is short-sighted. That worker may just be maximizing his pursuit of "doing what you love" outside the 9-to-5.
This article seems a bit overwrought for what, in my opinion, is not a terribly dangerous idea.
I'd be more concerned with what I feel is perhaps a cousin to this - popular notions about work, success and risk-taking.
Basically, the idea that glorifies people who have succeeded in facing relatively benign risks as examples for the purpose of deriding people who are unwilling to face more serious ones as being somehow unworthy.
The most recent, well-known example of this was probably Mitt Romney [0], but every time someone wonders why poor people who live in bad neighborhoods don't "just move" it's the same thing on a smaller scale.
0: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/01/1087833/-Mitt-Romne...
I'd be more concerned with what I feel is perhaps a cousin to this - popular notions about work, success and risk-taking.
Basically, the idea that glorifies people who have succeeded in facing relatively benign risks as examples for the purpose of deriding people who are unwilling to face more serious ones as being somehow unworthy.
The most recent, well-known example of this was probably Mitt Romney [0], but every time someone wonders why poor people who live in bad neighborhoods don't "just move" it's the same thing on a smaller scale.
0: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/01/1087833/-Mitt-Romne...
Workers should always follow their passions and do what they love...on nights and weekends:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/find-the-thing-youre-most-p...
http://www.theonion.com/articles/find-the-thing-youre-most-p...
It's totally one of those "toy ideals". Just like "always do the right thing". How the hell are you suppose to know what the right choice is? Maybe DWYL could be more realistically stated as "don't do what you despise", but even then, it's questionable.
I mean, its definitely popular because it "works" in so many ways. It tells you to seek employment doing things that you at least enjoy, and also tells you that if your employed doing something you don't enjoy, you -should- find a way to make it enjoyable, and even implies that things you love will be able to sustain you. It's brilliant! And by sheer weight of repetition, it goes from something prescribed or something to challenge yourself towards (this is something that everyone has to deal with) to normative (this is something that is normal). And really, it's that switch that's most insidious.
It's one thing to suggest that we all try reach a bit further than maybe we can grasp. It's another thing to create an atmosphere where everyone thinks that everyone else is capable of grasping anything they reach, and they're the only one who quite make it.
I am in my final year of engineering school right now (final term!). My class is pretty tight, and there's a lot of "class love" statements flying around. I do not quite feel so strongly. I'm the type of person who is pretty confident in their abilities, but a little insecure in who I am. And these "class love" statements ding away at me everytime. It's a totally innocent statement, and those who are saying it (probably) totally believe and feel it, and objectively, it's probably even true. But I don't really feel it, and everytime I hear and read it, it dings away at me a bit. What did I do wrong? Why don't I feel this? They're not overtly trying to hurt me (they might not even know that), but it's happening. And this is even with the self-awareness that these types of statements are kinda silly, and kinda toy-like.
I'm going to be a lucky person (at least for the shortterm), and am going to go work in an environment where I'll enjoy (if not love) my work. I can't imagine the sheer annoyance (at the very least) bound up in people who aren't in that position.
I mean, its definitely popular because it "works" in so many ways. It tells you to seek employment doing things that you at least enjoy, and also tells you that if your employed doing something you don't enjoy, you -should- find a way to make it enjoyable, and even implies that things you love will be able to sustain you. It's brilliant! And by sheer weight of repetition, it goes from something prescribed or something to challenge yourself towards (this is something that everyone has to deal with) to normative (this is something that is normal). And really, it's that switch that's most insidious.
It's one thing to suggest that we all try reach a bit further than maybe we can grasp. It's another thing to create an atmosphere where everyone thinks that everyone else is capable of grasping anything they reach, and they're the only one who quite make it.
I am in my final year of engineering school right now (final term!). My class is pretty tight, and there's a lot of "class love" statements flying around. I do not quite feel so strongly. I'm the type of person who is pretty confident in their abilities, but a little insecure in who I am. And these "class love" statements ding away at me everytime. It's a totally innocent statement, and those who are saying it (probably) totally believe and feel it, and objectively, it's probably even true. But I don't really feel it, and everytime I hear and read it, it dings away at me a bit. What did I do wrong? Why don't I feel this? They're not overtly trying to hurt me (they might not even know that), but it's happening. And this is even with the self-awareness that these types of statements are kinda silly, and kinda toy-like.
I'm going to be a lucky person (at least for the shortterm), and am going to go work in an environment where I'll enjoy (if not love) my work. I can't imagine the sheer annoyance (at the very least) bound up in people who aren't in that position.
The author is perceptive in identifying the large swaths of unrecognized labor that are necessary to make creative work possible. And she makes an interesting point about how the mantra of "do what you love" can lead to career moves that have unintended consequences for the people making them, including those in academia and those pursuing internships in fields that are saturated with talent, in which they're bound to be paid very little for a long time. But she goes too far in attributing responsibility to the idea that we should be doing what we love.
She shows her sympathy for this idea at the very end:
If we acknowledged all of our work as work, we could set appropriate limits for it, demanding fair compensation and humane schedules that allow for family and leisure time. ... And if we did that, more of us could get around to doing what it is we really love.
If her main point is that people should demand fair compensation, I agree. Her angle seems to be that people should not naively be led into submitting to unpromising, low-wage employment because of romantic notions such as "do what you love." They should not unwittingly allow themselves to become tools for other people's financial betterment. But I think she misidentifies what has led to problems she describes and in doing so has underestimated the challenge. The main culprits for all of the very-low-end jobs are as likely to be automation, globalization, and a lack of regulation of large corporations and the financial services industry. Pushing back on low wages by being conscious of how "do what you love" can be used as a tool underpay people is sound personal advice, but I do not think it will go very far to fix things at a societal level.
She shows her sympathy for this idea at the very end:
If we acknowledged all of our work as work, we could set appropriate limits for it, demanding fair compensation and humane schedules that allow for family and leisure time. ... And if we did that, more of us could get around to doing what it is we really love.
If her main point is that people should demand fair compensation, I agree. Her angle seems to be that people should not naively be led into submitting to unpromising, low-wage employment because of romantic notions such as "do what you love." They should not unwittingly allow themselves to become tools for other people's financial betterment. But I think she misidentifies what has led to problems she describes and in doing so has underestimated the challenge. The main culprits for all of the very-low-end jobs are as likely to be automation, globalization, and a lack of regulation of large corporations and the financial services industry. Pushing back on low wages by being conscious of how "do what you love" can be used as a tool underpay people is sound personal advice, but I do not think it will go very far to fix things at a societal level.
I like Martin Luther King Jr's version of DWYL.
From "What Is Your Life's Blueprint?"
And when you discover what you will be in your life, set out to do it as if God Almighty called you at this particular moment in history to do it. don't just set out to do a good job. Set out to do such a good job that the living, the dead or the unborn couldn't do it any better
If it falls your lot to be a street sweeper, sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures, sweep streets like Beethoven composed music, sweep streets like Leontyne Price sings before the Metropolitan Opera. Sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will have to pause and say: Here lived a great street sweeper who swept his job well.
If you can't be a pine at the top of the hill, be a shrub in the valley. Be a bush if you can't be a tree. If you can't be a highway, just be a trail. If you can't be a sun, be a star. For it isn't by size that you win or fail. Be the best of whatever you are.
From "What Is Your Life's Blueprint?"
And when you discover what you will be in your life, set out to do it as if God Almighty called you at this particular moment in history to do it. don't just set out to do a good job. Set out to do such a good job that the living, the dead or the unborn couldn't do it any better
If it falls your lot to be a street sweeper, sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures, sweep streets like Beethoven composed music, sweep streets like Leontyne Price sings before the Metropolitan Opera. Sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will have to pause and say: Here lived a great street sweeper who swept his job well.
If you can't be a pine at the top of the hill, be a shrub in the valley. Be a bush if you can't be a tree. If you can't be a highway, just be a trail. If you can't be a sun, be a star. For it isn't by size that you win or fail. Be the best of whatever you are.
Isn't the punchline of that joke something like "because increasing some rich crook's bonus depends on your gullibility and servility"
The TLDR is something like that bumper sticker which is something like "work hard today, a bazzillion people on welfare depend on you" Where a bazzillion is whatever minimal delta the design needed to avoid paying royalties, I suppose?
The TLDR is something like that bumper sticker which is something like "work hard today, a bazzillion people on welfare depend on you" Where a bazzillion is whatever minimal delta the design needed to avoid paying royalties, I suppose?
What I have always disliked about this quote is that it implies that the external world is fixed, and that the task of the individual is to merely accept what is presented to him/her without regard to that persons own desires and inclinations.
It implies that who you are is something that is determined in advance.
I'm not writing this from an "elite" perspective. I am a self taught coder from a working class background. When I left school I was basically flung into work that I found soul destroying and depressing. At the time, I felt totally lost and wanted to kill myself.
I didn't want to be the best at that. I wanted to be a computer programmer and use my creativity and intelligence.
Now, according to "external" measures I should have accepted my lot. I was from a working class area where university was unknown and I did badly at school due to bullying and an undiagnosed learning disability. But for some unknown reason I had absolutely no interest in anything that was on offer in the world around me. I only wanted to be a hacker, like those cool Californian dudes I read about in computer magazines.
In those early years I had a terrible time trying to convince those around me that I should be a programmer. I was accused of being lazy, awkward etc, all because I did not want what was immediately presented to me as my future. Once I had enough success to be able to call myself a programmer, it was a different story! I was hard-working, clever etc. Everything changed as soon as I was able to bring concrete expression to my inner vision.
In coming to terms with this, I came to realize how few people really understand the notion of self-direction. They conflate it with egoism, complain about "special snowflakes" etc. because they are coming from a worldview that regards the external world as fixed, and the task of the individual being to fulfill a role imposed from outside.
Subjectivity is a mystery to them, shadowy and morally suspect. A few of them are forced to confront it eventually. You read about them in self-help books, having to go away to "find themselves" whereas "special snowflakes" like me have always known their "selves" as the foundation of their experience, and struggle instead to move the bulk of the world in order to express it.
It implies that who you are is something that is determined in advance.
I'm not writing this from an "elite" perspective. I am a self taught coder from a working class background. When I left school I was basically flung into work that I found soul destroying and depressing. At the time, I felt totally lost and wanted to kill myself.
I didn't want to be the best at that. I wanted to be a computer programmer and use my creativity and intelligence.
Now, according to "external" measures I should have accepted my lot. I was from a working class area where university was unknown and I did badly at school due to bullying and an undiagnosed learning disability. But for some unknown reason I had absolutely no interest in anything that was on offer in the world around me. I only wanted to be a hacker, like those cool Californian dudes I read about in computer magazines.
In those early years I had a terrible time trying to convince those around me that I should be a programmer. I was accused of being lazy, awkward etc, all because I did not want what was immediately presented to me as my future. Once I had enough success to be able to call myself a programmer, it was a different story! I was hard-working, clever etc. Everything changed as soon as I was able to bring concrete expression to my inner vision.
In coming to terms with this, I came to realize how few people really understand the notion of self-direction. They conflate it with egoism, complain about "special snowflakes" etc. because they are coming from a worldview that regards the external world as fixed, and the task of the individual being to fulfill a role imposed from outside.
Subjectivity is a mystery to them, shadowy and morally suspect. A few of them are forced to confront it eventually. You read about them in self-help books, having to go away to "find themselves" whereas "special snowflakes" like me have always known their "selves" as the foundation of their experience, and struggle instead to move the bulk of the world in order to express it.
Is all work good work? Or is that a fiction we promote to comfort the unfortunate and less-well equipped?
For me, DWYL has always not meant "forget about whatever else is going on in the world and do your own thing", like their example of forgoing finance & law to study Norse mythology.
I always figured it was a perhaps incomplete counter to a previous time where there was an expectation you should not enjoy what you do. Many people talk about hating their work, etc. Perhaps it goes too far in the opposite direction and implies a selfish view, but in my opinion we needed a little bit of that move in this direction. Maybe we went too far and it needs to be adapted to something else, such as "Do what you love, that also has value to society" or something.
I definitely agree with the digs against off the clock "well you should love what you do, so keep doing it for free!" stuff though.
I always figured it was a perhaps incomplete counter to a previous time where there was an expectation you should not enjoy what you do. Many people talk about hating their work, etc. Perhaps it goes too far in the opposite direction and implies a selfish view, but in my opinion we needed a little bit of that move in this direction. Maybe we went too far and it needs to be adapted to something else, such as "Do what you love, that also has value to society" or something.
I definitely agree with the digs against off the clock "well you should love what you do, so keep doing it for free!" stuff though.
That is absolutely one of the worst articles I've ever read. It's nothing but bad metaphors, questionable analogies, confused reasoning, and unfounded assertions all muddled together into what seemingly purports to be some kind of defense of the value of low-wage, low-skill, manual-labor work.
WTF?
The author assumes that anything somebody could "love" must be something "creative" and must be intellectual work... ignoring even the possibility that some people actually do love their manual jobs. Oh sure, they might wish they made more money, or wish they had more freedom and flexibility, and that might drive them to change jobs... but that doesn't mean that some people don't enjoy farming or working in factories or what-have-you.
The author also seems to assume a society based on Plato's idea that your career is picked for you at birth, and where you aren't allowed to change. But clearly we don't live in that world. If you're working on a factory floor, and hate it, then "DWYL" is an aspiration - a reason to work a little harder, volunteer for extra shifts, save more aggressively, and do whatever it takes to enable you to escape the factory floor and create the opportunity to "DWYL".
I could go on, but what's the point? This article just adds nothing useful to the world, IMO.
WTF?
The author assumes that anything somebody could "love" must be something "creative" and must be intellectual work... ignoring even the possibility that some people actually do love their manual jobs. Oh sure, they might wish they made more money, or wish they had more freedom and flexibility, and that might drive them to change jobs... but that doesn't mean that some people don't enjoy farming or working in factories or what-have-you.
The author also seems to assume a society based on Plato's idea that your career is picked for you at birth, and where you aren't allowed to change. But clearly we don't live in that world. If you're working on a factory floor, and hate it, then "DWYL" is an aspiration - a reason to work a little harder, volunteer for extra shifts, save more aggressively, and do whatever it takes to enable you to escape the factory floor and create the opportunity to "DWYL".
I could go on, but what's the point? This article just adds nothing useful to the world, IMO.
Do what you love... that people will pay you to do
^ I always felt like that quote was missing something
You gotta understand and research.
How many people are in that field? What are their qualifications? How do you stack against them? How many openings do they have each year? What seasons/quarters/times do they hire in? Will you be able to be the best candidate and show that in an interview at that time?
What do people who graduate with that major make? What area(s) do the top people in that field congregate? Can you afford to live there with or without at job? If you lose one what's the market like for the next? Do you even want to live there?
What's the culture of that industry? Are they straight laced corporate suits who make all their decisions on a golf course? Are they creatives? Hackers who could care less how they dress? Are you or do you want to become like these people?
If you don't pay attention to these variables and more its likely that you will end up very unhappy "doing what you love".
If you do and you find something where you can marry doing what you love with a sustainable wage... now that is when you're on your way to happiness.
^ I always felt like that quote was missing something
You gotta understand and research.
How many people are in that field? What are their qualifications? How do you stack against them? How many openings do they have each year? What seasons/quarters/times do they hire in? Will you be able to be the best candidate and show that in an interview at that time?
What do people who graduate with that major make? What area(s) do the top people in that field congregate? Can you afford to live there with or without at job? If you lose one what's the market like for the next? Do you even want to live there?
What's the culture of that industry? Are they straight laced corporate suits who make all their decisions on a golf course? Are they creatives? Hackers who could care less how they dress? Are you or do you want to become like these people?
If you don't pay attention to these variables and more its likely that you will end up very unhappy "doing what you love".
If you do and you find something where you can marry doing what you love with a sustainable wage... now that is when you're on your way to happiness.
I'm sick of people telling me I'm elite or privileged because I have a job as software engineer. Fuck you Miya Tokumitsu.
As if the journalists for rags like Slate aren't elitist bourgeoisie...
As if the journalists for rags like Slate aren't elitist bourgeoisie...
> If we acknowledged all of our work as work, we could set appropriate limits for it, demanding fair compensation and humane schedules that allow for family and leisure time.
a true gem quote imho
a true gem quote imho
While I agree that 'Do what you love.' bears a certain danger of disregarding those who aren't fortunate enough to be able to do so - pretty much like blaming homelessness and poverty on people's laziness - I don't like the attitude this article conveys.
First, nobody in their right mind would scorn a factory worker or anybody else with a 'menial' job for not doing what they love. "You don't have to be a factory worker you can become an artist, a painter, a successful entrepreneur any time you want. You're just too lazy." Saying something like that would be completely ridiculous.
More importantly this attitude favours apathy or laziness of the mind:
"Other people are worse off than you so be happy with what you got."
"First world problem."
"People in third world countries are starving while you're complaining about your job."
"Other people hate their job, too."
Statements like these promote some kind of slave moral. You have to toil because other people's lives suck, too. In this mindset actively trying to change your life for the better means betraying those who are less fortunate than you.
Perhaps Steven Covey more properly expressed what I consider to be the true meaning of 'Do what you love.':
"Find your own voice and help others find theirs."
First, nobody in their right mind would scorn a factory worker or anybody else with a 'menial' job for not doing what they love. "You don't have to be a factory worker you can become an artist, a painter, a successful entrepreneur any time you want. You're just too lazy." Saying something like that would be completely ridiculous.
More importantly this attitude favours apathy or laziness of the mind:
"Other people are worse off than you so be happy with what you got."
"First world problem."
"People in third world countries are starving while you're complaining about your job."
"Other people hate their job, too."
Statements like these promote some kind of slave moral. You have to toil because other people's lives suck, too. In this mindset actively trying to change your life for the better means betraying those who are less fortunate than you.
Perhaps Steven Covey more properly expressed what I consider to be the true meaning of 'Do what you love.':
"Find your own voice and help others find theirs."
After reading your comment, I find it curious that this submission from Slate isn't too far behind "Your most important skill: Empathy" [1] by Chad Fowler. It seems the general gist of the attitude "You're better off than X% of the population, so be happy" is rather lacking in empathy, is it not?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084299
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084299
Good article, perhaps could've been extended with a more common example. For instance, a person that chooses to work in a startup instead of a wall street bank.
DWYL is a very good tool that's exploited by many: small firms and corporations. I'd say you should in general find your vocation as early in your life as you can but allow yourself to sidestep sometimes for money or horizon expanding opportunities.
I think that what you love is not fixed but can change anytime. Maybe you can be an employee and loving building something with your co-workers. Once you have the necessary experience and means, you can embrace your own thing and make other people loving it and benefiting from. At least tech capitalism is not like industrial capitalism where the factory worker could never set up his own business (though it happened but rarely).
Now you can love being a part of a startup or a big corp and being paid well, and being able to launch your own dream as well when you feel the time has come for it.
Jobs has talentuous workers like John Ive to build his dream but that doesn't mean that John Ive would eternally stay an Apple worker. When will come the time he feels he can embrace his own thing, he's free to go. And that's already true with Nest guys story.
I just think what's unethical is telling all the time DWYL while you don't give your collaborators and employees the chance to live their dreams one day.
This article went in depth about the author's perspective on the social implications of doing what you love based on the author's definition of DWYL. She didn't examine her definition or delve into what the expression might mean, or how the people that use it might mean it. For all her research, it doesn't seem like she asked even one person - "what does this expression mean to you?"
Doing what you love isn't about what you do, it's about the relationship you have with what you do. Whether you're working a menial job or running a company, the love is in the self awareness. The love is in knowing why you do what you do and how it affects the world around you.
Understanding why you do what you do is not a privilege reserved for the elite. Aspiring to do work that is meaningful to you, that allows you to fully explore and cultivate the things you're interested in, is what makes us human.
Doing what you love isn't about what you do, it's about the relationship you have with what you do. Whether you're working a menial job or running a company, the love is in the self awareness. The love is in knowing why you do what you do and how it affects the world around you.
Understanding why you do what you do is not a privilege reserved for the elite. Aspiring to do work that is meaningful to you, that allows you to fully explore and cultivate the things you're interested in, is what makes us human.
It's odd that the article frames "doing what you love" as a "privilege." The real reason it isn't practical in many cases is that being able to do what you love in many cases puts you in highly competitive elite pursuits. These pursuits require love, talent, and lots of work, or you won't make it.
I don't find too many people ungrateful for the "privilege" of doing what they love. Mostly they feel fortunate or just tired from beating the competition.
On the other hand, the Japanese are trying very hard to robotize those home care jobs they mention. Training people for jobs that won't be there seems like a recipe for resentment and possibly revolution.
"Do what you love" may not be the correct answer. But training people to do low-end labor (that we are working to automate away) so they won't burden the tax-paying love-what-we-do-and-get-paid-well-to-do-it class seems... dishonest.
I don't find too many people ungrateful for the "privilege" of doing what they love. Mostly they feel fortunate or just tired from beating the competition.
On the other hand, the Japanese are trying very hard to robotize those home care jobs they mention. Training people for jobs that won't be there seems like a recipe for resentment and possibly revolution.
"Do what you love" may not be the correct answer. But training people to do low-end labor (that we are working to automate away) so they won't burden the tax-paying love-what-we-do-and-get-paid-well-to-do-it class seems... dishonest.
Nothing odd about it, save that encountering such a pure strain of Marxism as late as 2014 is a bit of a surprise. I suppose every generation has at least a few True Believers, in every ideology that admits True Belief -- and Marxism is most certainly one of those.
>the tax-paying love-what-we-do-and-get-paid-well-to-do-it class
There is no such class. Not everyone in a six-figure job loves it. In fact, most of them don't.
There is no such class. Not everyone in a six-figure job loves it. In fact, most of them don't.
Singin' the first world problem blues.
Well yeah. And actually, I don't make six figures, so there. Point being, yes, doing something you actually love is a privilege. Most people work to earn a living, including most of the financially fortunate. We can try to change that fact, but we can't ignore it or wish it away.
It's hard to extract anything useful from an article that assume that wages are set by rhetoric, and not supply and demand.
The reason people in the "lovable-work" camp make more money, is that their skills have lower supply and higher demand. This in turn is because these jobs tend to require more intellectual and creative skills.
The reason people in the "lovable-work" camp make more money, is that their skills have lower supply and higher demand. This in turn is because these jobs tend to require more intellectual and creative skills.
The author starts it right: “Do what you love. Love what you do.”
Just to build an entire case on half-the-thought: DWYL...
I've read the comments and that first part (DWYL) is practically the only thing people are discussing, but I believe it loses the bigger picture.
DWYL. LWYD. - Both things make it balanced. It's not only about DWYL. When you have to do something else, you need a conscious effort and purpose to LWYD.
I've read some years back (can't remember the name of the book) written by a chinese talking about his father that was a locksmith and got a job as street sweeper. He faced it with an intent. He'd be the best street sweeper in China. He would love the streets assigned under his care. That is the LWYD. That takes commitment and guts. But when you LWYD, you also DWYL.
I've read some years back (can't remember the name of the book) written by a chinese talking about his father that was a locksmith and got a job as street sweeper. He faced it with an intent. He'd be the best street sweeper in China. He would love the streets assigned under his care. That is the LWYD. That takes commitment and guts. But when you LWYD, you also DWYL.
This is bullshit. It got me so riled up I went and blogged about it: http://calroc.blogspot.com/2014/01/love-is-power.html (It is cool to post links to own stuff in a comment like this? I'm new to HN.)
tl;dr: The idea that you can and should "do what you love and love what you do" arose as a counter to the misguided idea that work is something you hate that you do just to get the money to pay your bills and keep the lights on and the pantry stocked. To confuse the basic concept with a sort of bromide for the blind egos of a privileged elite is a terrible mistake.
tl;dr: The idea that you can and should "do what you love and love what you do" arose as a counter to the misguided idea that work is something you hate that you do just to get the money to pay your bills and keep the lights on and the pantry stocked. To confuse the basic concept with a sort of bromide for the blind egos of a privileged elite is a terrible mistake.
For me, doing what I love has meant learning a difference between "I love solving only this problem in this way" vs. "I love solving problems."
Saying I only love to solve certain problems in certain ways: .. greatly limits my ability to find something that I can be and stay passionate about, become the best at, and have enough of a financial engine to generate income.
Saying I love to solve problems, and learning how to solve problems.. is much closer to a sustainable first principle of "do what you love" for me. I can solve problems in many more situations. Whether it's helping someone solve a problem they've been doing manually, or a creative architecture.
Saying I only love to solve certain problems in certain ways: .. greatly limits my ability to find something that I can be and stay passionate about, become the best at, and have enough of a financial engine to generate income.
Saying I love to solve problems, and learning how to solve problems.. is much closer to a sustainable first principle of "do what you love" for me. I can solve problems in many more situations. Whether it's helping someone solve a problem they've been doing manually, or a creative architecture.
Why does "do what you love" have to refer to work? I love playing music. I'm not particularly skilled at it yet, as I'm still learning how, but it's great. I don't make any money doing it, I just do it in my spare time. But when I'm doing it, I'm doing what I love. And I'm not devaluing the work of others who do it better than me or for money. I love listening to the music of others (both for pay and for free, both of which I do frequently). This article makes zero sense to me, and seems like a lot of projection of the author's idea about the subject onto people who mean something different by the phrase.
The central premise of this article appears to be that aiming to do what you love diminishes the efforts of those who feel they cannot.
Another way to look at it is that it's not the striving to do what you love that is the problem, but rather the mundanity of the work being done that is the problem. No matter where you are in the workforce, when your talents go to waste that is an issue. I've little doubt we can arrange our society so that more of us can fulfil our potential, so for me the mundane work is only a factor in our current setup, not a non-negotiable burden.
Another way to look at it is that it's not the striving to do what you love that is the problem, but rather the mundanity of the work being done that is the problem. No matter where you are in the workforce, when your talents go to waste that is an issue. I've little doubt we can arrange our society so that more of us can fulfil our potential, so for me the mundane work is only a factor in our current setup, not a non-negotiable burden.
"diminishes the efforts of those who feel they cannot."
More like diminishes their humanity. Humans love their jobs, so those who don't love their jobs are obviously nonhuman. So no need to pay a living wage to either people who will do it for love instead of money, or pay a living wage to "others" not as morally and ethically superior as the few elite humans who are above monetary concerns.
There's no need for moral and ethical concern over a tired cliche anyway. Its had its run. Time to flush it, and pick a new interview question to see how the applicant handles nonsense and stress.
I will say its hilarious how "you should love your job" invariably means nothing other than more work for less pay. Love never in practice means "get a hug from the receptionist day" or "Mgmt loves you right back by buying lunch today" or "improve your working environment (bigger, more private, nicer, quieter, etc) because you love it here so much". It does show up quite a bit in Dilbertian satire, when insurance costs go up you get sarcastic comments about working for love and so forth.
More like diminishes their humanity. Humans love their jobs, so those who don't love their jobs are obviously nonhuman. So no need to pay a living wage to either people who will do it for love instead of money, or pay a living wage to "others" not as morally and ethically superior as the few elite humans who are above monetary concerns.
There's no need for moral and ethical concern over a tired cliche anyway. Its had its run. Time to flush it, and pick a new interview question to see how the applicant handles nonsense and stress.
I will say its hilarious how "you should love your job" invariably means nothing other than more work for less pay. Love never in practice means "get a hug from the receptionist day" or "Mgmt loves you right back by buying lunch today" or "improve your working environment (bigger, more private, nicer, quieter, etc) because you love it here so much". It does show up quite a bit in Dilbertian satire, when insurance costs go up you get sarcastic comments about working for love and so forth.
Rate of pay for vocational work is a separate subject. The issue here is the divide between those that can follow a vocation, and those that (for whatever reason) are not in a position to.
The reason that it's a separate issue to rate of pay is that it goes beyond money. Even if monetary incentives to work did not exist, we would still wish to spend our time in activities that were fulfilling. Removing money from the equation would free up a larger slice of the population to find that which they love to do. Expanding that slice should be the goal, not having a go at those who are already placed to do what interests them.
The reason that it's a separate issue to rate of pay is that it goes beyond money. Even if monetary incentives to work did not exist, we would still wish to spend our time in activities that were fulfilling. Removing money from the equation would free up a larger slice of the population to find that which they love to do. Expanding that slice should be the goal, not having a go at those who are already placed to do what interests them.
I'm sure DWYL adherents are so thankful there are people who love spending the day hunched over in the sun picking the strawberries and kale they're gonna use in their salad tonight.
One part seemed a bit of a stretch. Steve Jobs "did what he wanted" so because he did that he was exploitative capitalist boss.
Yes he did what he loved.
Yes his company is exploitative and he was a global capitalist.
No there's no connection between thinking you are doing something you love and being a global capitalist exploiting boss.
The beginning of the article seemed to suggest to me that Doing What You Love blinds you to other people's work and life choices.
Yes he did what he loved.
Yes his company is exploitative and he was a global capitalist.
No there's no connection between thinking you are doing something you love and being a global capitalist exploiting boss.
The beginning of the article seemed to suggest to me that Doing What You Love blinds you to other people's work and life choices.
> There’s little doubt that “do what you love” (DWYL) is now the unofficial work mantra for our time.
Really? I would like to see some sort of basis for that, since it doesn't seem that way at all to me. Otherwise this seems like a strawman.
(A few thousand retweets etc. is not sufficient to convince me it is "the unofficial work mantra for our time".)
Really? I would like to see some sort of basis for that, since it doesn't seem that way at all to me. Otherwise this seems like a strawman.
(A few thousand retweets etc. is not sufficient to convince me it is "the unofficial work mantra for our time".)
I believe this article was first published in this month's installment of the wonderful Jacobin Magazine (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/in-the-name-of-love/).
There’s little doubt that “do what you love” (DWYL) is now
the unofficial work mantra for our time.
I do what I love, and it pays the bills. In that regard, I am tremendously lucky.
But rent is due regardless. It's great to have passions, and things you like to do - those used to be called "hobbies".
But rent is due regardless. It's great to have passions, and things you like to do - those used to be called "hobbies".
The author is the snob, by calling intellectual, creative, ivory-tower sort of work "lovable" and all the rest "unlovable." News flash: Some people prefer taking care of babies to running a giant corporation. In fact, if you happen to love babies and have a real knack for it, hanging out with a baby all day and taking home a paycheck is a pretty good gig if you can get it. Similarly, many Uber drivers I talk to are thrilled with their business, which lets them support their family while being their own boss and setting their own hours, and all they have to do is drive a car around town.
I'm not saying diapers are fun (I have a newborn); obviously not every moment of every job is "lovable," and a little grit and mettle is required. I'm also not saying people who "love" their work would do it for free. Some would, but that's way too high a standard for the present conversation. We're talking about individual career choice, not abolishing money in the world.
Yes, "do what you love" is an ideal, an aspiration, but it's a lot less dehumanizing, more practical, and more empowering than whatever it replaces. (Get a college degree, get a job, follow the rules, and you'll retire rich?) If employers have to at least try to make an argument that they provide an environment conducive to personal growth and that you'll have a positive impact on the world by working there, that's great.
How insulting and invalidating is it for the author to assume "workers" must be miserable, even if the workers themselves don't know it? It's the elitist version of "those poor, miserable atheists." Or: "Those poor, miserable programmers who have jobs rather than starting a start-up. They've actually been brainwashed to think they're happy. They say they like programming!" Or: "Those poor stay-at-home moms, squandering their potential at the whim of the patriarchy. They will never know the true fulfillment that comes from a high-powered career."
Be careful what assumptions you bring to the table. You might be the asshole.
I'm not saying diapers are fun (I have a newborn); obviously not every moment of every job is "lovable," and a little grit and mettle is required. I'm also not saying people who "love" their work would do it for free. Some would, but that's way too high a standard for the present conversation. We're talking about individual career choice, not abolishing money in the world.
Yes, "do what you love" is an ideal, an aspiration, but it's a lot less dehumanizing, more practical, and more empowering than whatever it replaces. (Get a college degree, get a job, follow the rules, and you'll retire rich?) If employers have to at least try to make an argument that they provide an environment conducive to personal growth and that you'll have a positive impact on the world by working there, that's great.
How insulting and invalidating is it for the author to assume "workers" must be miserable, even if the workers themselves don't know it? It's the elitist version of "those poor, miserable atheists." Or: "Those poor, miserable programmers who have jobs rather than starting a start-up. They've actually been brainwashed to think they're happy. They say they like programming!" Or: "Those poor stay-at-home moms, squandering their potential at the whim of the patriarchy. They will never know the true fulfillment that comes from a high-powered career."
Be careful what assumptions you bring to the table. You might be the asshole.
You completely miss what I see as the aim of the article. There are people that want to take care of their kids, as that is what they "love." There are virtually no people that get paid to take care of their kids.
That is, society, especially one that promotes "do what you love" does not value raising your kids. And since we are discussing this in the terms of "do what you love [and you will find success]", the whole bloody point is this odd assertion that people that have not been successful are not "doing what they love" and a deconstruction of it.
To its conclusion, you seem to merely be violently agreeing with the article.
That is, society, especially one that promotes "do what you love" does not value raising your kids. And since we are discussing this in the terms of "do what you love [and you will find success]", the whole bloody point is this odd assertion that people that have not been successful are not "doing what they love" and a deconstruction of it.
To its conclusion, you seem to merely be violently agreeing with the article.
I meant taking care of other people's kids. No one pays you to sit in traffic for yourself, either, or write software for yourself, for that matter. If we lived in some fantasy society with no money, maybe people would take care of their own kids and not other people's, but that's not the question at hand. Also, it's probably false. Watching each other's kids makes a lot of sense with or without money.
The question at hand is whether "doing what you love" will "leave you satisfied." And, further, that this is "as true for your work life as it is your lovers."
Consider that society, by and large, does not put a ton of value in "sitting around taking care of other peoples kids." Nor does it put a lot of value in teaching said kids. Sure you can make enough to survive, but it is a frustrating position that is often rather thankless and not at all acknowledged.
Yet, those people should bugger off because if "they truly loved what they were doing they would be satisfied." Right?
Consider that society, by and large, does not put a ton of value in "sitting around taking care of other peoples kids." Nor does it put a lot of value in teaching said kids. Sure you can make enough to survive, but it is a frustrating position that is often rather thankless and not at all acknowledged.
Yet, those people should bugger off because if "they truly loved what they were doing they would be satisfied." Right?
Atlas wept.
you can't spoil my child
the article is correct. 'do what you love' is of course neoliberal propaganda created and propagated by capital as part of its war against labor.
but we must go further and realize that capital is our enemy.
but we must go further and realize that capital is our enemy.
> but we must go further and realize that capital is our enemy.
Y Combinator is the enemy?
Y Combinator is the enemy?
I often tell my children that I'm incredibly fortunate to work in a field that I love, and for which there is demand. Most people, I say, work in order to make money, which is totally reasonable and legitimate, but means that they're doing things they don't necessarily enjoy.
So yes, I'm privileged, in that people pay me to do what I love. And I think that in our age, a large number of people can be similarly privileged.
But it shouldn't be an expectation, but rather an aspiration, to be able to work in something that you love. And if you can't work in something that you love, then it's more than respectable and reasonable to do something that brings in sufficient income to feed, clothe, and house your family -- and, one can hope, gives you enough time to pursue the hobbies and interests that you do love, and about which you can be passionate.