3 ms·
this sounds a lot like the psychology of having nothing to lose vs something to lose. You play more aggressively and are more successful in the former case.
by citizen_friend 2y ago
this sounds a lot like the psychology of having nothing to lose vs something to lose. You play more aggressively and are more successful in the former case.
- kranner 2y agoArguably GP is already successful in their current position with respect to overall satisfaction, if one treats satisfaction as a boolean.
- KolenCh 2y agoDefine successful. I think you two had an opposite meaning of what successful is.
- citizen_friend 2y agoHaving a job he likes that pays him money he wants. That’s the criteria outlined. He’s just afraid it might end up being a job he doesn’t like. There is a myth that higher paying jobs must be more miserable, but it’s rarely true.
- KolenCh 2y agoRead more carefully: > I'm now ignoring recruiters who are begging me to interview for insanely well-paying openings. I have a decently well-paying job with good work-life balance, and colleagues who respect me. So their utility function has terms other than $. So define "successful", or define the utility function more objectively. It is very clear that yours vs theirs are quite different.
- citizen_friend 2y agoYou’re trying to say that I’m defining success as money and he’s defining it as more wholesome factors. That’s not what’s happening.