There are two type of people in life.
The first type graduates from college and their learning stops for the most part. They say to themselves, "well, I studied for four years and got a job, now it's finally time to sit back and relax." So they put in their regular 9-5 and then come home and waste their lives away by watching TV shows and playing video games and going out and getting drunk on weekends. Essentially, they "settle" into a middle-class lifestyle, where they earn enough money to get by and may be save a little too. They may be content, but they are also always stressed about the prospect of losing their jobs, because at their level of skill and ambition, they are almost always employees, rather than employers. Eventually, that's exactly what happens as the work they do is automated and they find themselves unemployed with little savings and no other skill that they can contribute to the economy.
The second type has a perpetual hunger for knowledge. They see college as the "launch pad" for a lifetime of learning. So they graduate and get jobs, but on the side they continue to read, discuss, listen and apply. They hang out with smart and successful people who also read, discuss, listen and apply. They look for problems and opportunities, and figure out what they need to learn to be able to work on them. These are the Jennifer Dewalt types whose ambition and discipline set them up for a continuously upward trajectory. They are the ones who refuse to settle, and therefore end up as leaders in organizations that innovate and change humanity.
It's funny because over the years I have developed what I think to be a very reliable method for predicting someone's future success. The method involves asking the person what they do in their spare time. Based on their answer, I can picture where they will end up in five to ten years.
I think you can cut a lot of the fat from this:
There are people who think life is something they do and there are people who think life is something that happens to them.
That being said, at what point is relaxing and enjoying yourself with random hobbies ok? If you take the hard and fast line you have here, people would just work till they die. A large part of the point to success is so you can enjoy leisure time comfortably.
I do agree video games and TV are in a in a sense "bad" and it would be better if people engaged in creative hobbies.
some people have a hunger for knowledge but find autodidacticism incredibly difficult
This is wildly judgmental, and it would seem that you are projecting your own values in your assessment of people, which is also very narrowly fitted for technology where knowledge has potential to payoff.
Have you ever met someone with perpetual knowledge of hunger that didnt succeed , and also had a very dented personal life?
I met dozens of those, and what do you think they end up regretting?
On the other hand i do agree that hunger and intelligence are very good predictors of someones ability to grow a skill. From that to 'success' there is a huge leap in many ways, from your personal concept of success to the actual real world out there.
I think it's more that you get good at what you practice. Someone who goes out every night of the week is practicing social interaction, and they will probably get pretty good at it. Someone who spends time with their family will have a strong family relationship. Someone who watches TV every night of the week will know an awful lot about the TV shows currently on the air. Someone who plays Farmville or Scramble with Friends or StarCraft with all their spare time will get pretty good at that. Someone who spends a lot of time on Hacker News will have really high karma.
And then ask yourself: is the stuff you're good at the stuff you want to be good at? Because if you want to be good at StarCraft or TV trivia and that's what you do with your spare time, great. But if you want to be good at programming but it's not your day job and you spend all your free time watching TV, you have some problems. Similarly, if you want to have a strong family relationship but spend all your time programming or holed up in your man-cave, you also have some problems.
I disagree with your philosophy. You advocate a lifestyle focusing on success and ambition. I believe that having the qualities of both types of people is ideal.
Below is a quote that I found very illustrative of the downfalls of living a life too focused on success:
“Man surprised me most about humanity. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.”
The world isn't full of binary people. There are lots of types of people in the world, and pigeon-holing any of them doesn't help them or you.
Obviously, it's an approximation. I'm sure you could very easily fit everyone you know in either of these buckets if you had to. And it's pretty accurate.
Citation needed, otherwise all sweeping generalizations are valid based on opinion alone.
People are pretty dynamic, even if common traits exist (and "knowledge / seeking knowledge" is not citable), its a dumb claim.
"There are two types of people in this world: those who divide people into two groups, and those who don't."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
I can just imagine how smug you were writing this, it's making me cringe.
Right. I would add eveything is white or black.
It's funny because over the years I have developed what I think to be a very reliable method for predicting someone's future.
Don't do it.
It's their life. While I hope it's rich, diverse and makes them immensely happy, it's not for me to say whether or not it 'works' for them or not.
The regular 9 to 5 is what some people want. And that's fine. They get their satisfaction in ways we may not -- (stereotypes coming).. a kid to play with, buddies at the bar, plunking a guitar, reading John MacDonald.
This is not necessarily even a lack of ambition -- we're all allowed to aspire to whatever lifestyle we think will suit us best.
You can't say one way is better without describing what better looks like -- and when we have different descriptions of that, the best thing to do is just tink your drinks together and keep your "How can he live like that?!" to yourself.
>>The regular 9 to 5 is what some people want. And that's fine.
Yes, it is completely fine, as long as they are fully aware of the type of life they will have if they keep up their current habits. For example, if a regular 9 to 5 is what you want, good for you. Just understand what kind of life it will give you. This may sound obvious, but most people don't get it - they work 9 to 5 and complain when they lose their jobs or don't get the promotions they want or realize that the work they do is actually meaningless. What I'm trying to say is that, in the grand scheme of life, you reap what you sow.
There are plenty of 9 to 5 jobs that are useful to the economy. Some of them can quickly shrug off losing a job.
9 to 5, cruising along in a steady-state of knowledge doesn't necessarily imply failure. It depends on that knowledge, of course.
Frankly, with the new-graduate economy like it is, a steady, well-paying 9 to 5 is a luxury, but you make it sound quite bleak.
As if you couldn't improve your skills everyday 9 to 5...
Hey! I watch tv, play video games, and get drunk on weekends. I also have a girlfriend, friends, a new kitten to look after. Oh and I have multiple side projects I work on while having a full time job.
Just because people do one thing doesn't mean they don't do other things.
Just wanted to add a brief, loose third:
The third type recognizes their passion and self-educates themselves, often finding formal education diabolical.
From the late Jim Rohn, "Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune."[1]
[1] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jimrohn121282.html http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jimrohn121282.htm...
> "often finding formal education diabolical"
TBH, as a self-educated developer, I perceive formal education as a premature optimization.
It's a fact that one needs to develop certain skills and gain insight from the knowledge that reflects the experience of expert people, but it's also a fact that one won't need everything the first moment after graduation.
I prefer to research and learn about something the moment I need it, than to be forced to learn it (and probably forget about it) some years in advance.
Anyway... The first skill you need to develop to become self-educated is self-confidence, because nobody is going to believe in you. I have been accused of being an idiot numerous times for dropping college...
There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who believe there are two kinds of people in this world and those who are smart enough to know better.
Translation:
There are two kinds of people in this world:
1) Those who hit some ceiling and actually achieve contentment.
2) All-consuming psychopaths who love looking down on everyone else for their lack of ambition.
I was born the second, but I sure as hell don't have to stay that way.
Also, side comment: some of us don't want to be employer-capitalists. We like doing things for their own sakes, not so that we can turn every activity in life into a money pump. As such, by your notions, we simply don't have ambition.
By my notions, the default ambition you remark upon, the urge to become a wealthy, high-status leader of some sort, is indeed psychopathic. Why should I want to become a capitalist, military general, or statesman? I could stand being an activist leader, but I don't think I'd be much good at it.
On the other hand, if you ask me if I wanted to, for instance, destroy all existing social relations and have a socialist revolution, I happily say "yes". But somehow Revolution is simply not as ambitious as "become an employer", or as "become a research professor" (which is actually harder than becoming an employer).
Which, again, makes it sound to me like your definition of "ambition" is "a rise in wealth and social status" rather than any coherent notion of actual achievement.
You took what you wanted out of the OP's comment.
Their comment is putting everyone in two buckets, 1 that sits around and watches TV when they get home from work, and 1 that works on personal development in their free time.
What they want to use that personal development is up to them. They could use it to start a non-profit, or learn a new hobby or learn a new skill. But... sitting around watching TV until bed certainly isn't ambitious.
Of course watching TV isn't ambitious!
But here's the thing: the "watch TV/self-development" dichotomy exists and keeps existing at every level of actual achievement. There are people who think that lawyers, doctors, and software engineers are underachievers for not becoming CEOs, after all. Lawyers, doctors, and software engineers tend to think people working old-fashioned 9-5 jobs instead of high-level professions are underachievers. People in old-fashioned 9-5 jobs think part-timers are underachievers.
And in the other direction, there are people who think that anyone who merely runs a business and doesn't build an international business conglomerate is an underachiever. There are people who think that running an international business conglomerate instead of a world empire makes you an underachiever.
There's at least a few people who think that running a worldwide empire makes you an underachiever, because you should be trying to become a god!
Sometimes all you have is an impulse to go in a direction, but not a destination. Those are the impulses to go out for, when no actual destination will sate the impulse.
Some people have a perpetual hunger for knowledge of baseball trivia, others for the personal lives of B-list celebrities, yet others for the outcomes of video games.
One of the things I've learned over the years is that it's impossible to tell whether being obsessed with something other people consider foolish or trivial is genius or idiocy. Obsessively playing Starcraft might turn out to be a lucrative profession. We just never know.
We should combine our skills. I can accurately predict where everyone will end up in 150-200 years :-)
The third type doesn't need college at all.