Cynical Ruminations
about life, the universe and everything . . .
Tuesday, March 21, 2023
Śālīvāhana Śake १९४५, Śobhan Nāma Saṃvatsare - Gudhi Padwa 2023
Sunday, June 05, 2016
Skills trump passion
“So good they can’t ignore you”, that is the title of Dr Cal Newport’s not so latest book (he wrote it around 2011 between his postdoctoral work and his present tenure), which I am planning to review here.
Book Cover |
Cal Newport - The Author of "So Good They Can't Ignore You" |
He is also the author of a series of popular books of unconventional advice for students, which he wrote in part when he was a student himself! How to Be a High School Superstar (Random House, 2010), How to Become a Straight-A Student (Random House, 2006), and How to Win at College (Random House, 2005).
Cal began his research for this book when he was completing his student life and was about to embark on an academic career, and he set out to answer for himself the question, “How do people end up loving what they do”?
The book is organised into Rules that Cal goes on to illustrate with anecdotes gathered from interviews with successful folk as well as those who had to face failures. Summarised briefly as below:
Rule #1: Do not follow your Passion.
Simply put, the passion hypothesis is wrong. Compelling careers often have complex origins that reject the simple idea that all you have to do is follow your passion. But survey results, research and detailed interviews of successful people gave rise to 3 interesting conclusions about the passion hypothesis.Conclusion #1: Career passions are rareThis ties in with research that shows that enjoyment and a sense of fulfillment at work - which leads to people loving their jobs derives from 3 basic psychological needs:
Conclusion #2: Passion takes time to develop
Conclusion #3: Passion is a side effect of mastery
“matching work to pre-existing passions” did not come up as being important for motivation in scientific research. The traits they did find, by contrast, are more general and are agnostic to the specific type of work in question. Competence and autonomy, for example, are achievable by most people in a wide variety of jobs—assuming they’re willing to put in the hard work required for mastery. This message is not as inspiring as “follow your passion and you’ll immediately be happy,” but it certainly has a ring of truth. In other words, working right trumps finding the right work.
- Autonomy: the feeling that you have control over your day, and that your actions are important
- Competence: the feeling that you are good at what you do
- Relatedness: the feeling of connection to other people
Cal goes on to argue that “following your passion” can be dangerous advice as it motivates people to keep searching and jumping jobs without applying themselves to develop skills and mastery required to truly enjoy work!
Rule #2: Be So Good They Can’t Ignore You (Or, the Importance of Skill)
The fulcrum of the book, in my opinion. There are no shortcuts, no magic wand called “passion”. Self-actualising work, cannot come about with prodigious skills and mastery. And this is precisely what makes the passion hypothesis dangerous because it gives the impression that work becomes ‘effortless’ if one only finds the right kind!And to gain mastery what one must do is:
- Adopt the craftsman mindset: focus on what value we are producing on your job, rather than thinking about on what value the job offers us. And this is not a call to selfless dedication to job slavery because, this is the only way to become valuable, to focus on becoming better, which leads one to
- Develop career capital: that is, build up skills that are rare and valuable. Focus on capabilities over calling.
- Deploy deliberate practice: the only way to develop skills leading to mastery is deliberate practice. This entails identifying the skills that are rare and valuable - defining what is good, the practicing those skills at the limit of one’s present abilities - stretching oneself. This requires effort of focus and concentration and is tiring and often not enjoyable, but it is the only way to expand one’s abilities. Actively seek feedback - quick, almost immediate feedback from those better than you - this is the only way to identify skill areas to practice on, the present limits of one’s abilities. And finally, to diligently and patiently continue to do so. In Cal’s words “You stretch yourself, day after day, month after month, before finally looking up and realizing, “Hey, I’ve become pretty good, and people are starting to notice.”
Rule #3: Turn Down a Promotion (Or, the Importance of Control)
- it’s dangerous to pursue more control in your working life before you have career capital to offer in exchange. Control is seductive. Often people quit stable jobs to “follow my passion and start something of my own” - this obviously gives people the ultimate control over their work; however if the job quitter has not obtained the career capital, valuable skills before hand - the control afforded by independence is NOT sustainable. Enthusiasm alone is not rare or valuable and not worth much in terms of career capital.
- once you have enough career capital to acquire more control in your working life, you have become valuable enough to your employer that they will fight your efforts to gain more autonomy. This is largely self explanatory. And in fact, this becomes a key test of whether or not one has the right amount of career capital - do they try to retain you?
Rule #4: Think Small, Act Big (Or, the Importance of Mission)
Of course, finding a valuable mission worth dedicating a career to is not easy, so Cal recommends “systematically experimenting with different proto-missions to seek out a direction worth pursuing.” He also warns that. “Missions are hard. ( but also that) Hardness scares off the daydreamers and the timid, leaving more opportunity for those like us who are willing to take the time to carefully work out the best path forward and then confidently take action.” The key requirements for articulating a mission are:
- Missions Require Capital; a mission chosen before one has relevant career capital is not likely to be sustainable
- Missions are identifiable in the “adjacent possible” - the realm of ideas and innovations just beyond the present cutting edge of expertise in a field. This makes it clear why mission requires career capital - one cannot be at the cutting edge of one's profession without putting in the hard work, the deliberate practice and acquiring the knowledge and skills!
- Missions Require Little Bets - great missions leading to great success are identified by embarking on and delivering small and achievable projects—little bets—to explore the concrete possibilities surrounding a compelling idea, at the cutting edge of one’s profession. act. Many people have lots of career capital, and can therefore identify a variety of different potential missions for their work, but few actually build their career around such missions. Once you have the capital required to identify a mission, you must still figure out how to put the mission into practice. If you don’t have a trusted strategy for making altogether.
- Missions Require Marketing - great missions are transformed into great successes as the result of finding projects that satisfy the law of remarkability, which requires that an idea inspires people to remark about it, and is launched in a venue where such remarking is made easy. The venue where these remarkable projects have the visibility are often unique to a profession - in Cal’s examples they were the peer reviewed publications of a field and the message boards that programmers working on a specific technology use. Again none of the above is doable without career capital - in depth knowledge and skills in short mastery - in one’s chosen profession
Conclusion
Mastery and Flow |
Saturday, April 05, 2014
India’s election: Can anyone stop Narendra Modi? - asks The Economist
Saturday, October 05, 2013
Once upon a time, there was a blogger.
He used to blog regularly. About things he saw and things he thought about, things cynical and things philosophical, matters of religion and politics, musings deep and mundane.
The best part of this was not so much the blog-posts, but the buzz of discussions that followed. The comments agreeing, disagreeing, provocative and evocative - always vocal rarely equivocal.
And so it came to pass.
Many moons passed, and the blogger blogged infrequently. With longer gaps of time elapsing; the posts too shrunk in weight and content. In the words of another fellow blogger "real life" was making it's impact felt.
Mind-space and vocabulary were diverted for other pressing uses. Self-time was pervaded by mental exhaustion and hence dissipated in mindless pursuits. But as Gotama Siddhttha Sakyamuni, the Buddha had surmised - striving needs to be mind-ful, not mindless.
So perhaps a fresh attempt is warranted. Inspired by a friend's attempt to shun silence.
Lets give it another shot!
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
In search of a community . . .
Inspired by the Sentinel's Blogpost about whether the internet based communities can survive / be resurrected in the era of Facebook -
Clichéd though this will sound - I put it down to the "markets versus community" tension. Community and the relationships it fosters is a basic human need. In as much as community has been part of hominid evolution for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years (since the time of the baboon troupe), community is probably a defining element in the human environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA). Human social interactions with and in its community are thus foundational to human nature - defining its distinction from monkey nature.
Industrialisation brought about migration to cities with nuclear families (disrupting kinship groups) and dense populations (too large to aggregate into a new community) - stable "village" community groups of the pre-industrial era were disrupted. No alternative to the stable - durable community of old emerged. Congregational religions - through church / parish based aggregations may have provided an alternative in some measure - but they too were no where as durable.
In the last 15-20 years - the internet provided the chance to aggregate interest based communities by wiping out geographical distance. It is debatable to what extent this could simulate the close-contact of pre-industrial communities. But internet communities have the advantage of avoiding the unpleasant side-effects of cheek-by-jowl community living.
Social networks tap into this very human need for community. But driven by the market dynamic of the network effect - where the larger the network the greater the benefit to those deriving revenues from the network - social networks soon grew even larger than post-industrial cities. Too large to aggregate as a community.
Nevertheless, social networks are by definition malleable, and shold allow for enough internal mobility for interest based communities to aggregate within the gigantic superstrtucture. So where as in an industrial city - say Shanghai - it would be difficult for a community of say dim-sum lovers to get together and decide to live together in a single city block; such aggregations are much easier within social networks. This is where I think Google+'s idea of "Circles" has significant potential.
The biggest downside of internet based communities can be their very freedom - where village-communities had natural barriers to exit, forcing people to adjust, accomodate and resolve differences - in online communities people can just up and away at the click of a button. Valuable social skills that develop through growing and living in communities may never be learnt!
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Once upon a time . . .
Sounds a lot like the collected works of Enid Blyton, doesn't it?
And then there was Roald Dahl, I suppose, at some level, it was his work that made a little-bit of the dark side acceptable in literature for children. I suppose that has now reached a certain level of fruition with the best selling works of avada kedavra and other interesting adventures such as those of Percy Jackson and his Olympic escapades. (Yes, literature for kids is something I read and enjoy for somewhat similar reasons as I enjoy watching Tom and Jerry cartoons!!)
When I first read the immortal works of J K Rowling, a little after she started Rowling in money . . ., (yeah bad pun, I know, but I could not resist that one . . ), I noticed certain parallels between her works and those of other fictioners who had consumed much ink before her. I remember thinking, when I first read "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"", that it felt like a cocktail of Enid Blyton's bedtime fairy tales, the Addam's Family chronicles and the big daddy of the fantasy genre - Tolkein's Lord of the Rings.
And yes, I am a big fan of LotR, I can't help intoning in deep slow tones -
Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
I cannot but feel a sense of awe and respect at Tolkein's creative genius. And traces of Sauron are unmistakable in Voldemort.
The horcruxes though are interesting - as a kid I recollect hearing tales where wicked wizards or ogres hide their 'life'in some other object so that they are unkillable by conventional means, so the concerned Prince Charming has to deploy unconventional tactics to rescue the distressing damsels.
The parallels between the burden Harry and his friends experience when wearing the locket horcrux, and the burden of the Ring bearer are also unmistakable. A pity poor Frodo (or more likely the practical minded Samwise) did not think of sticking a Basilisk fang into the One Ring instead of trudging all the way to Mount Doom!!
Anyway, I will now conclude this meaningless rambling deconstrution, and resume my routine vacation programming!!
Cheers all!!
Sunday, August 07, 2011
And the Bankers lived happily ever after . . .
|
As such the plot is fairly common place, and a similar tale could have been told in the setting of any multi-national corporation. Why banking?
Then again, where as the narrative is well paced, the characterisation is weak. A more skilled novelist might have been able to make the characters more true to life. As such they lack depth and complexity. The polarisation of the two main protagonists as paragons of virtue and weakness respectively is too simplistically black and white. So where as the basic idea of the novel has potential, the way it has developed doesn't do it justice. In the hands of a Jeffrey Archer or a Sidney Sheldon - better still a Jhumpa Lahiri or a Vikram Sheth - this novel could have been memorable work of modern fiction, perhaps even a master-piece.
Yet for a first novel and from the pen of one who is not a professional writer - this could have been worse. In fact, I see in it the seeds of a fairly decent Bollywood flick! Ram Gopal Verma, Madhur Bhandarkar, Ashutosh Gowarikar - are you people listening?