Given the plethora of highly interesting ideas, projects, domains, and disciplines that our rich world is built of, how can one choose what to work on?
There is an argument in favour of long-term projects (missions): there are some affairs in the world today that seem to be solvable only with substantial persistence and patience. These issues, which are both limited to a single discipline but more frequently across multiple, seem to require considerable multi-year commitment before meaningful progress can be achieved.
Therefore: the question of what to work on flips: it's not only what one wants to work on but also what needs to be worked. Yet, one is unlikely to devote one's life to something merely because it is needed, without also finding it compelling. We are interested in the intersection.
How does one choose a mission if they decide they want to work on one? The answer is nontrivial because of the requirements:
(a) it has to be something that is needed in the world -- (usefulness dimension)
(b) it has to be something in which they have above-average competence (only insofar as the good outcome is realised) -- (aptitude dimension)
(c) it has to be something they want to work on -- (preference dimension)
(d) it has to be something they want to work on long-term — a successful mission becomes one’s life’s work -- (commitment dimension)
The difficulty of the answer lies in the inexact comparison of the degree of each of these dimensions per issue. For example, here's a list of issues:
- Alzheimer’s
- Economic stability of Western countries
- Mental health of the young population
Let's reflect on each dimension.
(a) Usefulness: they are all extremely important; maybe one could claim economic stability is more important due to its impact to much more of the population of a country but that wouldn't be a convincing claim
(b) Competency: judging one's competency for each of these can be quite hard insofar as what skills are required for each problem/solution is genuinely unclear (even if a problem seems medical or economic, the practical path to the solution can require enterpreneurship or campaigning skills)
(c) Preference: people are interested in more than one disciplines. Helping people with medical problems can be fascinating and rewarding but so can scheming plans for eradicating homelessness.
(d) Commitment: all of these issues seem so distant and commitment a fairy tale unless one has already spent some time on them
I think this demonstrates the heart of the problem of choosing a mission. There are convincing arguments that each of the dimensions can be both very low and very high for someone. It's just very hard to say! So what do we do? I think our past experience is the best place to start.
-
Which country-level or global scale problem keeps coming back to your mind?
-
Is there a discipline or skill you feel you have a natural talent for?
-
What is more likely to work out depending on who you know and where you are? Try not to be biased when answering this. The point is the good outcome for the world! (For example, don't feel guilty if you are the child of the prime minister or something; whatever power you have, use it for the benefit of all)
-
What issue can really grab you? What do you see could be your life's work?
I feel these are good thinking paths to reflect and understand such a mission project. I've already been verbose but here are some more aspects:
- If one feels their reflections yield little insight maybe there is a lack of experience. So try new things! Experiment, do things you wouldn't normally do!
- It's worth thinking about one's mission intentionally. Find a weekend, clear your schedule, go on a walk, and just think about this — no other expectations other than spending time on thinking.
- Choosing is better than not choosing, even if the choice ends up being suboptimal. That's not to say one should rush a choice. Take a few years to think about this, experiment, try things out. But I would argue in favour of choosing a mission, eventually.
- I am not saying everyone should have a mission. Such an approach to a career/life is not for everyone. But I think it is for the people that are here at Newspeak House.