I only skimmed but I don’t find this philosophy particularly interesting.
The implication here is that everyone has one best place, but in reality there are many local maximums. The opportunity cost of traversing a valley for a slightly higher maximum may not be worth it.
The post also conflates employment with happiness. Not having a paying job is a valid life choice. Stay at home parent is a completely valid niche.
Picking a job or career based on the free time it allows to pursue hobbies is also valid.
None of this is easy and the post doesn’t seem to provide any insight into finding a good fit.
The idea that we have one “best” fit is the self-help equivalent of “perfect is the enemy of good”.
> None of this is easy and the post doesn’t seem to provide any insight into finding a good fit.
Oh it does:
> So it’s not that the world magically offers the lock to fit everyone’s key. It’s that everyone’s key has a bit of give, enough to fit the locks available. We screw this up when we assume that our keys are made out of Play-Doh and they can fit anywhere, or when we assume they’re made out of obsidian and they’ll shatter if you try to stick ‘em in the wrong place.
It actually warns about having unrealistic expectations what fitting in means and encourages to have some flexibility but also not too much flexibility. I think that is a good approach
> The post also conflates employment with happiness.
The article doesn't talk solely about traditional employment but has a broader definition of niche.
> And that’s just thinking of niches in the dumbest sense possible, which is “things you can do in exchange for money.”
Later:
> When I was thirteen, I got promoted to moderator of the “Flaming Chickens” forum of a Yu-Gi-Oh! message board, which is where people were allowed to “flame” things that they hated (stepdads, math class, low-quality English dubs of Yu-Gi-Oh! episodes). I was so excited because it meant I meant something. Was the job pointless? Yes. Was it not a “job” at all in the sense that it paid nothing? Yes. Did the forum eventually die because of an infidelity scandal inside the polycule of people who ran the message board? Also yes. But for a bit, I fit.
You comment could be more insightful if you had read the article.
The piece sort of contradicts itself on this point though and explicitly conflates employment and finding one's niche with the tragedy of Nicky. Why is it a tragedy that Nicky finds herself employed as a consultant if she has no other particular career ambitions, if she can find her niche outside of work? The author even seems to suggest it's morally wrong for people to be employed in anything but their niche, lest they fall into, "build[ing] prisons or raid[ing] pensions or market[ing] vapes to kids."
I'm not sure it conflates the niches with employment. Many of the examples given are specifically non-paying niches. (Starting with breakup-whisperer).
Indeed for some percentage of people, employment is not fulfilling or satisfying. They turn to other activities to create significance in their lives. (Open Source software is pretty much built on this concept.)
That said, I suspect the basic premise (everyone has a unique niche) is flawed. It's more likely that everyone has the opportunity to add value to society, and that value comes in various ever-creative forms. Many choose not to take that opportunity, and hypothetically we're worse off for that, but life pretty much still goes on.
It also ignores socio-economic implications which totally derail the argument.
Underwater pizza delivery? Sounds great and fun, but is it actually profitable once everything is taken into account, including assets, depreciation, insurance, saving for retirement, job security etc.
Pretty much anybody can do something they are more apt at and like better if they are willing to risk their financial security.
> The implication here is that everyone has one best place
No, just a place. There could be more than one, and they might not even be comparable in a way that would let you say one is better or worse than the other. The article talks about this when it says people's keys have some give, they don't have to fit just one lock.
> The implication here is that everyone has one best place, but in reality there are many local maximums.
This is even better than what the article argues and thus not an antithesis. The author tries to convince us that there exists atleast a place for everyone, not that there aren't many.
> The idea that we have one “best” fit is the self-help equivalent of “perfect is the enemy of good”.
Again, it's not that there is one "best". The idea is everyone can be valuable through atleast one means. I don't see how that is related to perfectionism.
Let me teach you a good philosophy. When you see an article that begins with “what do you believe without any evidence” and “this is what I said without thinking”, do not expect good thinking to follow.
It's a fun, upbeat article, but as an actual case, I think it falls down here:
> Our abundance of weirdos creates diversity not only in supply, but also in demand.
That's certainly true (imo), but the author seems to implicitly expect the supply and demand to match up and I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that they do not.
Thinking narrowly about jobs, there are a lot more people that want to be artists than people that want to buy art, causing art to be a pretty hard industry to make a living in. This is equally true of any other niche where there are X people wanting it and Y people providing it: there's no reason to expect those to be equal and, as it turns out, they rarely are.
> Thinking narrowly about jobs, there are a lot more people that want to be artists than people that want to buy art, causing art to be a pretty hard industry to make a living in.
The article does not say that your place has to be your job. Indeed, it gives examples to the contrary, such as the Breakup Whisperer.
Yet, I go on art business forums, and businesses seems to be booming. It’s surprising to me how many profitable niche art genres there are.
My guess is that many people (myself included) don’t know how to find a market, align themselves to the market and advertise. There are also a lot of people who ‘want to do their own thing’ and focus on making art that no one else wants.
There are a lot of people in the world with very specific interests and lots of disposable income.
I'm not sure the author captures it perfectly, however...
There is a lake in the U.S. that crosses the borders of Idaho and Utah. On summer weekends, you'll see the Bear Lake Burger Boat trolling the waters. Swim or float up to it, and they'll give you a delicious hamburger.
I'm glad whoever runs it has found a fit in this world. I'm sure it's not what most of us on Hacker News would choose to do, but I am glad someone does.
I thought I'd found my place when I got into open source distributed pub/sub over WebSockets. I worked in this area for over 10 years but you won't find my project in the first 100 results on Google for those niche 7 keywords.
Surprising considering that almost none of these terms even existed 20 years ago.
How many of these niches actually pay enough (or provide enough other benefits) to have a decent quality of life? I think that's the real limiting factor in "finding your niche".
That's a fair point. I kind of hate that the world has come to this. Everything needs to be justified through an economic lens. I wonder if life was easier in the past with regards to this.
Certainly not. These days, with the Internet, social assistance programs, ability to run i.e. a Patreon account to make money from your hobby... It might not be "easy", but it's certainly easier than in the past, where taking a break from your farm to paint some trees would mean a very hard year.
To some degree, "everyone in the village is a millet farmer" did make it easier in the past to fit into a niche: it's the ultimate detachment of "who you are" from "what you do". Your day job is never-ending, will never be fully done, and means nothing. Today, we have it a bit harder because we expect our job to give us meaning.
> every person has a purpose, nobody is superfluous or redundant.
It be much nicer to start this statement from the reverse. Instead of justifying everyone has a purpose for a society, how about a society justifying itself based on the premise that every person has a purpose (could just be consumerism for all I know but hey).
Readit News
The implication here is that everyone has one best place, but in reality there are many local maximums. The opportunity cost of traversing a valley for a slightly higher maximum may not be worth it.
The post also conflates employment with happiness. Not having a paying job is a valid life choice. Stay at home parent is a completely valid niche.
Picking a job or career based on the free time it allows to pursue hobbies is also valid.
None of this is easy and the post doesn’t seem to provide any insight into finding a good fit.
The idea that we have one “best” fit is the self-help equivalent of “perfect is the enemy of good”.
Oh it does:
> So it’s not that the world magically offers the lock to fit everyone’s key. It’s that everyone’s key has a bit of give, enough to fit the locks available. We screw this up when we assume that our keys are made out of Play-Doh and they can fit anywhere, or when we assume they’re made out of obsidian and they’ll shatter if you try to stick ‘em in the wrong place.
It actually warns about having unrealistic expectations what fitting in means and encourages to have some flexibility but also not too much flexibility. I think that is a good approach
> The post also conflates employment with happiness.
The article doesn't talk solely about traditional employment but has a broader definition of niche.
> And that’s just thinking of niches in the dumbest sense possible, which is “things you can do in exchange for money.”
Later:
> When I was thirteen, I got promoted to moderator of the “Flaming Chickens” forum of a Yu-Gi-Oh! message board, which is where people were allowed to “flame” things that they hated (stepdads, math class, low-quality English dubs of Yu-Gi-Oh! episodes). I was so excited because it meant I meant something. Was the job pointless? Yes. Was it not a “job” at all in the sense that it paid nothing? Yes. Did the forum eventually die because of an infidelity scandal inside the polycule of people who ran the message board? Also yes. But for a bit, I fit.
You comment could be more insightful if you had read the article.
Indeed for some percentage of people, employment is not fulfilling or satisfying. They turn to other activities to create significance in their lives. (Open Source software is pretty much built on this concept.)
That said, I suspect the basic premise (everyone has a unique niche) is flawed. It's more likely that everyone has the opportunity to add value to society, and that value comes in various ever-creative forms. Many choose not to take that opportunity, and hypothetically we're worse off for that, but life pretty much still goes on.
Not to mention the small fraction of adults that suffer serious brain damage and turn into vegetables.
Deleted Comment
Underwater pizza delivery? Sounds great and fun, but is it actually profitable once everything is taken into account, including assets, depreciation, insurance, saving for retirement, job security etc.
Pretty much anybody can do something they are more apt at and like better if they are willing to risk their financial security.
No, just a place. There could be more than one, and they might not even be comparable in a way that would let you say one is better or worse than the other. The article talks about this when it says people's keys have some give, they don't have to fit just one lock.
This is even better than what the article argues and thus not an antithesis. The author tries to convince us that there exists atleast a place for everyone, not that there aren't many.
> The idea that we have one “best” fit is the self-help equivalent of “perfect is the enemy of good”.
Again, it's not that there is one "best". The idea is everyone can be valuable through atleast one means. I don't see how that is related to perfectionism.
> Our abundance of weirdos creates diversity not only in supply, but also in demand.
That's certainly true (imo), but the author seems to implicitly expect the supply and demand to match up and I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that they do not.
Thinking narrowly about jobs, there are a lot more people that want to be artists than people that want to buy art, causing art to be a pretty hard industry to make a living in. This is equally true of any other niche where there are X people wanting it and Y people providing it: there's no reason to expect those to be equal and, as it turns out, they rarely are.
The article does not say that your place has to be your job. Indeed, it gives examples to the contrary, such as the Breakup Whisperer.
My guess is that many people (myself included) don’t know how to find a market, align themselves to the market and advertise. There are also a lot of people who ‘want to do their own thing’ and focus on making art that no one else wants.
There are a lot of people in the world with very specific interests and lots of disposable income.
There is a lake in the U.S. that crosses the borders of Idaho and Utah. On summer weekends, you'll see the Bear Lake Burger Boat trolling the waters. Swim or float up to it, and they'll give you a delicious hamburger.
I'm glad whoever runs it has found a fit in this world. I'm sure it's not what most of us on Hacker News would choose to do, but I am glad someone does.
Surprising considering that almost none of these terms even existed 20 years ago.
It be much nicer to start this statement from the reverse. Instead of justifying everyone has a purpose for a society, how about a society justifying itself based on the premise that every person has a purpose (could just be consumerism for all I know but hey).