Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • CAL NEWPORT: Good morning, everybody.

  • So I'm going to talk about career advice, my topic.

  • I want to push back a little bit on some of the ideas that

  • we assume are true and don't question much anymore.

  • And I'm going to try to replace them with some ideas

  • that I think the evidence actually supports better.

  • And I figured being at Google, the right place to start would

  • be saying controversial things about Steve Jobs.

  • So I think that's a good place for us to get going.

  • So in particular, I want to talk about the summer, early

  • summer of 2005, when Steve Jobs took the podium at

  • Stanford Stadium to give his--

  • I recognize someone down there, Chris [? Pleho ?]

  • AUDIENCE: Hey, how's it going, man?

  • CAL NEWPORT: All right.

  • There we go.

  • You remember those ages.

  • Anyways, I'm sorry.

  • I'm not going to get distracted with Chris stories.

  • So let's go back to summer of 2005.

  • Steve Jobs takes the podium, Stanford Stadium.

  • He's there to give the commencement address to the

  • graduating class of Stanford.

  • So this is kind of a big deal, because Jobs did not give a

  • lot of these sort of personal talks, reflective talks.

  • It wasn't really his style.

  • But he did give this talk.

  • He came.

  • He did wear sandals under his robe, but he did come.

  • And he gave this talk, and it was a good one.

  • And if you look at, say, YouTube views-- and I think

  • that's the authoritative way of ranking social impact--

  • the two videos of this talk have 6 million views.

  • So this was an important talk.

  • It went really far.

  • So he had a lot of points that he made, but I went back and

  • looked at the social media reactions and the news

  • reactions that immediately surrounded the talk's release.

  • And what you could see is there was one point in

  • particular that seemed to get people excited.

  • And that's about halfway through this speech where he

  • says, "You have to do what you love.

  • And if you haven't found it yet, keep looking.

  • Don't settle."

  • So, again, if you go to these social media reactions, you go

  • to the news reports that surround the speech, it's

  • pretty clear how people interpreted what Steve Jobs

  • was saying there.

  • They interpret him as saying, guys, if you want to love what

  • you do for your living, you need to figure out what you

  • love, and then you need to go match this to your job, and

  • then you'll have a career that you love.

  • This was people's interpretation.

  • Now, in popular slang we often summarize this with the phrase

  • "follow your passion." Jobs didn't say the phrase "follow

  • your passion," but this was people's interpretation of

  • what he meant with that point in his talk.

  • So, of course, Jobs was not the first person to introduce

  • this idea that you should follow your passion.

  • In fact, I actually went back to research where

  • did this come from.

  • When did this phrase enter into our cultural

  • conversation?

  • Right?

  • What's the history of this phrase there right now that

  • seems so universal?

  • And once again, because I seem to rely on Google for just

  • about everything I do, I used Google's Ngram Viewer.

  • Do you guys know this tool from Google Labs?

  • So I used Google's Ngram Viewer to try to understand

  • where this phrase came from.

  • So if you don't know this tool, you can put in a phrase.

  • And it will actually go through the--

  • Google's corpus of digitized books and try to understand

  • the occurrences of this phrase in the printed English

  • language over time.

  • So you can put "follow your passion" into this tool and

  • see where does it show up in printed books, and when do we

  • actually see it raised.

  • And I was actually surprised.

  • Here's my early-morning trivia question--

  • when you think the first decade was that we actually

  • see the phrase "follow your passion" show up in the

  • printed English language?

  • What would you guess?

  • AUDIENCE: '60s.

  • CAL NEWPORT: '60s.

  • AUDIENCE: '80s.

  • CAL NEWPORT: '80s.

  • AUDIENCE: 1700s.

  • CAL NEWPORT: I don't think they go back that far in the

  • Ngram Viewer.

  • But I'm sure if they did, it might be there.

  • It was actually in the 1940s and '50s.

  • There was a play in which a group of three woodcutters

  • stood around.

  • And someone uttered for the first time that I can find in

  • the printed English language, "Follow your passion." But

  • they were talking about a different type of passion, and

  • I wouldn't recommend using this play as the foundation

  • for your career advice.

  • So that was the '50s.

  • You see a kind of spike up throughout the '60s as that

  • play is reprinted.

  • It's really the 1980s that we start to see "follow your

  • passion" show up in the context of career advice.

  • In the '90s that graph of occurrences

  • begins to trend upwards.

  • By the early 2000s, it's really

  • spiked and hit its peak.

  • By the time Jobs stood up there and gave his speech at

  • Stanford Stadium , "follow your passion" had become a

  • sort of de facto piece of advice for American career

  • planners and seekers.

  • It got to the point where non-technical career guides

  • don't bother anymore to try to explain what the strategy is

  • or try to give a justification for why

  • this is a good strategy.

  • They assume you know it.

  • They assume that you agree that it's the right strategy.

  • They just jump right into how do you figure out what you're

  • passionate about, how do we build up the courage to go

  • after our passion.

  • So when Jobs stood up there and said something that people

  • interpreted as saying "follow your passion," this was not

  • the introduction of the idea.

  • It was more like the idea was being canonized.

  • So we can think of this as sort of the de facto moment

  • when "follow your passion" became the

  • American career gospel.

  • I mean, this is how we think about building a meaningful

  • career in this country.

  • So as I mentioned, this got people very excited, if you

  • look at the reports surrounding the talk.

  • We shouldn't be surprised that they got excited.

  • If you look at this idea "follow your passion"

  • objectively, we see that it's a sort of astonishingly

  • appealing concept.

  • Because it tells us that not only can you have this working

  • life in which you love what you do and it's very

  • meaningful and engaging, but that it's actually not that

  • hard to get there.

  • It's a simple equation.

  • You have to figure out what you love, which maybe takes

  • you a month of introspection.

  • You do some strength finders or whatever.

  • You got to figure out what you love, and then you

  • match it to your work.

  • Problem solved.

  • You'll love what you do for a living.

  • So it's sort of a astonishingly

  • appealing piece of advice.

  • But here's the problem.

  • The problem is that "follow your passion," in addition to

  • be astonishingly appealing, also happens to be

  • astonishingly bad advice.

  • And that's the idea that brought me here

  • today for this talk.

  • So I just published this new book, and the idea of this

  • book was to answer a simple question.

  • Why do some people end up loving what they do for a

  • living, while so many other people don't?

  • Now, obviously I'm young.

  • So this book was not me saying I will now draw for my years

  • of career wisdom and share my advice, having been in the

  • career market for two years now, if you

  • don't count grad school.

  • The point was I didn't have these answers.

  • I was at a key transition point in my own

  • early working life.

  • I was just finishing up my academic training, was about

  • to enter the academic job market.

  • And if this is done right, a professorship is supposed to

  • be a job for life.

  • So I was about to do what might have been my first and

  • last job interviews of my life.

  • And on the other hand, I had these really tight geographic

  • constraints, and it was a really bad academic market.

  • So there was this chance that I would have more or less have

  • to start from scratch after having trained for something.

  • So in that period of transition I said if there's

  • any time in my life that I need to understand how people

  • build careers they love, this has to be the time when I

  • understand this.

  • If I wait 10 more years, it might be too late.

  • So the book actually came out of me needing an answer for

  • that question.

  • It doesn't chronicle my own wisdom.

  • It chronicles my own quest to get this

  • wisdom from other people.

  • So you can think of the book as roughly being in two parts.

  • The first part I lay out my argument for why "follow your

  • passion" is actually bad advice if your goal is to end

  • up passionate about what you do for a living.

  • And then, roughly speaking, the second part is about,

  • well, what should you do instead.

  • If you study people who do end up loving what they do, if

  • they're not following their passion, what was it that they

  • did instead.

  • And that's more or less the second part.

  • So I thought what I would do today was tell two stories.

  • I can tell one story from the first part, and we can draw

  • some lessons from that about why I think "follow your

  • passion" is bad advice.

  • And then I'll tell a story from the second part, and then

  • we can draw some lessons from that about what I observed

  • seems to work better instead.

  • And then we can go to questions after that.

  • So let's jump right in.

  • The first story, I want to return to Steve Jobs.

  • But now I want to rewind time back a little further.

  • Let's say you had a time machine and you could go back

  • to meet a young Steve Jobs.

  • Probably the first thing you would do is go buy Apple

  • stock, but let's say you go back even earlier than that in

  • a high-school age Steve Jobs.

  • The biographical sources we have today suggest that if you

  • talk to a young Steve Jobs, you would not come away with

  • the idea that he was passionate about building a

  • technology company.

  • He did not have at that point in his life a passion for

  • changing the world through technology.

  • Right?

  • So Steve Jobs did not go to Berkeley to study electrical

  • engineering, which is what you would have done in that time

  • and that place if you were really passionate about

  • electronics.

  • And he didn't go to Stanford or UCLA to study business,

  • which is probably what you would have done in that time

  • and that place if you're very passionate about

  • entrepreneurship and business.

  • But he instead went to Reed College, a liberal arts school

  • up in Oregon.

  • He studied history, studied dance.

  • Pretty soon afterwards he dropped out and hung out on

  • campus, walking around barefoot, experimenting with

  • sort of extreme diets, bumming free meals from the Hari

  • Krishna temple.

  • Eventually, he got fed up with being completely destitute,

  • came back to California, took a night shift job at Atari.

  • And that was very specific, because he wanted flexibility

  • and not too much responsibility.

  • And he began to study Eastern Mysticism, way more seriously.

  • It had just arrived on the shores of the West Coast in

  • this period.

  • He went on a mendicant's journey to

  • India in this point.

  • Months' long mendicant's journey to India, came back,

  • started to study seriously at the Los Altos Zen Center, and

  • began to spend an increasing amount of time with the All

  • One commune upstate.

  • So the point of this is that is a portrait of someone who

  • is seeking.

  • The classic example of someone young, early in their life,

  • trying to figure out what life's about, what they want

  • to do with their life.

  • A lot of us go through this stage, but Jobs being Jobs

  • couldn't just read Kerouac.

  • He had to actually go to India and spend three months,

  • because he's intense about everything he does.

  • But he's basically reflecting something that a lot of us

  • went through ourselves.

  • Trying to understand what are we doing here, what's the

  • meaning of life.

  • He was in a seeking mode.

  • But what's clear about that is this was certainly not someone

  • with a crystal-clear vision of I am passionate about starting

  • a technology company, and I'm going to find a way to do that

  • one way or the other.

  • It was not at all his mind frame in the years leading up

  • Apple Computer.

  • So Apple Computer, how did it come about?

  • I think the right word is that him and Woz stumbled into the

  • opportunity.

  • Woz had been working on a circuit board for what was

  • essentially the Apple I. Steve Jobs had recently met Paul

  • Terrell, who had one of the first computer stores in the

  • world up in Mountain View.

  • So Jobs came back and said, look, this circuit board was

  • popular at the Homebrew Computing Club.

  • I want to sell you 50 so you can sell it to the hobbyists

  • around here.

  • An earlier biographer of Jobs, Jeffrey Young, actually

  • crunched the numbers.

  • And they were looking to make around 1,000 to $2,000 profit

  • off of that exchange.

  • And I thought that number was low.

  • So I even got back in touch with Paul Terrell recently,

  • and he confirmed the details of it.

  • Yeah.

  • He came in to sell 50 of these things to hobbyists basically.

  • It was a small-time transaction.

  • They had done several other quick money-making schemes

  • like this before.

  • But Paul Terrell said to Jobs, I don't want

  • to buy circuit boards.

  • I want to buy fully assembled computers.

  • Paul Terrell had the vision that there was going to be a

  • market for computers as appliances,

  • that this was coming.

  • And Jobs, to his credit, understood that opportunity

  • when he saw it.

  • And he went at it full out.

  • He did some trickiness, COD ordering.

  • He didn't have money.

  • But he got those together, and Apple Computer was eventually

  • borne out of that.

  • So there's a couple lessons to draw from that story.

  • The first lesson is the path to passion is often way more

  • complicated than simply figuring out in advance this

  • is what I want to do and then going out and doing it.

  • So when looked at Jobs's story there, he did not have a

  • preexisting passion to go start a technology company.

  • His path in the Apple Computer and the passion he had for

  • that company was more complicated than him figuring

  • out in advance what he wanted to do.

  • So if you go out and study people like Jobs, who ended up

  • loving their work -- and I studied this extensively

  • researching the book-- you find that that more

  • complicated path is more the rule than the exception.

  • That it's actually very rare to find someone who really did

  • have clarity about what they were passionate about in

  • advance and then went after it to form their career that

  • ended up being a real source of satisfaction.

  • The paths there are often way more complicated.

  • One of my favorite quotes about this is from the NPR

  • host Ira Glass, "This American Life" host, who is someone who

  • loves his work.

  • And there's this great interview online where some

  • college students come to Glass to ask him, how do we build a

  • career like yours.

  • And he says there's this idea in the movie that you should

  • follow your dreams.

  • I don't buy that.

  • He starts talking for a while about how you have to force

  • skills to come and it's really hard.

  • And when he sees their faces fall, he finally says, guys, I

  • see you're trying to figure this all out in the abstract,

  • and I think that's your tragic mistake.

  • So I like the way Glass put it.

  • The idea that you can figure out in the abstract what

  • you're supposed to do with your career is not just a

  • mistake, but it's a tragic mistake.

  • And I think we all sort of feel that.

  • Right?

  • I mean, this notion that if you think that you can figure

  • out in advance what you're supposed to do, well, what

  • happens when you don't have that clear passion?

  • It's confusion.

  • It's anxiety.

  • It's chronic job hopping.

  • It's reading too many blogs, spending too much time on the

  • four-hour workweek.

  • You know what I mean?

  • This is what happens if you get too caught up in this

  • notion that with one grand gesture you can be loving your

  • life next week.

  • So that's the first lesson to draw from that story.

  • The path to passion in reality when you really study it is

  • often way more complicated than what that

  • advice tells us.

  • The second lesson to draw from that story is that we really

  • don't have any reason to believe that that advice

  • should work.

  • We're so used to hearing "follow your passion" that we

  • think about it as just being self-evident.

  • Well, of course, that's a good thing to do.

  • But if we put on our anthropological hats and say,

  • well, let's actually look at this advice, what's it really

  • saying, you notice that it's some really strong claims.

  • Claims that really beg supporting, and it's hard to

  • find that support.

  • So "follow your passion," first of all, claims that most

  • of us have preexisting passions we can follow.

  • In order to follow a passion, everyone

  • has to have my passion.

  • Right?

  • People talk about, well, I think my passion is this, I

  • think my passion is that.

  • "Follow your passion" relies on this idea that we have

  • preexisting passions that for some reason are well suited to

  • a modern knowledge work economy and that we just have

  • to identify those.

  • We don't have evidence that that's the case.

  • So one study I talk about in the book is a Canadian

  • psychologist who's an expert on passion.

  • He developed "the" survey that psychologists use to determine

  • is this a passion of yours, or is this just an interest.

  • He gave it to 500 Canadian university students.

  • And while most of them did have passions, when I went

  • through the breakdown, it seemed to be roughly 4% of

  • those passions were relevant to a career or a job.

  • The most popular passion by far was hockey, if that helps.

  • Again, it's possible that there's this sort of

  • astonishing collection of hockey talent at this school

  • and they could follow their passion and all go to the NHL.

  • But more likely, the point is if you told these 500 students

  • figure out what you're passionate about and follow

  • it, all but 4% were going to be in trouble.

  • So we don't have a lot evidence that most people have

  • preexisting passion.

  • The second claim being made by this advice that you should

  • follow your passion is that matching your work to a

  • preexisting interest is going to make you have an engaging

  • and satisfying career.

  • It sort of seems self-evident at first.

  • But if you actually dive into this sort of voluminous

  • research on workplace satisfaction--

  • it's an incredibly well studied field.

  • And it turns out that building a satisfying, engaging career

  • is a complicated thing to do.

  • And the idea that we can reduce it down to all that

  • matters is that you've matched this job to something you're

  • interested in just doesn't match the literature.

  • So yesterday I was on NPR with a Harvard Business School

  • professor who talked at some detailed length, I will say,

  • about her research on this topic.

  • And she could easily fill an hour talking about the subtle,

  • detail things they found about what really matters in making

  • a creative career that's satisfying.

  • So this idea that I was interested in this and I

  • matched it to my career is all you need to make a satisfying

  • career, again, is just not backed by the evidence.

  • So that's the second lesson about "follow your passion" is

  • that we don't have any evidence that this should

  • actually work.

  • So that's my case against that advice.

  • It doesn't match the stories we find in reality, and we

  • don't have a lot of support for it.

  • So we can move to the more positive section.

  • Well, if "follow your passion" doesn't work, what are people

  • doing that do end up loving what they do?

  • So when I went out there, when I studied people who love what

  • they do, I did find a pattern that shows up pretty often.

  • Not everyone followed it, but it was pretty common.

  • And it is different than following your passion.

  • So that's what I want to talk about in the second story.

  • I want to tell the story of someone whose path, I think,

  • is a great case study in this pattern so we can draw lessons

  • from a pattern about his story.

  • So let's talk about Bill McKibben.

  • So Bill McKibben is a writer.

  • Some of you might know him.

  • He writes environmental books.

  • "End of Nature" is what made him famous, but he has a dozen

  • different books out.

  • He's also an activist now.

  • He was arrested last year in front of the White House for a

  • climate change protest.

  • Anyway, so Bill McKibben is someone who's always

  • fascinated me, because his life, to me, always resonated.

  • He sort of lives in this cabin in Vermont and writes these

  • important books, and it all seemed very cool to me.

  • So I somewhat stalkerishly have read basically everything

  • written about him.

  • I've gone to his events.

  • I probably know as much about Bill McKibben as his analyst.

  • So I don't know that's a good thing, but this is sort of a

  • trait of nonfiction authors.

  • We have to obsessively follow things.

  • So here's Bill McKibben's story.

  • Short story is he shows up at Harvard as an undergraduates,

  • so he's a smart guy.

  • Now, I don't know if there's Harvard people here.

  • But at Harvard grades aren't really the thing that you

  • focus on, because Harvard you get an A for getting half the

  • letters in your name correct when you signed the test.

  • That's not what people care about.

  • I'm a Dartmouth guy, so I have to--

  • this is how the

  • Dartmouth-Harvard rivalry works.

  • Dartmouth makes really witty put-downs about Harvard, and

  • then Harvard forgets we exist.

  • So that's how that rivalry goes, but I take my punches.

  • So it's all about extracurriculars there

  • for the most part.

  • Right?

  • They have these serious, full-time job style

  • extracurriculars.

  • If you don't, you sort of feel like you're a slacker.

  • So McKibben got involved with the Crimson, which is the

  • student newspaper.

  • And he worked hard there.

  • He worked his way up in the ranks, ended up

  • in an editor position.

  • Left Harvard, could parlay the editor position at the Crimson

  • to getting a staff position at The New Yorker.

  • Not writing McPhee style 10,000 word essays, doing the

  • little talk at a town things, but that's where you start at

  • The New Yorker.

  • So he goes to The New Yorker.

  • Now he's working with some of the best editors and writers

  • in the world, again honing his craft.

  • And where his story takes this nice pivot is that just as

  • he's becoming known in that New York world, he leaves The

  • New Yorker.

  • He moves to a cabin in Vermont.

  • He has a book deal to write a book about something that

  • people weren't really talking about at the

  • time, global warming.

  • And he wrote "The End of Nature," which was sort of one

  • of the first big books about this topic.

  • It put him on the map as an important thinker in

  • environmental thinking and allowed him to then have this

  • career where he could live up in Vermont and write books

  • about topics that were important to him.

  • He eventually got a thinker in residence position at

  • Middlebury, and now he's doing activism.

  • So it's a career that he's very passionate about.

  • But it's a good example--

  • and the reason I'm telling you is because it is a good

  • example of the pattern that comes up often when you study

  • people who do love what they do.

  • So let's figure out what is that pattern, what did he do

  • that we can learn from.

  • So the first observation about his path is often the most

  • controversial observation I make when I talk about this

  • topic, which is what he did for a living did not matter

  • all that much.

  • So he built the life that he was

  • passionate about as a writer.

  • I would conjecture that there's any number of

  • different fields in which Bill McKibben could have built up a

  • working life that he loved equally as much.

  • There's nothing intrinsic in his DNA about writing.

  • There's no mutated gene that evolved a couple hundred years

  • ago that means you are destined to be a writer.

  • So what mattered for McKibben?

  • Well, based on all the interviews I've read with him

  • and the books I've read, it seems that what really matters

  • from him is more general.

  • That he wants autonomy in his life, and he wants to be

  • having an impact on the world.

  • He achieved this as an environmental writer.

  • But I would say in conjecture that any career path would

  • allow him to have a strong sense of autonomy and a strong

  • sense of an impact on the world, would have been a

  • career path that he would have found just as much passion in

  • and he would have enjoyed just as much.

  • And this is something that came up time and again.

  • When you study people who love what they do, the specifics of

  • the work is not what's important.

  • There's almost always some general lifestyle traits.

  • Maybe you want autonomy.

  • Maybe you want power and respect.

  • Maybe you really want an impact.

  • Maybe you really want to be creative.

  • Maybe what you're looking for is a great amount of time

  • affluence, that you want to have a schedule where you can

  • have work play a very little role into it.

  • Different lifestyle traits resonate differently with

  • different people.

  • But ultimately, it seems from my research that this is what

  • matters in someone feeling a real sense of satisfaction and

  • engagement in their career, that their career has given

  • them the sort of more general traits that matter.

  • And these traits are more general than specific jobs.

  • There's often many, many different paths that can lead

  • you to these traits.

  • So there's no need to sweat the decision of what is my

  • true calling, what is the job I'm meant to do.

  • Because it doesn't matter.

  • The specifics are much less important than

  • these general traits.

  • So that's sort of the first observation.

  • The specifics of what you do might be less

  • important than you think.

  • The second observation is that McKibben started by getting

  • really good at something.

  • So in his case he got really good at writing, and this took

  • him some time.

  • He had to go through the Crimson.

  • He had to work his way up to The New Yorker.

  • But he got really good at some writing, and

  • that was how he started.

  • This pattern is remarkably consistent in the lives of

  • people who end up really loving their work.

  • They have this period where they build up what I like to

  • call a rare and valuable skill.

  • And when you think of this in the context of the first

  • lesson, that suddenly makes sense.

  • Right?

  • We can start putting these pieces together.

  • The way they build satisfying careers is they start by

  • building up rare and valuable skills.

  • This gives them an actual value in the marketplace, in

  • the work marketplace.

  • Now they can look to these general traits that they want

  • in their working life, be it autonomy or impact like

  • McKibben or something else depending what

  • resonates for you.

  • And they say these traits are rare and valuable, too.

  • They'd be great to have.

  • Therefore, they're not being handed out

  • on the street corner.

  • I need something rare and valuable to offer in return

  • for these rare and valuable traits that are going to make

  • my career great.

  • So they are then able to leverage their rare and

  • valuable skills to gain more of these traits in their

  • working life.

  • That's exactly what McKibben did.

  • If he said as a senior at Harvard I want to live a life

  • that's autonomous and has a big impact, I'm going to move

  • to Vermont and write these big books, it

  • wouldn't have worked.

  • He didn't have enough writing skill yet to write "End of

  • Nature." He had to build up more of a rare and valuable

  • skill to actually offer in return for the rare and

  • valuable trait of being able to live in Vermont and write

  • books about what he wanted and have them sell and support him

  • and have an impact.

  • So this equation is in some sense my replacement for

  • "follow your passion," and this is sort of based off of

  • observing actual people's lives.

  • They start by building up rare and valuable skills.

  • They then use these skills as leverage to gain the type of

  • general traits that matter to them, and that's why they care

  • less about what specific job they do and care a lot more

  • about how they're approaching the job they have.

  • In my building skills, have I plateaued?

  • How can I continue to build skills?

  • In the book I call it "career capital." How big is my career

  • capital store?

  • If I want to enjoy my working life more, maybe I should look

  • at increasing that store faster.

  • So it's a different way of looking at these same issues.

  • And if we go back, we see, actually, this is exactly what

  • Steve Jobs himself did.

  • He didn't have some clear preexisting passion he wanted

  • to start a technology company.

  • But when he saw an opportunity, he went after it,

  • and he went after it intensely.

  • He said, if I'm going to make a go at this computer thing,

  • I'm going to do it at the absolute limit of my ability.

  • I want to be so good that I can't be ignored.

  • And by doing that, by building machines that were better than

  • anyone else was able to build that could blow the MITS

  • Altair out of the water, the most advanced personal

  • computer machines at the time that were in existence, he

  • built up a huge store of career capital.

  • He was able to more or less control the way that his

  • working life progressed.

  • He couldn't control exactly how Apple went, but he could

  • be working on technology.

  • He could set the tone for Apple.

  • He could go do these other companies afterwards.

  • He built a life that he was very passionate about.

  • Not by following a passion, but by passionately doing the

  • work that he was doing.

  • So to bring it back to where we very began, right where we

  • started, right with Jobs, we can summarize everything we

  • said today by noting that when it comes to thinking about

  • your own career and building a career that's meaningful to

  • you, we can look to Steve Jobs.

  • But we should do what Steve Jobs actually did

  • and not what he said.

  • Thank you.

  • [CLAPPING]

  • CAL NEWPORT: So I guess we just do questions, so yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: So it seems--

  • I really liked your talk.

  • And it seemed like a lot of what you're saying

  • seems true to me.

  • But it also seems that if you really want to build up that

  • skill, don't you have to love the skill that you're building

  • up to build it up?

  • Because if I wasn't interested in computers, I don't think I

  • would ever have become a reasonably competent

  • programmer.

  • Right?

  • CAL NEWPORT: Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: Because it would be too painful.

  • CAL NEWPORT: Yeah.

  • I call this the argument from preexisting passion, because

  • it's one of the more common questions that actually comes

  • up when you talk about this philosophy about how people

  • build work they love.

  • There's actually interesting research on this.

  • There's research on how virtuosos, for example, build

  • up their virtuoso level of skill.

  • This came out of Bloom's work at University of Chicago.

  • And they studied a whole variety of virtuosos.

  • Not just musicians and athletes, but also

  • mathematicians and scientists.

  • And they tried to understand how did they build up this

  • huge level of skill.

  • And their most surprising finding was there was not a

  • clear, burning passion in advance.

  • And, in fact, what tends to happen when people build up a

  • huge amount of skill is that it's a snowball effect.

  • So something happens early on that gives you an

  • interest in a field.

  • So you might have an interest in computers early on in your

  • life because some encounter with them seemed

  • interesting to you.

  • That interest gives you enough intrinsic motivation to get

  • through that first stage of deliberate practice where you

  • build up some skill and get a little bit of separation from

  • other people and oh, yeah, you're good with computers.

  • That becomes part of your identity.

  • That gives you enough intrinsic motivation to do the

  • next hard stage of deliberate practice.

  • You come away from that.

  • And now you've separated yourself more, and you feel

  • more strongly about it.

  • So this is what happens is that over time the snowball

  • effect pushes up your ability in something better and

  • better, because at each stage you feel like

  • you're better at it.

  • And it feels more and more like your identity.

  • In other words, an initial interest blossoms into a

  • stronger and stronger passion as time goes on.

  • So what I counsel people is if something is interesting to

  • you, the research says that's enough to begin the skill

  • acquisition phase.

  • It is a really long road.

  • It's thousands of hours of deliberate practice, but you

  • can be assured that you're not going to have

  • to do that all blind.

  • As you move along, you're going to have little

  • milestones of accomplishment which is going to give you

  • more motivation to get to the next one.

  • AUDIENCE: Is this that 10,000 hours thing?

  • CAL NEWPORT: Yeah.

  • So 10,000 hours is Anders Ericsson's rule that for

  • expert level performers, it takes usually 10,000 hours of

  • deliberate practice, which works out to about 10 years of

  • more or less full-time work.

  • My argument is that in a lot of fields, especially

  • knowledge work fields, very few people are doing any

  • deliberate practice.

  • Deliberate practice like a surgeon would do to get better

  • at surgery-- they require 10,000 hours to

  • become great surgeons--

  • is very uncomfortable.

  • You have to stretch yourself.

  • You have to be systematic about here's where I'm weak,

  • and I'm going to have to do what I don't like doing to get

  • better at it.

  • Most people in knowledge work don't do that.

  • We avoid discomfort.

  • We use email to get away from any sort of mental discomfort

  • if something requiring focus.

  • So I conjecture that in knowledge work fields , if you

  • put systematic deliberate practice into what you do,

  • you're going to find a separation from your peers

  • well south of 10,000 hours.

  • So it might take 10,000 hours to become a chess grandmaster.

  • But it may only take a few hundred systematic work at

  • learning some, say, new programming paradigm to

  • actually open up a pretty large and invaluable gap.

  • Yes.

  • AUDIENCE: I really like the notion of rare and valuable

  • skills, but I'm curious about valuable to who and how you

  • decide that it's valuable.

  • I raised my hand because I was talking about something

  • similar to my girlfriend.

  • And she said, but I really wanted to be a social worker.

  • But it turns out that being valuable to people who have no

  • money doesn't really get you that far.

  • CAL NEWPORT: Yeah.

  • Yeah.

  • This is a crucial point.

  • I think one of the more difficult points of the career

  • capital approach to work is understanding

  • where to build capital.

  • So something I noticed that caught my attention when I

  • studied people who had seemed to apply this philosophy is

  • that they tended to be people who either by design or

  • happenstance had had exposure to stars in their field or

  • otherwise people in their field whose current status

  • really resonated with them.

  • So they're rarely flying blind.

  • Right?

  • They have some sense of in my field this person sort of

  • represents where I'd like to get.

  • And now I can sort of understand what was the skill

  • that got him there.

  • What does he do that other people don't do?

  • Now, for a lot of people I studied, this was just

  • happenstance.

  • It's not a surprise why often you'll find someone successful

  • in a field has parents in that field.

  • Right?

  • That means they have this expert level knowledge of what

  • capital to build.

  • But I posit that once you understand that, you can go

  • out deliberately and try to find this information.

  • So when you're in a particular field, you can say who within

  • Google, for example, represents where I would like

  • to be with my career.

  • You can actually systematically go and try to

  • understand what do they do well that other people don't

  • that's given them that sort of control.

  • So I actually counsel people to systematically investigate

  • working backwards from stars, trying to understand what

  • specific skills are.

  • And I think it's really good to point out.

  • Because if you're not deliberate in trying to

  • understand what capital you should build, it's very hard

  • to get it right just by luck.

  • Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: Is there any kind of cutoff point?

  • You mentioned it could be 10 more years before you even

  • have these opportunities.

  • Right?

  • Is there any point at which the game changes, right, like

  • after a certain period of time in a career or down one track

  • it's more difficult to make a leap?

  • Sometimes you see people who are like, I have been in my

  • job at this advertising firm, and now I am a

  • beekeeper or whatever.

  • CAL NEWPORT: Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE:Is there a point at which it becomes more

  • difficult to change?

  • CAL NEWPORT: Well, it's a good question.

  • I think career capital as sort of a metaphor helps you

  • understand those type of decisions.

  • So I tell a story in my book about a marketing executive.

  • Exactly your example here.

  • Except for instead of the beekeeper, she quit and did a

  • four-month--

  • or four-week, actually, yoga instruction course to become a

  • yoga instructor in the New York area.

  • And by the end of that first year, she was on track for

  • making something like $15,000, which supposedly in the New

  • York area doesn't go as far as you might like it to be.

  • Career capital helps you understand what was flawed

  • about that move.

  • She had a huge amount of capital in marketing.

  • She had zero capital in yoga.

  • So by jumping to a four-week instructional course, she give

  • herself just a little bit of career capital.

  • Not very much at all.

  • So she shouldn't expect to be able to gain much great traits

  • in her life right away, because she doesn't have much

  • capital there.

  • So when you think about things like that, it helps temper the

  • impulse to try to start over or do something from scratch.

  • Because if you believe that it's building up capital and

  • leveraging it is what makes you love your work and not the

  • matching problem, I'm more meant for this job than that,

  • you'll be much less likely to jump into

  • something completely new.

  • Because you're actually retarding your progress at

  • having more control and leverage.

  • So I think this metaphor of career capital helps you

  • assess whether a change you're making is I'm bringing my

  • capital with me, but I'm bringing it into a new market

  • within my field that it's going to have some impact,

  • versus I'm leaving my capital on the table and doing

  • something completely new.

  • It allows you to have those nuances that without the

  • metaphor can get sort of confused.

  • Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: So I'm, I guess, old enough that I sort of missed

  • the whole "follow your passion" thing.

  • CAL NEWPORT: It was really my generation.

  • Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: And the advice that I got, although it was never

  • sort of so summarized in just a handful of words, was more

  • like try as many things as possible.

  • Don't be afraid to try things.

  • Don't be afraid to fail at them.

  • And does this in some ways might have the same end

  • result, as long as you're willing to be paying attention

  • to what you're doing and being persistent?

  • Is this--

  • CAL NEWPORT: Yeah.

  • It's an interesting point, because in some sense--

  • AUDIENCE: Is that bad advice or--

  • CAL NEWPORT: So I think it's good advice if it's within the

  • context of a particular career capital source,

  • if that makes sense.

  • So if you're building capital in technology, to expose

  • yourself to lots of things is actually a great way to find

  • potential opportunities asymmetries in the market,

  • someplace where you can really make a move

  • like Steve Jobs did.

  • But to be at Google and to also be exploring theater and

  • to also be exploring filmmaking and also be

  • exploring beekeeping, well, you're crossing strong career

  • capital division lines.

  • They're completely unrelated.

  • And then you run the risk of slowing down your acquisition

  • of capital in any particular.

  • So I always understand the sort of hybrid approach that

  • you have a general field in which you're building capital.

  • By doing exposure within there, you're actually gaining

  • more knowledge.

  • More expertise can actually help you build and apply it.

  • So I think that's where that advice is valuable.

  • I think it's dangerous when people apply too broadly and

  • are covering too many things that are way too disparate, if

  • that makes sense.

  • AUDIENCE: It does.

  • CAL NEWPORT: Again, what I'm sort of doing here is

  • geekifying something that's not geeky.

  • Right?

  • It's my life and my passion.

  • I'm a scientist.

  • I'm a computer scientist like you guys, so

  • you understand this.

  • So I'm coming at it from that point of view.

  • But I think it's helpful-- and I'm surprised that people

  • haven't done this before-- to have a bit of a more

  • systematic approach to this, even if it's a little bit

  • overkill in some cases.

  • I think it actually gives us lots of insight into these

  • sort of more fuzzy questions.

  • Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: If you were a parent and you wanted your kids to

  • [? learn ?], would it make sense to get them interested

  • in things that you believe will

  • someday be rare and valuable?

  • CAL NEWPORT: Well, it seems like it's more important if

  • you're young, that you need to build up the ability to build

  • up skill, to focus deliberately on something.

  • I see college, for example--

  • you are picking up specific skills there, but you're also

  • picking up the ability to do tough, intellectual

  • challenges.

  • Or if you're given a term paper, you have a month to go

  • understand this topic and write about it intelligently.

  • The reason you should try to get an A on that is not

  • because you're looking for a job in which you're going to

  • have to write term papers for a living.

  • It's because you're going to be in a knowledge work

  • economy, and you're going to have to tackle tough,

  • cognitively demanding tasks.

  • And you want to do it not only well, but stretch yourself

  • while you're doing it.

  • So my assumption-- and I'm not a parent yet, but in two

  • weeks I will be.

  • So I'm thinking quite a bit about this--

  • is but focus less--

  • I'm thinking that I will be focusing less.

  • We'll see.

  • We'll see what actually happens.

  • But I will be focusing less on the specifics of you need to

  • choose right now what you want to do, because that goes to

  • this whole myth that you have a preexisting aptitude, a

  • passion that you have to uncover.

  • And really put the more focus on working hard at something,

  • taking something and building the skill because that's--

  • ability to do that is what's going to serve you well, not

  • the particular skills you pick up when you're 16 years old.

  • Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: I'm sorry.

  • Have you discovered any best practices in terms of like

  • daily habits that knowledge workers do to

  • mimic deliberate practice?

  • I mean, you mentioned being distracted by email.

  • We all work at a company where we probably get hundreds of

  • emails a day.

  • And it's very easy to just like push the email button.

  • CAL NEWPORT: Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: What are the ways that like if I wanted to put

  • in, even if it's a couple hundred hours of deliberate

  • practice are there things that high performers do that--

  • CAL NEWPORT: Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: --lead more to success?

  • CAL NEWPORT: Yeah.

  • There are.

  • There are.

  • In fact, I have a chapter in the book where I take two

  • particular high performers, a venture capitalist and a

  • television writer, and I tried to understand how they apply

  • deliberate practice in their work right now and how they

  • used it to get where they were.

  • And there's tips.

  • Like the venture capitalist actually used a spreadsheet to

  • track his time.

  • And, in particular, to track is email time.

  • And he had these well-chosen goals for how much time he

  • should be spending on email because he wasn't getting much

  • value out of there as compared to actually vetting deals.

  • And he would track his time daily to make sure that he hit

  • his numbers.

  • Because he was tracking it, it forced him to check much less

  • often in the batch, because he had particular numbers that he

  • was trying to hit.

  • And that helped him become more efficient.

  • The television writer, similarly, his whole thing was

  • that he had--

  • he was very clear on what good meant.

  • He had a whole group of sort of collaborators and advisers

  • that could look at scripts and say what was bad with them.

  • And he wrote this sort of intense amount of writing.

  • He was working on four or five projects at a time when he was

  • trying to break in and getting intense feedback on them,

  • which is another piece of deliberate practice.

  • So there are a lot of specific strategies.

  • I talk about some of them.

  • I think having the general idea of deliberate practice

  • which I go through can help you craft your own.

  • I also think that it's a rich topic that needs to be

  • explored by itself.

  • This is one of the number-one questions I get.

  • People are really interested in the specifics of deliberate

  • practice of knowledge work.

  • I think this is actually going to be a convergence.

  • It's going to be a big deal in the next five, ten years.

  • So you're asking the right questions.

  • Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: Let me back up a question on what you teach

  • your kids, for whatever it's worth.

  • My wife and I have looked to the professionals and so forth

  • for our kids.

  • So it worked out decently well.

  • But, in fact, David Brooks and folks have written about a

  • fair amount of this and a lot of-- the thing that you really

  • learn from your parents, if you're lucky, which my kids

  • weren't necessarily, is sort of fortitude

  • and stick to itiveness.

  • The idea that you don't give up, that you learn how to

  • concentrate deeply on a problem.

  • CAL NEWPORT: Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: It's a much more fundamental, more attitudinal

  • approach to life, approach to stuff thing, than anything

  • that has something to do with your specific

  • professional skills.

  • That seems to be better correlated with

  • how successful kids--

  • how successful parents have successful kids.

  • CAL NEWPORT: Yeah.

  • That's right.

  • And Angela Duckworth's research on grit, actually, is

  • sort of in vogue right now, and it captures a

  • lot of these ideas.

  • I think it's absolutely true.

  • I work with a theoretical computer scientist at

  • Georgetown who's a phenomenal problem solver.

  • It turns out his dad was a mathematician that used to

  • give him these puzzles when he was young, and he would slip

  • in there every once in a while unsolved problems.

  • And it gave him great practice with sticking with problems

  • and working on them and not expecting to get an answer

  • right away.

  • It turns out that's exactly a skill you need to be a

  • successful professional mathematician, because you

  • have to be able to just I'm going to spend 10 hours with

  • this problem today.

  • And I don't know.

  • Maybe it's unsolvable.

  • Maybe it's not, but you're getting the hours in.

  • AUDIENCE: But it probably generalizes, too.

  • CAL NEWPORT: I think it absolutely does, which is why

  • I think thinking of school as practicing, taking on hard

  • intellectual challenges, not only doing them well, but

  • stretching your ability is a great way to think about it at

  • least in today's economy.

  • All right.

  • Well, again, thank you.

  • It was great to come here.

  • It was great to meet you all.

  • If you're interested, the book is called "So Good They Can't

  • Ignore You." Get it on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or wherever.

  • I want to thank you again and thank you for

  • having me come speak.

  • I really enjoyed it.

  • Thank you.

CAL NEWPORT: Good morning, everybody.

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

A2 初級

So Good They Can't ignore You|カル・ニューポート|Talks at Google (So Good They Can't Ignore You | Cal Newport | Talks at Google)

  • 27 5
    Caurora に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語