Remix.run Logo
amunozo 4 hours ago

The hardest thing is to know what's your best fit. Any advice?

toast0 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Like with many things, finding the best is hard, finding a good enough fit is a lot more attainable and maybe should be the goal.

If you work on projects in groups often, you might be able to find what fits you by what things you end doing especially if you do those parts well. Do you read and interpret the directions, do you do the assembly, do you keep the group on task, do you verify the output is acceptable, do you figure out how to proceed when there's a problem, etc.

Also, what tasks do people who know you ask you to help with; especially if those people have choices for who to ask and then specifically ask you. Those are things that likely fit you; especially if you get enjoyment out of doing those tasks, beyond the enjoyment you might get from doing any task for someone. Sometimes, you might get asked to do these things for reasons other than you're good at them, or you may be good at them and also hate doing it, etc; so like be aware of that.

If you're lucky, what fits you is distinctive and commercially apprechiated. But not everyone has those fits, so it's good to also look for things that fit well enough to pay the bills. You may need to develop other skills to get into a position to use your good fit as well.

GarnetFloride an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you an extrovert or introvert? Look at how you spend your time. Do you have to spend time with people or have to be alone sometimes?

What do you do when you have nothing else to do? I know that's really hard these days with all the distractions we have. So maybe what do you watch or read about? What are your interests?

But the world changes. I started out as an engineer and that got shipped to China. I pivoted to IT, shipped to India. Pivoted to technical writing and now there's LLMs.

I figure things out and share to make it easier for others too. That works in a lot of industries.

doug_durham 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What do you find yourself gravitating to? What part of your job comes easiest? That things are easy to you that other’s find difficult? What do you spend time learning more about even when you don’t have to? Those are directional. For me the first time I started writing code I knew that’s what I’d need to do for a living.

lugu an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ask people who know you well what you are talented for. Oftentimes we don't see it ourselves. As you get good at something, it become easier, and you think of it as a given. On the opposite, we tend to over appreciate what is difficult for us.

adrianwaj 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Turn procrastination into pragmatism.

Switch from service-to-self to service-to-others, or vice versa.

See your mind as shut gates that can be opened to something already perfect.

Make your sub-conscious super-conscious - any tips there?

I remember Prince (musician) said he would receive things from God and send them back to source.

Cut the strings that make you a puppet??

anonym29 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A lot of pop-psychology doesn't hold up when subject to empirical review, but OCEAN / "Big 5" does, and it's probably a decent starting point.

E.g. if you are low in extraversion and agreeableness, you probably wouldn't make a good nurse or waiter, but you might not make a bad lawyer or engineer.

whiplash451 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> low in extraversion and agreeableness

I don’t know that these are awesome features for an engineer. There’s a big unsaid cost to this in my experience

derektank 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If we’re being honest, highly agreeable, extroverted, conscientious, and non-neurotic people are simply going to be better suited to all forms of employment than the inverse. But, since personality is pretty durable, it’s easier to try and find a career where your weak spots are detriments, but not crippling.

Enginerrrd 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I disagree a bit with the neuroticism and agreeableness being so obvious. There are many professions I would be TERRIBLE at precisely because I am so agreeable. And, I have real world experience with a business partner that is MUCH higher in neuroticism than I, and much less agreeable. Both sides of that spectrum have their strengths. We often have opposite approaches sometimes, but both can work, and one isn’t obviously better in all circumstances.

And introversion can be a wonderful asset in some professions as well.

However, I do agree that conscientiousness is probably pretty universally better.

roughly 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm highly agreeable, and I've had to learn not to be. Knowing when to challenge people - "strategic non-agreeableness" - is extremely valuable. I've also made most of my career off being somewhat neurotic - I've described the core of my job as "finding things to panic about before they happen" (I went on Prozac a while back and caused an incident in the first couple weeks during uptake because my anxiety didn't trigger about something during a deploy). As far as extroversion - friends of mine who are genuine extroverts about went crazy during the pandemic, while I and a few other introvert friends got some of our best work ever done during that period. There's a spectrum - you can't be a misanthrope, but being able to take (and stand) quiet time to focus on a problem is absolutely an asset. With regards to conscientiousness, this often manifests in the workplace as an unwillingness to deviate from the plan when circumstances demand it and a preference for adding process as a kind of panacea for any kind of failure or delay, and at risk of offending the more conscientious among us, I have not found that a recipe for success.

rizzom5000 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is research that suggests highly agreeable people do not do as well e.g. negotiation tactics. What is probably true is that is good to 'appear' agreeable. The same research suggests you are correct about the other 3 traits.

sporadicism 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree with this if what you mean is that employment generally requires conformity, passivity, accepting low autonomy, low creativity, etc. Otherwise, this isn't my experience.

anonym29 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A highly agreeable housing inspector isn't going to be better at their job than a disagreeable housing inspector. I want my housing inspector to be harsh, unforgiving, and not grant the benefit of the doubt.

A highly extroverted person isn't going to make for a better overnight custodial worker than someone who prefers a more solitary lifestyle.

An actor who can tap into the emotional currents of high neuroticism in their work can offer a more sincere and authentic performance than an emotionally flat one.

Low conscientiousness correlates with risk taking and can be an asset in roles where over-planning to the detriment of acting can be costly - think firefighters.

ahartmetz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Low agreeableness can be a positive up to a point. As a technical person, you shouldn't agree to do things that you know will not work. The technical facts have no agreeableness at all and need to be handled as such.

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
grebc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Might mean civil engineer.

portly 3 hours ago | parent [-]

More like an uncivil engineer