Really Hard question about Erin Brockovich

Hi,

You wrote:
> HIS UNFAIR ADVANTAGE (perhaps) is that he
> has discovered his passion and made it his
> purpose too.

That is a hell of an unfair advantage, when you think of it. Erin Brockovich accidentally discovered her passion / purpose--same goes for most people who possess the unfair advantage you mentioned.

I have a passion, only I can't make it my purpose because I can't make money at it. I have another thing that I can make money at, and that I would even term my Purpose, but I wouldn't do it Unless I made money at it.

OK, it's now official: life is Unfair!!

Here's the Hard Question I mentioned in my subject heading; this is one that that Astrologer guy in the wheelchair might find difficult:

Do you think people should insist on their passion and their purpose being the same thing? Or is it enough to have a purpose, and then make course corrections (as you show in one of your pictograms) so as to find a way to develop passion for it at a later time?

(Definition: I'm defining Purpose as 'something one was born to do.')

best,

-Boyd

Hi Boyd,

> (Definition: I'm defining Purpose as
> 'something one was born to do.')

You might want to re-think your defination.

In my mind, your purpose is who you ARE, not what you do.

Rob


Learn to Live on Purpose...

> I have a passion

Do the passion part of the time...
Do the thing you can make money part of the
time...
Find ways to reduce your expenditures(which
YOU can live with)

Use Dien's suggestion of finding a way to
accomplish more in less time ....

> Do you think people should insist on their
> passion and their purpose being the same
> thing?

No...not necessarily...if you can combine it
it's ideal but not necessary...

note at the water site how it came about:
the main purpose of the website owner is to
get the word out about water but his love
is fixing cars...he uses his business to promote
his mission when he can...

it's taken his toll on his family life which is unfortunate which is why I'm suggesting a way to find BALANCE between the two and eliminate non priority items and time wasters(you can live with)
in your life ...

Okay. So Stephen Hawking appears to have followed his passion. But has he really. I mean, really.

Lets face it, we're all pretty well interested in Stephen Hawking type of stuff, right?

Wouldn't it be great to be paid to study it? Sure it would. And if given the opportunity, you probably would.

Now put yourself in his place. He's stuck in a wheelchair and his prospects for a successful life of any note outside of academia are pretty remote.

When given the choices of "get paid to study and teach cosmology" or "spend the rest of your life being worthless and a drain on everyone around you" it would appear there is no choice. You go with what's better for you and those around you. And in his case, it was cosmology.

Also consider the "scientist" who gets the grant to go and study the mating habits of the purple-spotted bibby dippy beatle which only lives in a 50 square meter bit of rain-forest down in South America, and nowhere else on the planet.

That scientist, in my opinion, is doing everything in their power to be "kept" instead of having to stand on his own two feet in the real world.

He's not so much motivated by his love of the bibby dippy beatle, but by being able to rely on the system and do what he considers to be fun - science.

Now let me ask you, how would you feel about flipping burgers at MacDonalds if it paid $100 an hour?

At $5 an hour it might feel like a drag, but at $100 an hour... you'd probably be keen to get to work. You'd love it. Heck, at $100 an hour you might even go dig wholes with your hands and still love it.

Okay, so I'm going a bit overboard here. But it's the point that's important. And that is,

a lot of what you might think of as a drag would actually be very enjoyable and you'd be enthusiastic about it if you got more money in your hand for doing it.

We are all esentially still children... we want to do what we want and be kept. No thought of money, or bills, etc.

To be responsible for yourself is a big step up in the world. Much easier and desireable to have the responsibility handled by someone else.

This is what's so appealing about our democratic-socialist system to those who fear looking after themselves and having to perform.

But I digress... the point is,

our perception of a thing is directly related to the reward the thing gives.

If lawyers were suddenly relegated to earning $10 an hour and street sweepers earned $200+ an hour, how many people do you think would suddenly want to be street sweepers? And how many current street sweepers who hate their job would suddenly find it enjoyable and even look forward to going to work?

The higher the reward the more I'll enjoy a thing. Each thing having its own reward/satisfaction level.

All things being equal, you could even say there are four levels.

1: You won't do it.
2: You do it but don't enjoy it.
3: It's not too bad.
4: You like it.

And you'll most likely experience one of those four feelings based on the reward (income) the thing gives you.

Go down a mine for $5 an hour and you'll probably be at level 1... you won't do it.

At $20 an hour you might do it but not enjoy it.

At $50 an hour you might think it's not too bad.

But at $2000 an hour you'd probably love it.

So if you're doing something, rate yourself on the four level scale as it is at the moment. Now think of what amount of reward would bump you up a level.

Of course, this scale does not take into account things which would conflict with your moral and ethical core.

Comments?

Michael Ross.

Hi,

Thanks, Michael, for your observations which, as usual, made me think.

Since I can't make a career of my passion, I guess I'll put this to the test.

I'll see if I can construct a sort of modular passion, while doing what I'm best at.

Dien and Sandy suggested ways of minimizing the unsatisfying parts of being in business. You suggest increasing satisfaction by increasing the amount of the reward.

What you've all suggested sounds right--I'll report back later on with my results and observations.

best,

-Boyd

I loved your post....

But there are some jobs I wouldn't do if
it paid a million dollars...

You're right...perception of reward is an
important issue...

Boyd..
another article which reinforces Gordon's
Square 1 philosophy and also relates to
what to do with the 2nd half of your life...

http://www.agemasters.com/artzssl1.htm

Michael --

I'll disagree with you here. The money is not what makes the job interesting or fun for most people. Studies have shown that in the past.

I just wanted to say that it is possible to be paid $150/hr or even $250/hr doing something you love to do and not have any fun on the job. I've been there.

Also reference some older threads on this board where Gordon and I talk about when doing what you love to do turns into the monkey on your back as it becomes your livelihood.

Consider also that raising wages to $200/hr for street sweepers (economic issues aside) would have people trying to get the jobs. But their work habits and ability to take apply themselves to their work and improve their results will be identical to when they were paid $5/hr.

Just some thoughts. I'm short on time right now so we'll leave it at that!

-- Dan Butler


Make Your Computer Fun Again...

Hi,

Here's a mini-plan:

* Let something happen that gives you some "momentum" (you get some publicity, or you get your 15-minutes of fame, or you're in the right place at the right time--whatever...).

* Within the framework of your "momentum" find a way to practice your "passion."

A bzillion examples of this are available, I'm sure you can think of one.

Hope this was helpful!

-Boyd