"Of all the important pieces of self-knowledge, understanding how you learn is the easiest to acquire."
It's also not something that needs to be kept private, is it? I haven't come across too many people expressing their preference on social media profiles and such. As if we are worried about getting bombarded by edu-spam.
In an overall excellent article with lots of tangible advice, I found the learning style bit weak.
Wikipedia: "Although there is ample evidence that individuals express personal preferences on how they prefer to receive information,few studies have found validity in using learning styles in education." [1]
This looks more like someone who enthusiastically came to a costume party but turned out to be a different theme than he had in mind. So, contemplating life by the side of the pool on which part of the message he misinterpreted that he wore a different costume.
It's always a little dubious when modern people pretend to have high confidence about the behaviors of long-dead people to serve their modern purposes. (Another example: oh you're an INFJ, just like Moses from the Bible!)
Our ancient ancestors never had to deal with such deep thoughts, so we can't help but make dubious comparisons because our brains haven't evolved enough.
Yes, it's so lazy. Modern people ought to pretend to greater laziness, and then things would go better.
I think interesting take on the same idea I saw lately was "Every Dead Body on Mt. Everest Was Once a Highly Motivated Person". It seems not that new but still.
> I think interesting take on the same idea I saw lately was "Every Dead Body on Mt. Everest Was Once a Highly Motivated Person". It seems not that new but still.
I mean, everyone dies. Not that I'm elevating Mt. Everest climbers, but at least they're aspiring for something.
Now, if the message you're trying to get across is it takes more than motivation, and life is rife with failure, that I can get behind. But "don't try, there's no point" is the laziest, most self-serving twaddle ever to be uttered (and no, it's not Nihilism either).
Honestly, I have a hard time seeing any of those specific three as a paragon of self-management. More, I feel they are prime examples that self-management is not a necessity and may actually hinder success. I mean, it's hard to say this without being both blunt and sounding reductive (though using them as the opening line and clear examples for such an article does the same, so here goes), but one was a major gambling addict with severe financial issues to the end, the others ambitions led him into exile to say the least and the last had less focus than a moth during 4th of July fireworks.
Peter Drucker, author of What Color Is Your Parachute?
I have to say that while that book is likely "good for what it is", I utterly and completely despised it for what it was promoted as. Essentially, What Color Is Your Parachute was the standard thing that career councilors promoted for how to find a job - however it gives the ordinary seeker of an ordinary job nothing whatsoever but rather just tells everyone "become unique and find your unique niche". Whether that's good or bad advice, it's not the advice said ordinary seeker asked for and it was shitty trick that ordinary career counselors handed job seekers this book by default.
The concept of an "ordinary job seeker" sounds like a cog in a machine where employers are desperate to hire any warm-bodied adult.
One of the reasons "What color is your parachute" is promoted is that it discusses determining your skills and what you enjoy doing. It also promotes the idea that talking to people (information interviewing) is an effective way to find out deeply about jobs outside of the classifieds, the job boards, etc., when there are more job seekers than openings.
No, Drucker didn't write What Color Is Your Parachute?, that was written by Richard Nelson Bolles (had to look it up, I'd never heard of it before now).
Be careful next time you criticize someone's work haphazardly and expose yourself as someone that criticizes management book author who doesn't know Drucker.
Maybe we just have vastly different understandings of "ordinary" job seekers, "ordinary" career counselors, and why they'd interact... but I'm not sure I get the point?
Isn't the book the basis of exactly what one would want a career counselor for? I'd expect a counselor to bring more personal and customized advice along, too, but telling someone to start with understanding the book doesn't seem like a bad approach. Now it's true that if what you're trying to do is get a job tomorrow, then yes, the book isn't going to help much with that... but that's not why I'd visit a career counselor either.
i think what that book does is create an opportunity to decide you're going to do some introspection. If that's too much hard work...so be it. It took me a solid 1.5 weeks of full time effort after work doing the exercises in this book. I honestly loved it. Its fruits are a living document, and there are so many ideas, tests and so on which i think are incredibly useful.
Right after reading it - i took the advise of calling companies out of the blue much more seriously, and the difference in conversations was encouraging.
This article is part of the Harvard Business Review HBR's 10 Must Reads on Managing Yourself [1].
The book [1] itself is part of HBR 10 Must Read Series:
[1] HBR's 10 Must Reads on Managing Yourself (with bonus article "How Will You Measure Your Life?" by Clayton M. Christensen):
https://store.hbr.org/product/hbr-s-10-must-reads-on-managin...
[2] HBR 10 Must Read Series:
https://store.hbr.org/books/hbr-10-must-read-series/
"Of all the important pieces of self-knowledge, understanding how you learn is the easiest to acquire." It's also not something that needs to be kept private, is it? I haven't come across too many people expressing their preference on social media profiles and such. As if we are worried about getting bombarded by edu-spam.
In an overall excellent article with lots of tangible advice, I found the learning style bit weak.
Wikipedia: "Although there is ample evidence that individuals express personal preferences on how they prefer to receive information,few studies have found validity in using learning styles in education." [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles
Veritasium has a video on this:
https://youtu.be/rhgwIhB58PA
The astronaut in the photo should learn to tuck his pant legs into his boots, especially in a vacuum.
This looks more like someone who enthusiastically came to a costume party but turned out to be a different theme than he had in mind. So, contemplating life by the side of the pool on which part of the message he misinterpreted that he wore a different costume.
> History’s great achievers—a Napoléon, a da Vinci, a Mozart—have always managed themselves.
Turned out OK for one of them.
It's always a little dubious when modern people pretend to have high confidence about the behaviors of long-dead people to serve their modern purposes. (Another example: oh you're an INFJ, just like Moses from the Bible!)
Our ancient ancestors never had to deal with such deep thoughts, so we can't help but make dubious comparisons because our brains haven't evolved enough.
Yes, it's so lazy. Modern people ought to pretend to greater laziness, and then things would go better.
I think interesting take on the same idea I saw lately was "Every Dead Body on Mt. Everest Was Once a Highly Motivated Person". It seems not that new but still.
> I think interesting take on the same idea I saw lately was "Every Dead Body on Mt. Everest Was Once a Highly Motivated Person". It seems not that new but still.
I mean, everyone dies. Not that I'm elevating Mt. Everest climbers, but at least they're aspiring for something.
Now, if the message you're trying to get across is it takes more than motivation, and life is rife with failure, that I can get behind. But "don't try, there's no point" is the laziest, most self-serving twaddle ever to be uttered (and no, it's not Nihilism either).
It is not “don’t try there is no point”.
It is: don’t use Napoleon, Mozart, Jobs, Musk someone who climbed Mt Everest in your silly article about motivation because it will backfire.
Someone being internally motivated by Napoleon or Jobs or someone who climbed Mt Everest is OK that is their own personal motivation.
Honestly, I have a hard time seeing any of those specific three as a paragon of self-management. More, I feel they are prime examples that self-management is not a necessity and may actually hinder success. I mean, it's hard to say this without being both blunt and sounding reductive (though using them as the opening line and clear examples for such an article does the same, so here goes), but one was a major gambling addict with severe financial issues to the end, the others ambitions led him into exile to say the least and the last had less focus than a moth during 4th of July fireworks.
Yes, and imagine managing any of them.
Are you saying that two of these are not good examples of high achievers?
The only source for the "I refuse to see a pimp in the mirror in the morning when I shave." quote that I can find is Drucker hmself.
The German Ambassador didn't resign in 1906. Maybe it was a deputy or a different country, or it's just made up?
Related: 2-vol "On Managing Yourself" from HBR's 10 Must Reads series.
Edit: Oh shit, I'm wrong below....
...
Peter Drucker, author of What Color Is Your Parachute?
I have to say that while that book is likely "good for what it is", I utterly and completely despised it for what it was promoted as. Essentially, What Color Is Your Parachute was the standard thing that career councilors promoted for how to find a job - however it gives the ordinary seeker of an ordinary job nothing whatsoever but rather just tells everyone "become unique and find your unique niche". Whether that's good or bad advice, it's not the advice said ordinary seeker asked for and it was shitty trick that ordinary career counselors handed job seekers this book by default.
The concept of an "ordinary job seeker" sounds like a cog in a machine where employers are desperate to hire any warm-bodied adult.
One of the reasons "What color is your parachute" is promoted is that it discusses determining your skills and what you enjoy doing. It also promotes the idea that talking to people (information interviewing) is an effective way to find out deeply about jobs outside of the classifieds, the job boards, etc., when there are more job seekers than openings.
No, Drucker didn't write What Color Is Your Parachute?, that was written by Richard Nelson Bolles (had to look it up, I'd never heard of it before now).
Be careful next time you criticize someone's work haphazardly and expose yourself as someone that criticizes management book author who doesn't know Drucker.
Maybe we just have vastly different understandings of "ordinary" job seekers, "ordinary" career counselors, and why they'd interact... but I'm not sure I get the point?
Isn't the book the basis of exactly what one would want a career counselor for? I'd expect a counselor to bring more personal and customized advice along, too, but telling someone to start with understanding the book doesn't seem like a bad approach. Now it's true that if what you're trying to do is get a job tomorrow, then yes, the book isn't going to help much with that... but that's not why I'd visit a career counselor either.
i think what that book does is create an opportunity to decide you're going to do some introspection. If that's too much hard work...so be it. It took me a solid 1.5 weeks of full time effort after work doing the exercises in this book. I honestly loved it. Its fruits are a living document, and there are so many ideas, tests and so on which i think are incredibly useful.
Right after reading it - i took the advise of calling companies out of the blue much more seriously, and the difference in conversations was encouraging.
https://archive.ph/9P5bZ
Can someone tell me what a "reader" is in "reader vs. listener"?
[dead]