> I've come to believe over the years that friendship can essentially be distilled down to proximity + a common interest + time. Unfortunately, we spend most of our time working, and these three things are very difficult to find outside of the workplace.
Think about my childhood, that idea rings true - kids connect relatively quickly because they have all this time together and for exploring interests, or at minimum "shared misery". I'd say college was the best time to meet people... we had so much free time, mixing with new people very quarter, and even dorming with "strangers".
Although, I also believe we are way to risk averse as adults. Personally, I share this attitude:
> Genuine exchanges of ideas is a dangerous proposition when it means risking our livelihood.
but I'm deeply questioning it these days. (edit: assuming "genuine exchange of ideas" does not violate law/HR - a more complicated issue)
Why should we suppress ourselves in the name of livelihood?
Tech is a high-demand skill-based field with labor shortages projected to last upward a decade despite immigration and new graduates. We get paid well enough to have financial security (savings). Urban tech is one of the most diverse field out there. What's the worst that could happen? Leaving a poor culture fit to find a company/team we connect with? That sounds like a positive, well worth the switching cost.
So why the conservatism? If this will be a life-long career, is the total time/emotional/mental/physical cost of work worth the benefits? If not... why conform?
Networking is the most common response, but who maintains connections with people they dislike? Money is the next most common response, but towards what ends? How much additional wealth does conformity buy, and why is deferring happiness worth it? Time is expensive - every day is one out of our limited and unknown lifespan.
edit - To answer myself:
Conformity was the fastest post-graduation path to funding my own business. Now that I can safely afford the gamble, the ideas still work but my priorities have changed - I recognize this corporate lifestyle of working 40h/week in an office thinking for profit is personally unsustainable regardless of who's boss. So, I stopped conforming and next spring I'm off for some tru-hiking/traveling then pivoting to a new field through grad school (the brewing recession might be a happy coincidence).
I'm questioning myself, but no more than when I started college/working. I am confident that staying on the old path is the only wrong choice (sunk cost fallacy).
Switching jobs is an enormous cost and risk to almost anybody. Sure, there are a lot of tech jobs, but you will probably spend dozens or hundreds hours changing to one that will pay you the same or more as you are making now. So you've got this sunk cost and there is no guarantee that your controversial opinion will be acceptable at your next job, unless you discuss it during your interview (which will probably mean it will take you longer to find a job, because that's just weird interview behavior)
In my opinion, if you want to share controversial opinions, do it somewhere with a low switching cost, or high trust. I am happy to talk about my politics or sexuality at my hacker space, tree planting group, with regulars at the bar, or with my immediate family (who I love and trust even though we disagree on a lot). I am perfectly happy not finding common interests at work or the PTA, especially when I know my opinions are outside of the first standard deviation.
> I am perfectly happy not finding common interests at work or the PTA
I think that's a key distinction - I am not happy in that situation. If you are comfortable, no problem and more power to you!
> Switching jobs is an enormous cost and risk to almost anybody. Sure, there are a lot of tech jobs, but you will probably spend dozens or hundreds hours changing to one that will pay you the same or more as you are making now.
My point was to evaluate your holistic ROI in the employee-employer relationship... considering where you are, where you're headed, and where you want to be (perhaps even considering your eulogy). What are you putting in and getting out of the relationship?
If you are satisfied, keep on keeping on. If not, pivot - the sunk cost fallacy is real.
That doesn't mean flipping off your boss and moon-walking out the door. Just... recognize when you have a bad deal and want more, then start looking for ways to make it happen. A pay cut may be perfectly acceptable.
If you're in a planning role (engineering, product, or otherwise), the same skills apply to your life.
I'm perfectly happy to not be friends with my coworkers, if only because I do not want their or mine personal controversial opinions to color the effectiveness of my work.
Think about my childhood, that idea rings true - kids connect relatively quickly because they have all this time together and for exploring interests, or at minimum "shared misery". I'd say college was the best time to meet people... we had so much free time, mixing with new people very quarter, and even dorming with "strangers".
Although, I also believe we are way to risk averse as adults. Personally, I share this attitude:
> Genuine exchanges of ideas is a dangerous proposition when it means risking our livelihood.
but I'm deeply questioning it these days. (edit: assuming "genuine exchange of ideas" does not violate law/HR - a more complicated issue)
Why should we suppress ourselves in the name of livelihood?
Tech is a high-demand skill-based field with labor shortages projected to last upward a decade despite immigration and new graduates. We get paid well enough to have financial security (savings). Urban tech is one of the most diverse field out there. What's the worst that could happen? Leaving a poor culture fit to find a company/team we connect with? That sounds like a positive, well worth the switching cost.
So why the conservatism? If this will be a life-long career, is the total time/emotional/mental/physical cost of work worth the benefits? If not... why conform?
Networking is the most common response, but who maintains connections with people they dislike? Money is the next most common response, but towards what ends? How much additional wealth does conformity buy, and why is deferring happiness worth it? Time is expensive - every day is one out of our limited and unknown lifespan.
edit - To answer myself:
Conformity was the fastest post-graduation path to funding my own business. Now that I can safely afford the gamble, the ideas still work but my priorities have changed - I recognize this corporate lifestyle of working 40h/week in an office thinking for profit is personally unsustainable regardless of who's boss. So, I stopped conforming and next spring I'm off for some tru-hiking/traveling then pivoting to a new field through grad school (the brewing recession might be a happy coincidence).
I'm questioning myself, but no more than when I started college/working. I am confident that staying on the old path is the only wrong choice (sunk cost fallacy).