Earning your living — choose your niche

[FDG]

I would agree with you, except that the dichotomy added other descriptions to choose from than simply interest vs money.

It also included persisting vs adapting. But it failed to take into account the people who persist through a job they don't care for because it provides more money. Nor the people who adapt their lifestyle to better suit a lowered income so they could continue in the job they love.

He also added in being continuously involved in something vs having goals/aspirations. Consider the type of person who is constantly trying out new things. They aren't doing it for the money cuz there's really not much money in constantly switching jobs (unless the job involves constant change). Nor would they necessarily be persisting towards some overall long term goal/aspiration.

The best way to make his dichotomIES simpler and more accurate is to keep each dichotomy to one non-conjunctive sentence.
interest vs money
persisting vs adapting
goals vs busywork vs new experiences

Yeah, I would agree that such division would make the survey more significant and add depth to the answer. Still, "some people" (read jcw) just above wanted to contemporarily choose money, interest, goals, experiences...and my point was, who wouldn't

[Absurd]

Following orders isn't an excuse, unless we want to blame Reinin not threadmaker (blaming Reinin for his crappy dichotomies is not a bad idea). Well spotted though even if you are wrong.

I thought most people follow orders in their line of job, not unless they're self-employed and acting as a sole trader.

[Words]

I thought most people follow orders in their line of job, not unless they're self-employed and acting as a sole trader.

You've lost me, you're not employed to pick a dichotomy are you.

[Absurd]

You've lost me, you're not employed to pick a dichotomy are you.

Why don't you ask people who picked one whether they are employed or not to do so?

I can be wrong, again, but is sounds as if Park is acting as an employer and his employees picked one over another.

Which simply means you're not employed you can't pick one versus you're employed and have to pick one.

This can go off-topic as well.

Second option can mean you're simply opting for a survival strategy whilst the first one can say you don't really worry about it.

This can be tied to another dichotomy as well - tactical/strategic.

Just wait until Park comes up with a justification for this thread. It's going to change your perspective forever...

This or I just deluded myself into thinking Park pulled another Socionics-related thread.

[Words]

Why don't you ask people who picked one whether they are employed or not to do so?

I can be wrong, again, but is sounds as if Park is acting as an employer and his employees picked one over another.

Which simply means you're not employed you can't pick one versus you're employed and have to pick one.

This can go off-topic as well.

Second option can mean you're simply opting for a survival strategy whilst the first one can say you don't really worry about it.

This can be tied to another dichotomy as well - tactical/strategic.

Just wait until Park comes up with a justification for this thread. It's going to change your perspective forever...

This or I just deluded myself into thinking Park pulled another Socionics-related thread.

This has already been covered there are more actual possiblities than those two options and no one here is employed to pick one of Parks dichotomies. Don't really know where all this going, probably nowhere.

[Absurd]

This has already been covered there are more actual possiblities than those two options and no one here is employed to pick one of Parks dichotomies. Don't really know where all this going, probably nowhere.

It didn't stop people from answering, though. Looks like they're employed, hah. Easy tiger, Park's thread isn't the end of the world, just sit back, grab a beer and watch the fireworks. I do.

[blackburry]

Choice number one.

[Kim]

I found it easy to answer because it was exactly the choice I had to make at one point. I wanted to get a doctorate and become a teacher/researcher in a given field, which meant a long time of schooling and poverty with very uncertain prospects. I was tempted to go into in another career in which I already had a foot in the door (working for a company while a student), could follow my interests, and realistically have a good career with good money. I would have gone into marketing/public relations and while I would not have been able to reach my ultimate goal, there were other quite attractive opportunities and interesting career development paths.

Perhaps this is a bit of a real life description of what the choices entail? Sometimes life really is that black and white.

[squirreltual]

Daytime - 2
Evening - 1

[Absurd]

Daytime - 2
Evening - 1

Wonder what you do when dead.

[squirreltual]

Wonder what you do when dead.

[krieger]

oh i was supposed to choose. my bad. i'm more of the 1 philosophy but most my real life problems derive from not being enough of 2. so i would advise people like me to be 2, not 1, since it brings about a more workable balance.

[Absurd]

[jet city woman]

Yeah, I would agree that such division would make the survey more significant and add depth to the answer. Still, "some people" (read jcw) just above wanted to contemporarily choose money, interest, goals, experiences...and my point was, who wouldn't

I can't change what I am, FDG. Lol..... The descriptions are there to fit me; I don't pry myself into the descriptions.

[InvisibleJim]

Live to work

or

Work to live.

[FDG]

I can't change what I am, FDG. Lol..... The descriptions are there to fit me; I don't pry myself into the descriptions.

You don't change what you are by providing an answer to a dichotomous survey -.-

oh i was supposed to choose. my bad. i'm more of the 1 philosophy but most my real life problems derive from not being enough of 2. so i would advise people like me to be 2, not 1, since it brings about a more workable balance.

This seems quite wise.

[Absurd]

You don't change what you are by providing an answer to a dichotomous survey.

She already answered positively, that is, picked one already in case you and herself didn't notice yet.

[Park]

I was going to say dumb thread btw. Sorry. I wrote this because I haven't actually went back and evaluated any of this before, I guess.

Well, it made you think, so that's something.

EDIT: I'm at odds about what the gist of the question is. Is this kind of like a typological muse, or are you giving us two options to consciously choose from? Dichotomies get really hairy when you deal with any dynamic thing, especially when recounting every instance that applies to either dichotomy becomes tedious and time consuming. Anyone with even a modicum of life experience would scratch their head thinking about this question for a while if they took it as a serious "type me" thing.

Two options to consciously choose from. You can't be the type of person who jumps from job to job to keep the money flow and look for ways to increase income and at the same time have the character to tailor your life to your intrinsic needs, talents, and ambitions, which requires you to consciously give up certain comforts (like, be jobless for a while) and have the endurance to suffer and go through hardships in order to design the life you aspire to have. Option #2 might sound like "the easy way out", but what it's ought to emphasize is that one does not care much about where he or she travels as long as they can extract the benefits from the journey, while option #1 is for those who know where they want to go and consciously choose to overcome obstacles and resist opportunities that compromise their voyage. It's about difference in values, I guess.

I found it easy to answer because it was exactly the choice I had to make at one point. I wanted to get a doctorate and become a teacher/researcher in a given field, which meant a long time of schooling and poverty with very uncertain prospects. I was tempted to go into in another career in which I already had a foot in the door (working for a company while a student), could follow my interests, and realistically have a good career with good money. I would have gone into marketing/public relations and while I would not have been able to reach my ultimate goal, there were other quite attractive opportunities and interesting career development paths.

Perhaps this is a bit of a real life description of what the choices entail? Sometimes life really is that black and white.

That perfectly illustrates my point. If you were faced with the same situation again, you'd choose the same.

[jet city woman]

You don't change what you are by providing an answer to a dichotomous survey -.-

I know. My point was that I am answering truthfully. I'm not picking one or the other, because I'm not one or the other. I'm not going to pretend I am by choosing one, in this case. It's not anywhere I want to go, internally. I'm non-committal on the issue.

[Park]

[2] Live to work

or

[1] Work to live.

.

[Park]

It also included persisting vs adapting. But it failed to take into account the people who persist through a job they don't care for because it provides more money. Nor the people who adapt their lifestyle to better suit a lowered income so they could continue in the job they love.

It didn't fail to take them into account. The people who persist through a job they don't care for because it provides more money fall under category #2. The other group under #1. Now of course, if you take the words 'persist' and 'adapt' out of their original context, you can fuck that up.

He also added in being continuously involved in something vs having goals/aspirations. Consider the type of person who is constantly trying out new things. They aren't doing it for the money cuz there's really not much money in constantly switching jobs (unless the job involves constant change). Nor would they necessarily be persisting towards some overall long term goal/aspiration.

The reason the word 'something' was emphasized is to stress the irrelevance of 'it' being aligned with one's goals/aspirations. The type of person who is constantly trying out new things is probably very flimsy.

The best way to make his dichotomIES simpler and more accurate is to keep each dichotomy to one non-conjunctive sentence.
interest vs money
persisting vs adapting
goals vs busywork vs new experiences

Right. That way you can come up with thousands of contradicting contexts for each side, making your choice "easier".

[DaftPunk]

probably (1)

[Tropski Bolest]

I've also had a real life situation recently where I had to choose between those two exact options. In the end I chose #1. I really tried #2, I wanted it to work, I put everything I had into it, but I simply was not able to persist. I could not not selfactualize (apparently for me not doing it, working towards my grand master plan, gives me health problems). Lived on 2$ a day for a couple of months as a result. And I didn't really mind it.

#1 by far. See, #1 leads to #2. You can have both a love for what you do & money. See, if you find what you're truly passionate about and you excel at it, you will do much better and make more money in the long-run than doing something you hate, because you'll regret those extra hours, and then do them with littler, unexcited energy.

What if you're incompetent and delusional? My friend says not everybody can accomplish everything, that despite popular propaganda people are not made equal. What if you're not smart enough to recognize and overcome your weaknesses and leverage your strengths? What about limited resources? You make ten poor people fight over a load of cash, not all of them can get it.

[FDG]

#1 by far. See, #1 leads to #2. You can have both a love for what you do & money. See, if you find what you're truly passionate about and you excel at it, you will do much better and make more money in the long-run than doing something you hate, because you'll regret those extra hours, and then do them with littler, unexcited energy.

I don't know, I know some people who are pretty good at not caring about that, or they can adapt easily. Perhaps they are unhappy but they do not seem to. Perhaps they'll be really unhappy in 10 years, but that's not easy to predict.

[Tropski Bolest]

Then find a mentor in the path you want to pursue to help you overcome your weaknesses and leverage your strengths.

So if can't do it, hire, get someone who can?

And not really answering my question. I'll clarify, what about What on earth are you talking about? What weaknesses? I have no problems in that area, there is absolutely no need for improvement. You're the one who's delusional. And I'm not incompetent, there is this and this as an excuse. There is always some external, out of my control, factor that prevents me. How would that person recognize their incompetence and delusions? Use an external objective measurement, like, if you were competent there would be tangible results like this and this (pointing to something tangible), on them?

You're right that honestly not everyone is equal.

I never said that. I never implied that I think that. My friend said that. I presented it as a possible interpretation. However, I'm going to say it now, people are different from each other .

This is a "scarcity mentality". There are plenty of opportunities for everyone, and there is always room for exceptional people at the top. Read up on "abundance mentality". http://p2pfoundation.net/Abundance_v...city_Mentality

Hmm, sounds simplistic to me, sounds like a Not everyone is going to withdraw their money from the bank at the same time mentality to me. IMO all resources are finite, where there is scarcity create more until they are abundant. And there is always an ethical element to using resources. That abundance mentality seems to me like a giant fuck you to that.

[InvisibleJim]

Hmm, sounds simplistic to me, sounds like a Not everyone is going to withdraw their money from the bank at the same time mentality to me. IMO all resources are finite, where there is scarcity create more until they are abundant. And there is always an ethical element to using resources. That abundance mentality seems to me like a giant fuck you to that.

Yes, there is a malthusian trap explicitly when there is limited or no technological progress. Resource scarcity has only abated through technological advancement.

Bank runs do occur when people on aggregate are profligate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_runs

[Tropski Bolest]

Oh ok, so you're perfect. Got it.

Everyone has weaknesses. If you subscribe to socionics, you subscribe to this belief.

My comments were not a personal attack on you at all, although it seems you perceived that. I do not wish to discuss this further with you. Good luck.

No, no, no, don't go away, you misinterpreted it. I was being another person, talking from another perspective. There was no animosity on my part. Here, I fixed it:

And not really answering my question. I'll clarify, imagine a person with the following mindset:

"What on earth are you talking about? What weaknesses? I have no problems in that area, there is absolutely no need for improvement. You're the one who's delusional. And I'm not incompetent, there is this and this as an excuse. There is always some external, out of my control, factor that prevents me."

How would that person recognize their incompetence and delusions? Use an external objective measurement, like, if you were competent there would be tangible results like this and this (pointing to something tangible), on them?

[Absurd]

.

Wonder which one emphasises that work is one's life.

[Kim]

Donald Trump is the worst example of how to succeed. He walked all over people to get where he is and is a disgusting human being. I would rather be on welfare for the rest of my life than to listen to anything that creep has to say.

[Kim]

This is a "scarcity mentality". There are plenty of opportunities for everyone, and there is always room for exceptional people at the top. Read up on "abundance mentality". http://p2pfoundation.net/Abundance_v...city_Mentality

That differs very much from field to field. I went to graduate school with many quite exceptional and ambitious people who are now scrambling to get by because the job market crumbled fairly unexpectedly.

[anndelise]

Going back to point #1 - yes, do what you love, but you also have to be realistic with what is profitable. If someone loves coloring & building pillow-fortresses, I wouldn't recommend doing that for a living.

Preschool teachers and child care providers ftw!

[Ryan]

Trump is not even self-made. He inherited his father's company and went through bankruptcy multiples times. He is probably not even a billionaire anymore since all the information about him out there comes from him and that's questionable, he didn't disclose any official documents.

His TV show is probably his most profitable venture in recent times.

[Ryan]

>says Trump didn't file bankruptcy
>yet mentions the company's profits as if they are his own
>doesn't even know how Forbes values a person's wealth

You do you realize that he didn't actually disclose any official documents, right? They are guessing his wealth based on the debts his company owes and his share of said company. According to Trump himself he has close to 250,000 dollars in cash. Last I heard, he filed for bankruptcy, again, and is not even attempting to run his business anymore. He had to give up a percentage of the company's shares to creditors and stepped down from the board.

[Park]

Trump is disgusting. Didn't watch the video, only read what William wrote.

[Ryan]

I said he didn't file bankrupt personally. There's a huge difference between personal bankruptcy & corporate bankruptcy, if you weren't aware.

I'm well aware of the difference. But we are not arguing semantics here, are we, you dolt? You make a point that he is a successful businessman, yet filing bankruptcy multiples times says otherwise. He is not making any profit, just selling his shares/properties to stay in business. How is this fucking brilliant in any way? Whether he, or his business, filed bankruptcy makes no difference to either of us since we are assessing his supposed competency.

Yes, he does get to keep those profits personally for ownership of the company. That's how it works.

He is not making any profit.

Apparently you don't. And to see that Forbes is off by $2.3 billion according to... your own, personal, research? I'll go with Forbes.

I already explained this. He has a stake in a company that owns several business, hotels, etc. But, BUT, BUT, he is not going to make a huge amount of profit unless someone buys his shares or the company's or someone else's, etc. And he probably can't sell any of these business unless the rest of the owners decided to do so. Which isn't going to happen any time soon because of the amount of debt the company owes to creditors.

Regardless, he has been selling his shares unwillingly so he is more likely to lose it to someone else than to cash out.

He was probably referring to his cash position. He could have investments elsewhere. Your cash isn't an indicator of your net worth but merely a factor.

William, I can't tell you how fucking mad I am right now.

[Kim]

It seems as though you don't understand business. I have a 4-year university degree in Finance, post-university insurance licenses & a couple Series licenses from FINRA, so I would say I'm able to talk about business with some credibility.

Corporate bankruptcies can make solid financial sense. They can:

1. Restructure debt.
2. Free up capital.
3. Improve the business.

Here are a couple of articles explaining more:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...-work-for-him/
http://businessonmain.msn.com/browse...id=fpPpIZoLze4

I guess you could ask his creditors about how brilliant of a business move this is...This also means that he effectively ruined smaller companies and businesses by not repaying his debt. Of course it's a good move for him, but it screws over a lot of other people and it's unethical.

[Kim]

As far as I know he has screwed over small businesses as well and forced them into bankruptcy because HE filed for bankruptcy and they never saw their money. And sorry, I don't blame them for being screwed over by a scumbag.

[Words]

Maybe those businesses would have screwed over him, given the chance, don't know enough about it, but heh, surely some of them would've.

[InvisibleHim]

[3]
It is essential for you to do what you want. Your work has to match your goals and ambitions. It is essential for you to make money and be continuously involved in something that is in line with your personal motivations and aspirations, something which brings you closer to your goals. You persist. You adapt.


Option Three for me!

[FDG]

Corporate bankruptcies can make solid financial sense.

For the filer. Now, for the creditors...