[mulmen]

I only skimmed but I don’t find this philosophy particularly interesting.

The implication here is that everyone has one best place, but in reality there are many local maximums. The opportunity cost of traversing a valley for a slightly higher maximum may not be worth it.

The post also conflates employment with happiness. Not having a paying job is a valid life choice. Stay at home parent is a completely valid niche.

Picking a job or career based on the free time it allows to pursue hobbies is also valid.

None of this is easy and the post doesn’t seem to provide any insight into finding a good fit.

The idea that we have one “best” fit is the self-help equivalent of “perfect is the enemy of good”.

[cardanome]

> None of this is easy and the post doesn’t seem to provide any insight into finding a good fit.

Oh it does:

> So it’s not that the world magically offers the lock to fit everyone’s key. It’s that everyone’s key has a bit of give, enough to fit the locks available. We screw this up when we assume that our keys are made out of Play-Doh and they can fit anywhere, or when we assume they’re made out of obsidian and they’ll shatter if you try to stick ‘em in the wrong place.

It actually warns about having unrealistic expectations what fitting in means and encourages to have some flexibility but also not too much flexibility. I think that is a good approach

> The post also conflates employment with happiness.

The article doesn't talk solely about traditional employment but has a broader definition of niche.

> And that’s just thinking of niches in the dumbest sense possible, which is “things you can do in exchange for money.”

Later:

> When I was thirteen, I got promoted to moderator of the “Flaming Chickens” forum of a Yu-Gi-Oh! message board, which is where people were allowed to “flame” things that they hated (stepdads, math class, low-quality English dubs of Yu-Gi-Oh! episodes). I was so excited because it meant I meant something. Was the job pointless? Yes. Was it not a “job” at all in the sense that it paid nothing? Yes. Did the forum eventually die because of an infidelity scandal inside the polycule of people who ran the message board? Also yes. But for a bit, I fit.

You comment could be more insightful if you had read the article.

[derektank]

The piece sort of contradicts itself on this point though and explicitly conflates employment and finding one's niche with the tragedy of Nicky. Why is it a tragedy that Nicky finds herself employed as a consultant if she has no other particular career ambitions, if she can find her niche outside of work? The author even seems to suggest it's morally wrong for people to be employed in anything but their niche, lest they fall into, "build[ing] prisons or raid[ing] pensions or market[ing] vapes to kids."

[atoav]

I think it alludes to a lack of any purpose in life. A friend of mine was like that and she was really unhappy with that.

She had a job, but is was literally nust a way to get money. It wasn't a bad job, but it did not remotely excite her and if she was gone she would have been replaced within a week.

She had zero hobbies and nothing she persued with a passion. That didn't mean she did not have talents, e.g. she was a great singer. But it did not mean a lot to her.

Not sure if this is equivalent to Nicky here, but the tragedy isn't based on what we think about it, it is that these people feel homeless in their own lives. The relationship isn't causal in the sense of "people who have job X will feel like that" but more like "people who feel like that are likely to have a (to them) meaningless job".

The girl from my story got out of the whole thing by traveling and leaving her comfort zone, she got a dog that she wants to care for and that pushes her to do things when she normally wouldn't.

[bruce511]

I'm not sure it conflates the niches with employment. Many of the examples given are specifically non-paying niches. (Starting with breakup-whisperer).

Indeed for some percentage of people, employment is not fulfilling or satisfying. They turn to other activities to create significance in their lives. (Open Source software is pretty much built on this concept.)

That said, I suspect the basic premise (everyone has a unique niche) is flawed. It's more likely that everyone has the opportunity to add value to society, and that value comes in various ever-creative forms. Many choose not to take that opportunity, and hypothetically we're worse off for that, but life pretty much still goes on.

[MichaelZuo]

It’s obviously false in the literal sense, since some number of people literally lack the capability to remain alive.

Not to mention the small fraction of adults that suffer serious brain damage and turn into vegetables.

[siffin]

It also ignores socio-economic implications which totally derail the argument.

Underwater pizza delivery? Sounds great and fun, but is it actually profitable once everything is taken into account, including assets, depreciation, insurance, saving for retirement, job security etc.

Pretty much anybody can do something they are more apt at and like better if they are willing to risk their financial security.

[pdonis]

> The implication here is that everyone has one best place

No, just a place. There could be more than one, and they might not even be comparable in a way that would let you say one is better or worse than the other. The article talks about this when it says people's keys have some give, they don't have to fit just one lock.

[abhayhegde]

> The implication here is that everyone has one best place, but in reality there are many local maximums.

This is even better than what the article argues and thus not an antithesis. The author tries to convince us that there exists atleast a place for everyone, not that there aren't many.

> The idea that we have one “best” fit is the self-help equivalent of “perfect is the enemy of good”.

Again, it's not that there is one "best". The idea is everyone can be valuable through atleast one means. I don't see how that is related to perfectionism.

[voiceblue]

Let me teach you a good philosophy. When you see an article that begins with “what do you believe without any evidence” and “this is what I said without thinking”, do not expect good thinking to follow.