[kulahan]

That's not what it's trying to imply. It's saying that if you chose a job based on what the world needs and what you love doing, you're in the realm of completing a mission. Then you look at the diagram to see what you're missing to reach Ikigai. This is a very "glass half empty" look at a literal diagram lol.

[grisBeik]

There's this diagram, and there's David Graeber's book Bullshit Jobs.

"What you love" and "What you are good at" certainly have a non-empty intersection, but that's mostly a distinct set from "what you can be paid for". "What you are good at" and "What you can be paid for" also have a non-empty intersection, but that set is again (mostly) distinct from "what you love". In brief, you can enjoy work, but then it will pay shit, or you can make money, but you'll hate it.

The most interesting part however is the right hand side. "What you can be paid for" and "What the world needs" have a practically empty intersection. Regardless of both personal skill and drive, there is effectively zero money available for the sorest needs of society. (Public healthcare (including mental health), public education, public infrastructure, etc.)

Nice diagram, but a pipe dream.

[iterance]

The obvious question to ask about this purported "pick two" triad is, why must that be so?

- If one is good at their job, why does that imply that either they won't be paid well, or they'll hate it?

- If one enjoys their job, why does that imply they must be paid poorly or suck at it?

- If one is paid well, why does that imply they will be eaten alive by work or terrible at their job?

The assertions such diagrams make just don't stand up to scrutiny when viewed in reverse. They should stand up to symmetry, and clearly do not; the veneer of logic is peeled away. Instead it reveals the underlying issue: they serve only to elucidate a cynical outlook.

Perhaps in general, I'll admit, there is presently a shortage of opportunities working for the public good; but I'm reluctant to even give an inch on that because it lends itself to a cynical belief system about the world which the statement alone does not imply: it is not necessarily a true inference to say that, if there is a shortage, there will never be; or, that if one wants such a job, they will never be able to get it and best give up early.

Don't let cynicism take you. It will take, and take, and take, and leave you only table scraps of joy.

[shadowmanifold]

These are basically narratives from Romantic fiction of the starving artist that are still being repeated as if they are not just fiction.

Of course, the starving artist can not be well paid. That would imply they are not a true artist, they are a sell out.

The starving artist is starving because they are misunderstood by society so naturally what they love is not going to have a lot of economic value.

None of this of course has anything to do with reality. Just the plot lines from 200 year old novels that we have forgot were just novels.

[bigstrat2003]

> The obvious question to ask about this purported "pick two" triad is, why must that be so?

It is not a law of the universe, so the answer to your question is "it isn't necessarily". But even if it isn't always true, it's usually true. And thus it's a useful metric to keep in mind. Being lucky enough to get all three qualities in your job is rare, and you can't expect that it'll happen.