We (sadly) sold the motorcycle for a big loss today. C’est la vie. Wasn’t worth sticking around Laos for an extra two days to make an extra $60. My computer is cooked and I’m getting stoked for trekking in Nepal.
I’ve been thinking a lot today about the depth vs breadth of positive impact I (or anyone) can have with a career path. For example, a teacher or a foster parents has limited breadth (scope) but high capacity depth wise (they can really understand the people they interact with on a deep level, engage them, help them grow and compound to go and create their own ripples of positive impact)
On the other side there’s the example of a career politician. Operating under the assumption that the politicians goal is the betterment of society, a policy maker has potential to affect many people (wide breadth) but on a relatively shallow level. Changes come incrementally and are implemented without regard to individual circumstance.
There must be a sweet spot between depth and breadth that maximizes the potential good a person can do in their lifetime. Or does the randomness of life render the probability-of-good calculation entirely useless?
Note: Not arguing that this sweet spot is the same for all people. A kick ass teacher will not do more good switching to a career in impact investing.
Recent Comments