If you don't know how to make the best of a bad situation, you will never get there. If you are not willing to put up with some shit work, you will never recognize that a good opportunity is staring you in the face. If you are not willing to be humble and repeatedly be a beginner in new areas and learn the details faster than the next guy, you are not capable of transformation.
See that in the context. It means there are no 7 single steps everybody can use to pursue their dream career and happiness. Or in other words: stop trivializing hugely complex things.
Agree. But with a title like "What Should I Do with My Life, Now?," an article should offer some more insight than just saying the road to success is extremely complex. I realize he is differentiating himself from other self-help books that offer sure-shot 8 steps to success or whatever. But still, I, naively perhaps, expected something more insightful and inspirational.
"But still, I, naively perhaps, expected something more insightful and inspirational."
Yep, it is naive to expect to find a useful, insightful answer to "What Should I Do with My Life, Now?" in a short article on the web. Instead of trying to actually answer the question, Bronson points out why a lot of glib answers to the question are wrong. Maybe a little bait and switch with the title, but useful nonetheless.
No bait and switch. He is responding to the question, even though he is not answering it.
It is similar to the response "mu", which is "I cannot answer your question because it is based on a false premise." Here, the false premise is that the nature of "should" is simple and universal when in fact it is individual and situational.
I can definitely relate to this article. Having been a corporate drone for most of my working life with my level of motivation at my latest job at an all time low, and now being recently laid off, I feel like this is a giant opportunity for me to try and start something on my own and my level of motivation to take advantage of this opportunity has never been higher.
The first part is definably PR for his book, but the rest is good clear, to the point writing that's better then 99% of the usual "What to do with your life" crap.
If the article was intended to be self-aggrandizing PR for his book, I don't think he would have included this line:
Note that the article offered no economic or statistical evidence to back this suggestion up; it was pure theory, with a few individual case studies that proved nothing, merely illustrated the concept.
I found the numbered points at the end quite insightful.
