I have just finished an excellent online course called "The Brief History of Humankind"[1]. It was really an eye opener for me. I always loved history, but all the arguments people made about why we need to study it never really resonated with me. The stuff about "not repeating the same mistakes", "not re-inventing the wheel", "learning from the past" just never made much sense to me. The real reason to study history, as it was brilliantly presented in the course, is not to learn from the past, but to get liberated from it. We study the past to learn about our present. How did we get here? Why are we here? Often, things we accept as "natural" or permanent, or "optimal" are just a result of decisions and events that occurred long ago in very different context.
This post is an excellent reminder that sometimes we need to do the same on the personal level. We need to look back at our past in order to understand our present and decide about our future.
History is also great for providing intellectual perspective. A lot of people take as universal ideas that are actually peculiar to our own era; since no era gets everything right, the ideas and attitudes of the past can help you evaluate those you took for granted.
Of course, studying the future would probably work just as well, if that were possible.
I'm not sure it's really what Sivers means, but I agree with what you wrote. I even think that if (after learning how to read and write) children only studied history and maths, they'd be better educated (and even better people) than the average today.
I encourage everyone to pick a slice of history this christmas and study it for a bit. It's entertaining, too.
I always felt that Singapore just doesn't seem like the right place for someone like Derek Sivers. It's a beautiful and wonderfully located place, but the stated or unstated reasons many US expats give for moving there are narrowly selfish -- in the sense of irrational selfishness vs enlightened self-interest -- low taxes, clean streets. Yet Singapore's culture is strongly communitarian: there may be low income taxes, but there are tons of other rules and regulations. The reason for the low taxes, an efficient, universal, and well functioning healthcare system, and so on isn't liberal individual empowerment (which is often the reason given for both individualistic economic policies like low tax rates and for safety-net policies like universal healthcare in the West), it's greater communal good (which -- unlike in ther West -- is also defined in a way that's much more nuanced than "greatest good for the greatest number"). That reality may not hit people immediately, but it will eventually: e.g., if you plan to have kids, be ready for corporal punishment in most schools and even some junior colleges, and (far more burdensome and soul crushing for an individualistic soul) military conscription.
Derek talked about this in earlier essays and acknowledge that he was resetting his operating system towards a more communitarian, giving the example of nominally "converting" to Islam to marry a woman. Yet to me that reason still seemed narrowly selfish, a much more principled and selfless act would be to refuse to compromise one's greater cultural and religious heritage and forgo one of life's greatest long-term pleasures (love) -- something I would not endorse, as it would result in great misery for both himself and now wife.
Personally, I am lucky, as I found United State's "left coast" and "far west" cultures to be my home: I see my own culture was being a happy medium between these two, but I have a fluent understanding and appreciation of both of these cultures. They mesh far better than the cultures I've been brought up in (secular Jewish and Russian) and I'm very lucky that I have the ability to pick and choose -- I would simply not survive (in the physical sense) had I attempted to live a life true to my personal views in the land I was born in. I sincerely hope that Derek finds in New Zealand a culture he can belong to.
This bothered me deeply, and so I had to take it apart, point by point.
1: Singapore is not right for "someone like Sivers"
2: People move to Singapore because they're narrowly selfish
3: Singapore is communitarian, not liberal-individual-empowerment (sure.)
4: Corporal punishment and military conscription are burdensome and soul-crushing for an individualistic soul.
5: strlen feels it's relatively unprincipled and selfish of Sivers to "compromise his (Siver's) greater cultural and religious heritage" because of love
6: But strlen would not endorse such a compromise himself because it would result in great misery
7: strlen is lucky for not having had to compromise his personal views/values
8: strlen hopes Sivers finds a culture he can belong to
While all of this is written in good English and the language sounds pleasant, I can't help but react negatively to it. It feels somewhat... patronizing?
Majority of what I said is opinion and prefaced as such, other than fairly true bits about Singapore's communitarian culture (true) and tax rates (true).
Otherwise, very little is normative and instructive (telling someone that this what they should do instead of what I'd do in the same circumstances). So I am not sure how I am patronizing someone as opposed to stating deeply opinion.
I mentioned this in another comment, but John Rawls had the concept of a "decent state" -- which may have a radically different tradition than, e.g., US or UK, but one where basic civil rights are still honored and respected. Singapore fits this bill, so I don't think its system should be condemned in the same vein as many states (perhaps majority of the world today) where, e.g., civil wars flare and religious and ethnic persecution is a day-to-day reality.
> 2: People move to Singapore because they're narrowly selfish
Sivers did surrender his US citizenship, so I can assume taxation did have some reason that choice (although it could be simply to avoid double taxation -- .sg taxes plus US taxes on top -- rather only choosing lower taxes).
However, I never stated that all -- or even most -- immigrants to Singapore do this. I can only state this about Westerners moving there permanently (it's another matter about living there temporarily as part of a job, etc..), for most of whom taxation plays a determining role.
I am actually aware personally of many people who moved to Singapore for far different reasons (fleeing civil wars, seeking basic economic opportunity) -- but none of them were Westerners. For example, I attended high school and university with people who grew up in Singapore having fled grinding poverty in Burma or reeducation camps in Vietnam. In what I think is a huge criticism of US, their families were not initially allowed to enter the US: they were only able to move to the US once their parents established themselves in Singapore, obtained the right employment and education, and move to US on H1B visas.
EDIT: I realize I conflated "people moving to Singapore" with "majority of US expats moving to Singapore." Thanks for catching that, my bad.
--
I guess I'm curious about your use of the term "narrowly selfish". What do you really mean by that?
You also say that it would be more "principled and selfless" to refuse to compromise one's ideals, but... I can't help but feel that's a really context-dependent thing.
For instance, can you think of examples where a person's refusal to compromise leads to the suffering of others. You said you wouldn't endorse it in Derek's case, because he'd be forgoing love (and encountering misery). There are many worse cases- think about gay kids growing up in a homophobic family, for example. And worse.
So I feel like there's some unnecessary complexity in what you've expressed- I think what you describe as "principled and selfless" behaviour is a luxury that some people (if not most people, especially those who are poor, handicapped, oppressed, etc) can't afford.
You said that you can't imagine that you'd physically survive in a situation wherein you'd have to compromise your values. Yet you also acknowledge that there are people who live in such situations. So are these people "narrowly selfish?" Is Derek being narrowly selfish? What's the utility in calling a person narrowly selfish?
Well, you're implying that I think selfishness is purely negative. I don't: I'm selfish in many other ways; pure selflessness can be just as bad (as you've very well described -- parents snubbing children because of a different sexual orientation!). To put in other terms, selflessness and adherence to principle are virtues in the same that bravery is a virtue; yet we don't aplaud the bravery (or selfless, or adherence to principle, etc...) of a suicide bomber much for the same reason -- the immense suffering the rest of their action caused to others. We would, however, aplaud this in (to use a hypothetical example) a fighter pilot defending his country from a nuclear strike by ramming the incoming bomber with his aircraft after they've ran out of missiles or cannon shells.
I'll also point out that my native language is Russian, where there isn't a word like selfishness: there's egoism and egotism, but not really a world like "selfish". If you lookup "selfish" in the dictionary, you'll find a more value-free translation of the word.
My poor chances of physical survival would also not be due to compromising my values: it would be due to inability to adopt to surrounding society's values. Military service in former USSR, for example, is very different from Singapore -- bullying of nerdy/weaker/etc... enlisted men by officers is an endemic problem and has driven many recruits to suicide (lookup "Dedovschina"). The smart way some people took is by committing themselves to officer corps (for a much longer term) and (to fit in) becoming bullies themselves -- something I'd never be able to do.
Ah! I think we are much in angreement then; I misinterpreted what you meant by selfishness. ThanK you for taking the time to clarify, I appreciate it. It's so interesting to see how different people interpret these terms so differently, indeed it's amazing that we manage to understand each other at all. Cheers and love.
> If you plan to have kids, be ready for corporal punishment in most schools and even some junior colleges, and (far more burdensome and soul crushing for an individualistic soul) military conscription
For US expats raising their kids in Singapore, there is the option of sending them to the American international school (http://www.sais.edu.sg/) instead of the public Singaporean school system. As for military conscription, that only applies to citizens, so if your children take US citizenship instead of Singaporean citizenship (US practices Jus Sanguinis, so I think this is possible), they wouldn't have to worry about military service (I'm not Singaporean or an immigration lawyer, so don't take my word on that). In short, expats can totally avoid having that reality hit them. Expats tend to live in a totally different world than the natives of the countries in which they settle.
> As for military conscription, that only applies to citizens, so if your children take US citizenship instead of Singaporean citizenship (US practices Jus Sanguinis, so I think this is possible), they wouldn't have to worry about military service (I'm not Singaporean or an immigration lawyer, so don't take my word on that).
If you (like afaik, Sivers) surrender the US citizenship, is there any basis for children taking US citizenship?
> In short, expats can totally avoid having that reality hit them. Expats tend to live in a totally different world than the natives of the countries in which they settle.
I think that's what bothers me, but I am also somewhat at a loss why: it is just for a country to allow an expatriate class that never takes citizenship, but which others contributes (indeed, that is a positive). It is legitimate for individuals to choose to forego the benefits of citizenship in order to avoid the associated responsibilities, yet I can't help by somehow sneer at a group of people who are in a country quasi-permanently (i.e., not a short-term business trip) by choice (they aren't fleeing famine or oppression -- which would be a different matter) by choose not to become its citizen.
I also don't think Singapore is a bad place. Quite frankly their immigration policies are far better than a large chunk of the world. They certainly put a far larger expectation on their citizens, but nothing really out of bounds of a Rawlsian "decent country" -- basic civil rights are respected. On the other hand US is guilty of a crime of omission -- there are many potential immigrants coming from unstable, dangerous, and poor places that are denied the right to settle in US, but would be able to settle in Singapore.
I guess if I had to pin it down, what bugs me is the way many Westernerns move and settle in countries without regards to their culture and ways of living -- out of purely material and practical concerns.
> I guess if I had to pin it down, what bugs me is the way many Westernerns move and settle in countries without regards to their culture and ways of living -- out of purely material and practical concerns.
And what do you think of clans of Indians who move to the U.S. for purely material and practical concerns, live cocooned in communities (especially in the South Bay) ?
1) I don't think they live "cocooned". I've lived in South Bay myself for 18 years and honestly haven't seen this. Quite frankly your statement struck me as odd (I earlier wrote racist, but on a second read, I don't think this qualifies) and reactionary ("clans"?). Maintaining ethnic stores, restauraunts, and community events is very different from being "cocooned". They obey US laws (assuming all burdens and responsibilities of citizenship), they don't live in compounds unreachable to outsiders, etc...
2) The delta in material situation between India and US is far higher than the delta between US and and Singapore. Westerners moving to Singapore aren't escaping grinding poverty.
3) There's a large Indian community in Singapore (indeed the very name of the country is in an Indian language) and if you're going to compare Indians moving to the US to another group moving to Singapore (well, perhaps not moving -- they've been there for a long time), this is probably the right comparison to make. I don't see a problem with multi-ethnic states, as long as everyone lives by the same basic laws. I'd still think I would find it acceptable even if the cultures were completely isolated from rest of the country, e.g., Amish in the US, as long as -- again -- they lived by the same laws.
4) I did state elsewhere that I think in terms of immigration policies, Singapore may be "superior" to the US. I strongly believe in immigration as primary human right: everyone should have the right to move wherever they please (with only exception being due to basic economic condition -- a mostly theoretical concern, as usually countries with greatest population densities and largest immigrant population tend to be more prosperous), whether this is the right choice for others is a personal matter (something I can speak out against, but have no right to deny).
1)
> I've lived in South Bay myself for 18 years and honestly haven't seen this.
Right, this might just be a matter of personal opinion. I spent a few months in Mountain View, I found it oppressively close to being similar to living in India. It was personally a negative thing because I felt like I (being ethnically of Indian origin but not really culturally one) was expected to behave similar to norms in India. Hell, I had a co-worker accuse (tease?) me of being gay because I was wearing fucking Happy Socks [1]. Now, I must emphasize that I am not saying that everyone who is culturally Indian is conservative or homophobic or whatever. However, the norms in that society of what is acceptable behavior are distinctly different from the norms in this society. A huge cluster of people living together just makes it easier for them to bring their societal norms.
> but on a second read, I don't think this qualifies) and reactionary ("clans"?).
The word "clan" was used in the sense of people of a certain kinship living together. This may not be immediately apparent to an outsider but I have lived in India and people from different states are drastically different. This self congregation is apparent in neighborhoods there. At least to me.
2)
> The delta in material situation between India and US is far higher than the delta between US and and Singapore. Westerners moving to Singapore aren't escaping grinding poverty.
Sorry. Most of the new Indians that you see are not escaping grinding poverty. If you have enough money to pay for a Master's degree and then work on an H1B, you are clearly not part of the teeming masses of the poor people, you are ultimately an expat.
3)
> There's a large Indian community in Singapore (indeed the very name of the country is in an Indian language) and if you're going to compare Indians moving to the US to another group moving to Singapore (well, perhaps not moving -- they've been there for a long time), this is probably the right comparison to make. I don't see a problem with multi-ethnic states, as long as everyone lives by the same basic laws.
Actually, I think Singapore is a drastically different case when it comes to Indian immigration. For one, immigration laws are diverse enough that you get both classes of Indians, the white collar professionals and the people escaping soul crushing poverty.
for a guy who has lived in India the use of word "Clan" to describe South Bay residing Indians is ..mm.. weird..
Do Indians like to be around other Indians? Yes.
Do Indians like be be around people from their state/linguistic background? YES! But that doesn't make them "clans".
A South Bay residing Indian is more likely to be a college-educated, white collar worker. There is no need for them to "ghetto" themselves.
> "Clan" to describe South Bay residing Indians is ..mm.. weird..
The word clan was not used in a pejorative way. I merely meant a group of people.
> A South Bay residing Indian is more likely to be a college-educated, white collar worker. There is no need for them to "ghetto" themselves.
Not sure how this relates to my point at all. The OP had an issue with westerners moving and settling in a country "without regards to their culture and ways of living -- out of purely material and practical concerns." I asked him/her what their thoughts were on other minorities doing that? My only intention is to figure out if there is some sort of differing racial standard being applied here.
Oh, I didn't realize he had given up US citizenship. So is he a Singaporean citizen now? New Zealand citizen? I ask because it is generally easier for US passport holders to get Visas than citizens of most other countries, and Sivers seems to travel a lot.
No idea, actually. I am guessing Singaporean? It's possible to have a non-citizen US passport, though. I'd also imagine SG passport is still quite great for travel in East Asia, SE-Asia, and Oceania.
US citizens are taxed on world-wide income, so the benefits of the low-tax environment aren't so much of a factor, since you owe the IRS on whatever you earn anywhere on earth (but for a ~$80k exemption).
Most other countries tax based on where you earn (i.e. earn money while resident abroad => don't have to remit tax on those earnings to your birth-country).
AFAIK, Sivers (smartly) had a lot of his exit proceeds put in a trust, so he may be somewhat tax-agnostic.
Interesting : I was mainly responding to the comment about US expats having a special cocooned existence (which may well be true, for expats from all first-world countries). But its parent post also fingered low taxes as being a reason that Singapore is attractive to individuals (which isn't really the case for US taxpayers).
After your $97,600 foreign-earned income exclusion (2013), you can at least deduct the taxes you pay to another foreign government. I don't even bother with the FEIE anymore, I just deduct my higher Chinese taxes. But to each his own.
I enjoyed the post, but I find it to be such a vast departure from the way I think and feel, mostly because I have a family.
Sure, I would love to sit on a balcony in New Zealand, coding and listening to the birds, but I couldn't possibly rip my daughter away from her friends and the school she loves.
Again, I appreciate the spirit of the post, but reality for most of us precludes this level of whimsy, and I don't necessarily think that's bad.
Something like "because my kids can receive great education here" would be a great answer, but just "lovin' it" means nothing. And having good friends is not a good reason either, because real friends are those that stay close to you when you are far away.
Moreover, I'd say adult people's life should not be constructed around their kids. It should be the opposite: kids follow their parents where they go until they can fly alone. I think it has been the case for most of humanity most of the time (the only exceptions could have been "baby kings" like Louis XIII, but they do not count).
In the same vein, if you father or mother love hiking, find a way to hike with kids. If you love snorkeling just teach them to snorkel early. If you prefer reading books at home just stay at home. They will follow. Having happy parents is the best gift for kids.
In our new society, having kids often means becoming their slave, and you are frowned upon if you dare keeping your hobbies once you have them. This is one of the most worrying mistakes I can imagine. I mean educational mistake. Kids do not need, or even like to be baby dictators.
Eh, I think too many parents are selfish, especially in America (not saying Sivers is--clearly he's not).
How often do you see parents dragging their screaming kids around, giving their 2-year old an iPad to shut them up at the coffee shop, buying a 50" flat screen TV while the college fund is at $0 and the bank accounts are overdrawn.
In the spirit of Sivers' post, I think if parents stopped, maybe once a month, and asked themselves "What am I doing to set my children up to have happy lives?" we'd all be better off.
Right, but none of the author's reasons seemed to revolve around anything but his own desire to focus and work on his products. In the context of raising a family, that's hard to justify.
I don't aim to be thorough when blogging. They're just succinct little tidbits.
Of course there's more to the story, and of course it was a whole-family decision. In fact my wife kinda led the decision even more than me.
We hope to move back to Singapore when our kid is a bit older, but he's still just a baby, so I really want him to grow up outside surrounded by nature, not inside shopping malls.
I hear you and appreciate the brevity, but I think it makes the post sound (to me) a little like: "Hey, I just ask myself a simple question about what I want, follow my heart, and off I go!"
Well, none of this is communicated by your blog post. The "more" to your story is actually key to your story, it seems to me. Why did you not include it?
>but I couldn't possibly rip my daughter away from her friends and the school she loves
I wouldn't be so sure. My parents made two significant moves during my school years which meant a new school and new friends. If you had asked me whether I wanted to move I would have said absolutely not. Looking back as an adult, being taken out of my comfort zone and forced to make a whole new set of friends and being given the opportunity to experience different places was fantastic for me.
That's not to say that there weren't some tears along the way...
it depends on the age of the child. ages 5-12 will probably be fine, but if you do this to a high school kid, there will be hell to pay. it will not end well.
I agree. I went to 4 different schools in 3 countries before settling in a 5th school in the 5th grade.
Moving around was never something I gave much thought - it was just how it was. And I really appreciate the perspective on cultures and life it has given me.
I can imagine it being much more traumatic in your teen years - when you start becoming more entrenched with friends / relationships etc.
I was thinking the same thing except more generally just being reasonably close to my family. It's kinda crazy when I was younger I would have thought nothing about just packing up and going anywhere. But you get older, you really start to feel like your family are the most important thing on this earth.
I probably would only move at this point if I felt like it was essential in order to seize a really important opportunity. I'm not really tied to my current location for any sentimental reason, but it would just be inconvenient to be too far from family.
I don't think you need to think about the question just in terms of your home's physical location. You can ask it about all sorts of things: your job, your general position in life, a meeting you're attending, even the place you're going for lunch.
I ended up north of you by just a tad bit, in Takaka. It was a long and winding 90 minute drive to get to Nelson, but it definitely felt like the "big city" compared to Golden Bay.
When people ask me how my 3 years in New Zealand were, it's hard for me to answer. A part of me was working hard, so I spent most of my hours behind my desk, at home, looking at the paddocks across the street. You could have probably put a backdrop behind that window and it would have felt like a beach in Fiji, or downtown Munich, etc. When I wasn't behind my desk however, it was a big realization that I was far away from home. After traveling to Europe for conferences a lot, you begin to realize that you are IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE (or somewhere). It is very far from everything else. A 90 minute drive to Nelson, a flight to Auckland, a 14 hour flight to LAX, then a 12 hour flight to Heathrow. Yikes. When I'd get back to my little house in Takaka however... it felt like home. Small towns, beautiful scenery, great people. My only downfall was that I actually ended up yearning for a market like Whole Foods. I was used to having a HUGE selection of everything to fill my taste buds, and that's hard to come by unless you are in some of the larger cities there. Get ready for a lot of fish and chips, and beetroot on hamburgers. I bet you $100 you're going to miss your asian cuisine... badly.
That said, here is a list of things that come to mind:
- Go to the Mussel Inn near Onekaka in the evening. Enjoy their beer, food, and chat with the owner Andrew who has great stories (he's the tall guy that looks like Bob Dylan).
- Meet up with Galen King in Nelson. He's a good friend, a smart technologist, and a great person.
- Go to Collingwood and hit up the chocolatier there, Rosie Glows.
- Walk around Te Waikoropupū springs and be amazed.
I wouldn't trade the experience for anything (my second kid was even born there!). Enjoy New Zealand, and make sure to check out Australia while you're down there too. You're close as you're ever going to be =)
As a kiwi I am offended about your cuisine comment.... I am also nodding in absolute agreement.
In NZ you need to play to the strengths. You'll get some of the best seafood and wine in the world. Freshly caught fish, simply cooked, with a bottle of South Island white wine. Glorious.
Also, the nature helps. A cup of tea and some smoked mussels. Usually mundane -- but, after you've just hiked up a mountain and you're sitting on a ridge. Delicious.
Mussel Inn also make a delicious Manuka-flavoured beer.
As an NZer, I have the opposite feeling than the original article at the moment. After visiting a few cities that have 4-5x the populatation of my whole country I'm itching to live somewhere with such a large base of people. I'll probably end up back here in the future but as an underpopulated island nation, the combination of low(er) wages and high relative living (esp. housing) expenses + expensive imported goods is not helping at the moment.
Just recently returned from my honeymoon in New Zealand. We stayed in Golden Bay for a night and had some drinks and food at the Mussel Inn. Nelson was certainly one of my favorite towns.
When I was younger, It was always my intention to work remotely in NZ. I never was able to pull it off, although I got close. I never gave up the dream though, and hearing stories like this keep me motivated.
What if you don't know the answer to this question ("Why am I here?")? What if your answer is that you don't understand why you're still here? When your passion for everything and anything in life has waned to nothingness. When you feel like your body is in a constant state of physical and mental fatigue, bordering on a grinding, gnawing pain? When you feel like a passenger in your own life, stuck in the rat race, stuck in the routine of monotony? When every day boils down to sleep, eat, work, and everything in between ends up as a fuzzy blur?
What then? How can I shake this feeling? How can I restore the drive and motivation in myself that I never remember having in the first place? Is it even possible?
To follow Mr. Sivers's analogy: What if all my reasons have expired? Is that somewhere else... nowhere else? Should I be dead instead? That doesn't seem like a very practical path to follow, but yet living feels so draining that I don't know how much longer I can carry the weight of a life lived for nothing. It really is all for naught. At this point I feel like I am living this life because it is the life society wants for me: go to school, get a degree, get a job, get married, have kids, grow old, die. That sounds horrible to me and yet I feel so stuck in this formula. I feel so abnormal because I can't feel satisfied or fulfilled with this "normal" version of life. And I can't tell anyone these things because they will reject me, saying I should just enjoy this or that, or telling me that I should be grateful for what I have. Their words (and this article) don't change anything. I know that the change must first come from within, but I don't know where to start.
You are probably above the average.. You are smart philosophically enough to understand "the truth"; everything just looks like some silly games one on top of another, with nothing much to spends peoples life away.. right?
The thing is.. more and more people will be like you, like me.. because all those things we build.. this new world we are trying to create (or at least to manage), make us smarter..
What works for me: Try to to the things you like the most in the world, even if people dont like it; be sincere to yourself always.. be true to your inner essence..
Than these little things will grow, make your life more valuable to you..
Take the skeletons out of your closet: assume and be the guy/girl you always wanted to be, dont care about the others; just go for it..
Your spiritual side is important: try to make a connection to whatever you feel the divine is... in waht do you believe.. this helps you, or its in your way to get more hapinness? Its good to find a gravitational point that is not our own ego, speacilly for people that are not selfish and narcisistic
Look: You are normal and probably more sane the most of the people.. they "the average" are the lunatics.. dont be ashamed of it, or think you are the wrong one, because you are different..
This is from a guy who use to believe in that and lost some years and some light, to believe that "the average" were right in some way.. and are turning back to what he really believes.. a path on its own.. there is no door ready for your life.. people above average make their own destiny by being themselves and make what they believe in.. its hard.. and we must be brave.. because it means to be aside of everything and marginalized for a while..
but that is what everybody needs.. even the average.. they need people to believe in, people who make take different routes and paths, and even make theirs lifes more valuable; i hope you are one of those..
What if it didn't matter if you have all the answers right now? What if it was OK if you accepted your current situation for what it is (i.e. simply a mixture of circumstances and emotions that are subject/likely to change)? What if all of your reasons haven't even been born yet? What if it was OK for you to be where you are with no reasons whatsoever?
My point is you can start by asking yourself different questions. I noticed that your questions centered on potential negative outcomes. Try flipping that around. "What if it was OK for me to feel this way right now?" "What if I don't need to change anything within myself right now?"
Better yet, take a break from asking questions for a bit. Take a few long, deep breaths instead. I have trouble remembering this sometimes, but life goes by one moment at a time. We don't have to live it all in one breath. We don't need to bear the burden of the next 60 years of possibility in the next 60 seconds of life. Take it a step at a time.
Try to not fight the feelings you're having. It's a battle you can't win. Accept them, let them be. The more you fight them, the more they'll consume you.
Try not to be so hard on yourself. You're only human. You'll never have all of the answers.
Finally, take everything I suggested with a grain of salt. I don't know your exact situation. I'm not a professional. I only know what's helped me get through tough times. Hopefully some of it can be helpful for you too.
I second the comment re: depression. If you've never spoken to a professional about these feelings, why not give it a chance? If you have, and it didn't work, why not try someone else? If you can only do one thing, speak to a pro.
I'm happy to share my own experiences/challenges with you if it helps. If you want, email me the things you're afraid to tell others about for fear of being rejected. It's my username at my username dot com. There's always someone willing to listen with an open mind, despite what you might think. Even if it's just some random stranger from the internet :)
Even though you're probably over thinking too much already, for some reason I would suggest reading William Golding's short essay entitled 'Thinking as a Hobby.' In Golding's taxonomy, Grade 2 is a powerful yet awkward place. To be on a higher level gives you a strategic advantage, yet it can be dangerous at the same time. I doubt anything could be said in a Hacker News comment or a blog post that could help change the way you think or see things, but perhaps pondering the beauty of a higher level of thought, less stifled by insignificant problems, may lead you to shift your perspective. Maybe it's not as simple as choosing to think differently, but give yourself a chance, break away from your routines, and maybe it'll just click.
Maybe it's as simple as choosing to think differently. Try to catch yourself dwelling on negativity and use it as an opportunity to be creative and think of positive perspectives. Don't try to be positive—just contemplating positive scenarios is generally enough to shift your frame of reference.
How old are you? Too young to be having a mid-life crisis but too old to be experiencing teenage angst, is my guess. There is hope and something I say may help you but really the only one that can save you is your self. My reply depends on your context. Details needed.
To give you some background: I am 22 years old. I graduated from college about a year ago and I now make a living as a software engineer.
I agree that the only one who can save me is myself, and to all those who have said that I should seek professional help: I have and am currently working with someone to address these feelings I have towards my life.
I'm not sure what other details you were looking for, but that should be a start, at least.
You are really just starting your life. You will be a completely different man at 32 than 22. Accept that you are unhappy right now but this is a temporary situation that you are willing to resolve. You have a job and presumably a place to live, so right now everything is okay.
To help with feeling overwhelmed, confused and anxious about your life I recommend a book called "Focussing" by Eugene Gendlin. Its hard to explain but he has exercises that allow you to cope with life's problems by mentally building a little breathing space between your problems and your self. His method also allows you to get beyond the conscious self-talk and other mental static and tap the subconscious to understand why you are "stuck". (It all sounds like a bunch of non-sense and even Gendlin oversells it but the book is cheap, the exercises are easy to do and helpful and you don't have to buy into all the woo).
Based on your orginal post, it sounds like you launched on this life trajectory without thinking too much about it and that you are just now questioning it. This is a very common problem due to social expectations or parental pressures, etc. So here you are. Many people go down this path but don't question it until they hit middle age. So be glad you have avoided the disaster of a mid-life crisis. Moreover, figuring out who you are and what you value and what you want to do with your life at 22 is not only easier but you have way more options than the man who embarks on such a task at 50, with the ex-wife and three kids to consider.
So that is the essence of the problem. You are an adult now and need to decide what you believe, what you value and what you will do. In a more rational culture you would have been given much more guidance before being pushed out of the nest but the problem is still yours to solve. I recommend two books to read by Ayn Rand; Philosophy Who Needs It and The Virtue of Selfishness. My recommendation is not so much about her philosophy but about learning to think philosophically about your life.
I was/am in a mood something like this after reading Godel, Escher, Bach. I can't say I've found a simple way back, but if you're into detailed psych Eric Fromm's books in English were fascinating to read and helped a bit. (Escape from Freedom, Man for Himself, Sane Society)
If you aren't so much into that (or even if you are) professional help is not a bad thing.
Derek, we met a while ago when you came down to Dunedin. I'm glad you finally made the move down here.
What I found very interesting is that your decisions are driven not by where to move TO, but what you're moving away FROM. Your trip to Oregon, then to Singapore and now NZ seems to follow the similar route. From a vastly different culture and super-densely-populated .sg to the extreme remote and lonesome place like .nz.
I feel that's probably not the best way to go for it. Instead of trial-and-error, how about a search algorithm? Instead of "Why am I here", why not ask "Where do I WANT to be?".
Here was the list of criteria me and my wife came up when we were drifting around for a year to look for a city to settle down.
Crucial:
1) Small country with around 5M population. Coming from China, I feel lots of the problems of modern society & politics is there because of the large degree of separation.
2) Walkabout city. We love walking. I want to make sure the walk from home to office takes no more than 30 minutes.
3) Close to nature. Tramping is our main hobby. We want to start walking in the wild with less than 1 hour drive. (Reality is the closest one is 5 minutes walk from home but that's a bonus.)
4) With a high quality university. This gives us the continuous flow of different ideas even the city is small.
5) Price is moderate. We want to have the leisure time to spend with our families and work on our hobbies. Affordable housing and reasonable prices give us the lifestyle we want without having to work our butts off.
Ok to give up:
1) Museums, galleries and fine restaurants. Even when we were living in Seattle or Boston, we spend more time on solitude activities like walking and reading. So cultural stuffs are great but we won't die if we don't have them.
2) Varieties of products/shops. We don't buy a lot of stuff and when we do, we buy ones that last very very long but not particularly in-the-fashion. So don't have much choices is not a big problem for us.
3) Weather. I love San Diego's weather. Never too cold. Never too hot. But if it's a city that rains a lot and doesn't have a proper hot summary, we're fine with that.
We visited and stayed in more than 40 cities during that year. Some we stayed 2 months, others a few days. When we started the trip, we have never heard of Dunedin. But those criteria helped us to quickly sift through the options and lead us to this unusual decision.
Three years later, we still feel grateful that we made that choice. Life is good here.
Very timely article. I am being laid off tomorrow (fri). I sent out this article to my team as sharing my last piece of nugget before I head out the door!
I think the question not only applies to a country or city but also the place you work, place you live, or any activity you do.
Are you there with friends at all? I'm just curious because for me I always want to be near friends and family, but know that for some people they would rather do something new and exciting.
Couldn't even imagine being able to move around with my family like that. I've lived in the same area basically my whole life and it's quite boring. A change would be nice. Always wanted to try out Montana.
So glad to hear you're feeling at peace in NZ, Derek. I know many people who are quietly excited you've chosen this far flung island to call home and know that you are a fantastic addition to the community no matter what you chose to do. I know you've been inwardly focused lately, but whenever you're ready, there's a great community waiting to welcome you with open arms at Enspiral (including Loomio of course).
I'm very surprised at that. I've heard the internet is basically horrible in New Zealand and they have horrible bandwidth limits there. Is this a very recent development?
It’s better. We have things like fibre and VDSL2 with unlimited caps now. Like properly unlimited ones (not just "unlimited"). You can get a gigabit internet connection -- or even dark fibre between private premises -- in many cases.
For example, one residential ISP just released a statement apparently clarifying their policy regarding "unlimited" plans [1]:
“Customers are free to go crazy and use as much data as they want. We have some customers using nine terabytes per month on our residential unlimited plans which shows just how unlimited they really are."
9TB at home?!
Personally I use a different ISP at my house: I have ADSL2+ and get a quota of 260 GB per month for about $50. This is a "naked" service so I receive it via a copper line whose regular landline dial-tone service has been disconnected.
Orcon are great - although my only experience is connecting to their game servers from here in Australia. Looks like I can put NZ back on my "places to flee to" list.
It's not that bad anymore. When I arrived 5 years ago the data caps were still terrible with around 10GB. They still exist but are 10x-20x higher now (and there are some unlimited plans) and 100mbit down is not uncommon. There's 4G with decent speed too... I get 27mbit down on my iPhone 5s in Wellington—that's on 3.5G. Some rural areas are not as lucky of course.
I am always fond of Derek Sivers' insights, but I would personally have a hard time getting much done on the South Island. So much natural beauty to explore. I'd be on a perpetual kayaking/tramping/skiing trip!
When you go on vacation, you tend to pack everything you can into your short window of opportunity. If you don't need to rush, it doesn't seem too terribly difficult to find a TON of time to be productive. Some of my most productive weeks have involved 3-hour surf breaks in Mexico, rest stops during campervan road trips around NZ, cross-country (U.S.) train trips, and realizing there's not much to do but work all day if you're stranded on a tropical island and don't find tourist traps very appealing. If you're sufficiently engaged in your work, the periodic escapes provide an excellent opportunity to ponder and gather your thoughts. Just pace yourself. Work when you feel motivated and go out and do awesome stuff when you're not.
I look at it from the other side - why move? If you've loved everywhere you've lived and you expect to love anywhere else, isn't the converse that you'll love here just as much as wherever you might move to? Where does this need to travel somewhere every couple of years come from? I've tried it, and realised I'm better off where I am.
I love the idea of getting out of your normal habitat to focus. I went down to central america a month ago to spend a few days, got so much more work done in 3 days than I do in 2 weeks at home. I didn't have constant distractions or people pulling for my attention all the time. Am planning to do something like this quarterly in 2014.
Something to keep in mind is that you can likely do this at any time. Hopping a bus to another place you've never been and working from there for a couple days can likely have similar results.
Yeah, but I like the idea of being out of immediate reach if possible. Not a bad idea, I've thought of renting a cabin or house somewhere a few hours away.
What’s really cool about this idea is that it passes boundary tests - asking questions like "What if all of humanity acted like this?”
If the whole planet was a little more conscious - and able - to sort themselves into a fitting situation, the ‘system’ as a whole would churn out awesome results.
I suspect this won't be popular, but: Lucky you, Derek. You have the resources, and more important, the experience to be able to do that sort of thing.
Why am I in the US? Because I was born here.
(But people are friendlier in other countries, and life is less stressful.)
Having just moved from LA to the Big Island of Hawaii, these questions resonate with me, too. We moved because of my wife, but I can't say that I was opposed. Away from the crowded, paved LA basin to a small town, affordable housing, friendly people.
Sound thinking, re-asking a question whose answer changes over life. Without complete attachment to your chief focus there is no reason to keep up a previous life.
I don't ask this too hard, because not only do I know ahead of time that I probably won't like the answer too much, I don't have much reason to suppose I'll get it 'right' next time, either. Without any one all-consuming passion in life, the best I can do is change stuff and see what happens. Also, it's unclear what Mr. Sivers' financial independence status is, but I think that for most of us, wherever we go basically has to be for a job.
Part of the reason I haven't been writing much the last couple years is because I thought, "Ah, it's not fair for me to write about this stuff like moving countries on a whim."
But everyone's got their own version of this. My example is just one example.
I moved to Cambodia on a whim 4 months ago and I have ~14,000$ in the bank. Given my current monthly expenses (100$ rent, 200$ food, 50$ miscellaneous), I'll have the next three years to work on projects and coding (more than enough time) without worrying about making money.
Like others have said, money is not the limiting factor for most people in regards to moving half-way around the world. Being 12,000 miles away from my parents is very hard though; this move was something I absolutely needed to do, but I know if something were to happen to them I would completely regret my decision to come here.
Heya are you in Phnom Penh or in the provinces? Am doing the same (many folks like us increasingly in Phnom Penh, all of us contributing somewhat to ever-rising prices though I'm sure ;) -- should hang for coffee!
I think you have valuable and interesting things to say. I was actually in a band when you first started CD Baby and we emailed a few times until we ultimately signed with a label. It's fantastic to see the success that came about doing something that was really a great service with favorable terms for musicians. Congrats and maybe I'll see you around!
This comment is not really fair [1] but when he writes "I get the safety of knowing I won't be the target of a frivolous lawsuit, since I have very little net worth" I had to wonder. I did the math to see that translates to an annuity of over a million a year. I don't know about you but I tend to think that if one lives simply with just 'a good apartment, a good laptop, and a few other basics' then (even after taxes) one's net worth would probably be increasing fairly rapidly over time. Even on only a million a year! Guess I'm feeling very Mrs Bennett right now, though fortunately I have no daughters to thrust in his direction ;_)
More power to Mr Sivers who has made a great choice of new location in my humble, but biased, opinion.
[1] This is not really worthy of our hero D Sivers because as he notes 5% a year was apparently the minimum allowed.
Agreed. It sounds ridiculous, but I was honestly upset about that 5% minimum payout. Instead I funnel it back into projects that are hopefully useful to others.
This post is an excellent reminder that sometimes we need to do the same on the personal level. We need to look back at our past in order to understand our present and decide about our future.
[1]https://www.coursera.org/course/humankind