Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey
Hide table of contents

 I recently started a full-time position at the Humane and Sustainable Food Lab, and I’ve been reflecting on how convoluted and indirect my path was. I thought that journey might be worth sharing.

In the genre of "Well, how did I get here?," I appreciate Johannes Haushofer's CV of failures because it helps correct selection bias in career stories. If we only see the things that go right and the outcomes that emerge from them, we'll have a truncated sense of what leads to what. So here's my story.

Stage 1 (2006-2010): Aiming to be a political science professor

I went to a small US college whose graduates are overrepresented in EA and in PhD programs. I majored in political science, where I found the work reasonably enjoyable and easy.[1] Most of my friends ended up getting PhDs and I went the same direction: a classic case of peer effects.

Stage 2 (2010-2013): Trying other paths for a few years

As a college senior, I thought that 21 was a bit young to start a PhD, so I did other stuff for a while:

  • An Americorps program where I worked as a teacher's aide in a kindergarten classroom in D.C.
  • Taught English in Thailand to middle and high schoolers
  • A two-semester internship at a think tank at which I produced approximately zero output. 

I wanted to see if any job seemed like a better fit than"professor at Swarthmore/Middlebury/Pomona/etc.," but nothing seemed more compelling, so I applied to PhD programs in political science in fall 2012[2] and enrolled at Columbia the following year.

Stage 3 (2013-2015): Grad school is not a good fit

My first year in graduate school was very challenging and not at all like college. I took survey courses with giants in the field and struggled to pay attention. The required stats classes were interesting but required skills I didn't really have; I thought I was picking up enough to get by, but I wasn't, a fact I was alerted to when I got a letter from the department chair saying that my academic performance was not meeting expectations. 

I did however, fall in with a dyed-in-the-wool experimentalist as my advisor who I really like and with whom I'm still friends. I took a few classes with him and we had some projects I was excited about. However, when people in the department looked at these projects, they sometimes asked: how is this political science? 

At the end of my second year, I failed my comprehensive exams in American Politics. At the beginning of what would have been my third year, I failed them again, this time in both American and Comparative politics. That meant leaving the program and venturing into the real world. (I got a consolation M.A.)

Stage 4 (2016-2017): Transitioning to tech 

This was a difficult period in my life. My first job, at a well-regarded international development NGO, fell apart after a few months.[3] At that point, I felt like something was profoundly wrong with me and no job would ever work out. 

One morning in spring 2016, I ran with my advisor and explained the situation, and he offered to pay me for the summer to work on a project that we had started in grad school: a meta-analysis of intergroup contact experiments. I gratefully said yes and we ultimately published the paper in 2018

Meanwhile, I tried to get a job in tech, because that was what one did back then. In fall 2016, I got an unpaid internship at a friend's startup and a paid gig practicing English conversation with Japanese employees of a big bank. I checked Hacker News every day, and in early 2017, applied to a job posting there to be a junior developer advocate, a title I'd never previously heard of, at a startup. I started that position in March 2017.

Stage 5 (2017-2021): The tech years

I worked at that company until early March 2020. Towards the end, I knew things weren't going to work out,[4] and I looked for an offramp. I ended up working with my former co-authors as a research assistant on a meta-analysis they were working on. I also moved back in with my parents in the suburbs and, when not working on the meta-analysis, collected unemployment. I was 31 at the time.

As that project winded down, I began interviewing to be a data analyst at a Fintech startup. I started that job in September 2020 and lasted about 9 months, but I was badly depressed at the time and an underperformer. In April 2021, the day I got my first COVID vaccine, I decided to resign -- thereby saving the company the hassle of firing me, which I think bosses generally appreciate -- and take a long hike to clear my head.

Stage 6: (2021): The Appalachian Trail

I wrote about this here.

Stage 7 (2021-2024): freelancing, one final hurrah in tech, and freelancing again

After hiking the AT, I went to New Orleans for a family event, and while walking around the Bywater, felt the city calling to me; so I got a lease on a bedroom in a former BnB and explored the city for 5 months while doing a little freelance work for an insurance company and a wealth management firm. (I got both gigs through family connections.) 

Eventually I started to run out of money and felt like it was time to get a real job again. The week after Mardi Gras, I saw a job ad on Hacker News that that looked appealing. I joined that company in May 2022 and moved back to NYC shortly after.[5]

Throughout this period, I worked on and off on a meta-analysis of interventions intended to reduce sexual violence (as a hobby) with a team based in Princeton. Here is a write-up.

In summer 2023, I sensed that my time at my employer was coming to an end, and I began looking for an offramp. (You might be sensing a pattern here.) In August, I went to EAGxNYC 2023 and met some cool people, including someone who works at ASAP, and we began a project looking into interventions that try to reduce consumption of meat and animal products. (Here is a writeup.) As part of that project, I emailed a group of researchers to ask if I had missed any studies -- in the lingo of meta-analysis, I canvassed the invisible college -- and one of those people was Maya Mathur. It turned out that she sometimes used the paper I worked on in summer 2016 in her teaching and also in a textbook she's co-author on. We met in person in January 2024, began working together shortly thereafter on a contract basis, and as of now I am a research scientist at her lab.

What did I learn?

In case this wasn't clear, I typically have no idea what I'm doing doing or where I'm going. But things have turned out ok. Sometimes I feel like I just got lucky/being a privileged person helped me fail up. But perhaps I've learned some things anyway.

  1. if anything in this journey went well because of things I did, it was usually because something caught my attention in a hard, biting way and I became obsessed with it. These were not projects I undertook for instrumental reasons; I usually have no clue what doors are ahead of me or where I'm going. But doors open anyway.
  2. I've sometimes heard that you should aim to work for people who are where you want to be. I'd say instead that I work best for people whom I admire but whose positions I do not necessarily covet. I have never craved the stress of being a high-powered person. Lieutenant/batman is a better fit.
  3. Rejection, even a really big one, is not necessarily the final word. I went to grad school to be a researcher, and eventually I got there.
  4. Nick Bostrom remarks in Superintelligence that we have no idea if happiness is optimal for productivity. Perhaps instead "a sullen or anxious fixation on simply getting on with the job without making mistakes will be the productivity-maximizing attitude in most lines of work." And indeed when I get a bee in my bonnet, I'm generally not happy about it. 'Annoyed' is closer to the mark. But that's apparently the motivation I need for really detail-oriented data work. So I guess I'd ask of anyone who asked me about career matters: does anything really grind your gears? Is there a project you can make out of that? Do you have something you want to say? And not to worry so much about what will come of it. Start by doing work you're invested in, that you're proud of, and people may notice. 
  1. ^

    Andrej Karpathy observes: "Learning is not supposed to be fun. It doesn't have to be actively not fun either, but the primary feeling should be that of effort." But for most of my life I acted like a praise-seeking missile, which generally meant focusing on things that came easily and where learning didn't feel like work. 

  2. ^

    I also took the LSATs and was going to apply to law school, but sitting in a meeting one day, bored stiff, I was struck by the thought: "I don't want to be in meetings for the rest of my life. I shouldn't be a lawyer." So I withdrew my applications and I think this was a good decision

  3. ^

    The organization was restructuring amidst some unexplained budget irregularities, and I was among those who fell somewhere between "left" and "asked to leave." I still don't have total clarity into what happened behind the scenes, but I received a poor performance grade on an ad hoc evaluation and was given a performance improvement plan; when I asked my boss and my boss's boss if there was any viable path back from the PIP to a future at the organization, they strongly implied that there was not (though they never came out and said it, presumably for legal reasons). My boss was also on their way out. 

  4. ^

    The company went through a serious change in culture and focus as a result of a fundraising round in summer 2019, and the organization that emerged from that crucible worked on things that didn't speak to me.

  5. ^

    I/we wrote about that company's mission for the forum a few times, and shared my initial cover letter in a blogpost.

  6. Show all footnotes

49

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments5
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for writing this. I found it really moving and admire your perseverance throughout the process

Thanks for sharing this candid account of your journey, Seth! How fortunate for the HSF Lab that your path landed you with us. Even though the trip was roundabout, it gave you a breadth and depth of skills, and worldliness, that doesn't come rolled up inside a PhD diploma.

Start by doing work you're invested in, that you're proud of, and people may notice.

This is fantastic advice.

Thank your for sharing your honest and detailed career path! Full of bends, unexpected rocks, steep hikes... Only could you if possible elaborate on your transition to IT/tech? You mentioned that you applied for jobs as data analyst. Did you start learning coding, data analysis, DevOps...? IT is extremely wide and I also think that nobody should be scared of giving it a try because there's always a niche they will enjoy. How was your experience and what branch of IT have you focused on?

Hi Victoria, thanks for asking!

The stats classes I took in grad school typically had problem sets in R, so I learned that. I got better at it in summer 2016 when I used it for the paper I worked on. The first real job I got in tech was doing technical support for academic researchers who were using a computational reproducibility platform, so knowing a bit of R and being able to pick up enough of the other languages to get by -- mostly some shell scripting and package installation commands in Python/Julia/etc. -- was helpful. Mostly I just learned the bits and pieces I needed to know and didn't really approach the question systematically.

The data analyst job I got was in an R shop. If I had been more motivated by the problem and a better fit at the company, I might still be doing that.

Executive summary: The author describes their winding career path from aspiring political science professor to research scientist, highlighting how unexpected opportunities and persistent interests ultimately led to a fulfilling role despite numerous setbacks.

Key points:

  1. The author's initial goal of becoming a political science professor was derailed by poor performance in graduate school.
  2. Multiple career transitions followed, including brief stints in tech, freelancing, and hiking the Appalachian Trail.
  3. Persistent interest in research and meta-analysis projects eventually led to opportunities in that field.
  4. Failures and rejections were not final, as the author ultimately achieved their goal of becoming a researcher, albeit in a different field than originally planned.
  5. The author emphasizes the importance of pursuing projects that genuinely interest you, even if the career path is unclear.
  6. Privilege and social networks played a role in allowing the author to recover from setbacks and continue exploring career options.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This morning I was looking into Switzerland's new animal welfare labelling law. I was going through the list of abuses that are now required to be documented on labels, and one of them made me do a double-take: "Frogs: Leg removal without anaesthesia."  This confused me. Why are we talking about anaesthesia? Shouldn't the frogs be dead before having their legs removed? It turns out the answer is no; standard industry practice is to cut their legs off while they are fully conscious. They remain alive and responsive for up to 15 minutes afterward. As far as I can tell, there are zero welfare regulations in any major producing country. The scientific evidence for frog sentience is robust - they have nociceptors, opioid receptors, demonstrate pain avoidance learning, and show cognitive abilities including spatial mapping and rule-based learning.  It's hard to find data on the scale of this issue, but estimates put the order of magnitude at billions of frogs annually. I could not find any organisations working directly on frog welfare interventions.  Here are the organizations I found that come closest: * Animal Welfare Institute has documented the issue and published reports, but their focus appears more on the ecological impact and population decline rather than welfare reforms * PETA has conducted investigations and released footage, but their approach is typically to advocate for complete elimination of the practice rather than welfare improvements * Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife focus on conservation and sustainability rather than welfare standards This issue seems tractable. There is scientific research on humane euthanasia methods for amphibians, but this research is primarily for laboratory settings rather than commercial operations. The EU imports the majority of traded frog legs through just a few countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam, creating clear policy leverage points. A major retailer (Carrefour) just stopped selling frog legs after welfar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
This is a cross post written by Andy Masley, not me. I found it really interesting and wanted to see what EAs/rationalists thought of his arguments.  This post was inspired by similar posts by Tyler Cowen and Fergus McCullough. My argument is that while most drinkers are unlikely to be harmed by alcohol, alcohol is drastically harming so many people that we should denormalize alcohol and avoid funding the alcohol industry, and the best way to do that is to stop drinking. This post is not meant to be an objective cost-benefit analysis of alcohol. I may be missing hard-to-measure benefits of alcohol for individuals and societies. My goal here is to highlight specific blindspots a lot of people have to the negative impacts of alcohol, which personally convinced me to stop drinking, but I do not want to imply that this is a fully objective analysis. It seems very hard to create a true cost-benefit analysis, so we each have to make decisions about alcohol given limited information. I’ve never had problems with alcohol. It’s been a fun part of my life and my friends’ lives. I never expected to stop drinking or to write this post. Before I read more about it, I thought of alcohol like junk food: something fun that does not harm most people, but that a few people are moderately harmed by. I thought of alcoholism, like overeating junk food, as a problem of personal responsibility: it’s the addict’s job (along with their friends, family, and doctors) to fix it, rather than the job of everyday consumers. Now I think of alcohol more like tobacco: many people use it without harming themselves, but so many people are being drastically harmed by it (especially and disproportionately the most vulnerable people in society) that everyone has a responsibility to denormalize it. You are not likely to be harmed by alcohol. The average drinker probably suffers few if any negative effects. My argument is about how our collective decision to drink affects other people. This post is not
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Today, Forethought and I are releasing an essay series called Better Futures, here.[1] It’s been something like eight years in the making, so I’m pretty happy it’s finally out! It asks: when looking to the future, should we focus on surviving, or on flourishing? In practice at least, future-oriented altruists tend to focus on ensuring we survive (or are not permanently disempowered by some valueless AIs). But maybe we should focus on future flourishing, instead.  Why?  Well, even if we survive, we probably just get a future that’s a small fraction as good as it could have been. We could, instead, try to help guide society to be on track to a truly wonderful future.    That is, I think there’s more at stake when it comes to flourishing than when it comes to survival. So maybe that should be our main focus. The whole essay series is out today. But I’ll post summaries of each essay over the course of the next couple of weeks. And the first episode of Forethought’s video podcast is on the topic, and out now, too. The first essay is Introducing Better Futures: along with the supplement, it gives the basic case for focusing on trying to make the future wonderful, rather than just ensuring we get any ok future at all. It’s based on a simple two-factor model: that the value of the future is the product of our chance of “Surviving” and of the value of the future, if we do Survive, i.e. our “Flourishing”.  (“not-Surviving”, here, means anything that locks us into a near-0 value future in the near-term: extinction from a bio-catastrophe counts but if valueless superintelligence disempowers us without causing human extinction, that counts, too. I think this is how “existential catastrophe” is often used in practice.) The key thought is: maybe we’re closer to the “ceiling” on Survival than we are to the “ceiling” of Flourishing.  Most people (though not everyone) thinks we’re much more likely than not to Survive this century.  Metaculus puts *extinction* risk at about 4