Matt Reardon might actually be the person who counterfactually changed my life more than anyone. So he gets naming rights 

The last section addresses these concerns

Thanks for the comment! I edited the post with the correct number. Good point about why this dynamic maybe shouldn’t be surprising- perhaps I should’ve emphasized that more, even though I still think it’s a problem to overcome.

Thanks for the comment! I appreciate the pushback, particularly on how younger impressionable folks might misread the importance of other traits in combined with ambition.

I think I basically just agree with your first two bullets, but would want people to fold these more holistic characteristics into their "work extremely hard and aim high" ambitions. Jensen and LBJ have a bunch of qualities that are not worth emulating, and I'm sad that 1) this seems to so often be the case for top performers, and 2) I agree they're more memetically fit. I think if I had written a piece just about Fred Hollows and Viktor Zhdanovs it would have gotten far less interest outside of EA circles.

Part of what I hope to do in my public writing is get more people excited about EA who haven't encountered it before ("create more content to make multiplayer altruism sexy," as you say). So maybe I should do a future post on developing good judgment and cooperative skills as well.

Thanks! I'm honestly not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case - there are probably fewer incentives or feedback loops for university career advising systems to focus on longer term skill building. Rather than "placement rate one year after graduation" or something

Thanks for the question! I've seen young people be quite successful in policy careers, but I agree there are some caveats in this context. People who want to be staffers or work in think tanks should be thoughtful about how they represent themselves online. I also think early in a policy career it's important to develop career capital and be trusted to do great work first, even if it means working with the existing policy agenda you're assigned rather than your preferred topics.

That said, "being known" is still really important in policy. It just might involve being known to a smaller group of people who can vouch for you directly. DC runs on interpersonal relationships built on trust, potentially including people in think tanks, on the hill, etc. Publishing in policy outlets can be a one way to build up to this, as can having good conversations at events, doing outreach to learn from experts on a topic you're researching on, etc.

https://80000hours.org/articles/the-us-ai-policy-landscape-where-to-have-the-biggest-impact/

https://80000hours.org/2025/11/our-top-tips-for-successful-networking/

Well said!

Great post! I think once you've identified a pressing problem in the world, your highest goal should not be "get a full time job in that field." It should be "get exceptionally good at the skills for solving the problem." That's what actually matters. Insofar as you care about (AI risk, animal suffering, global health, ___), you should see a job as one of many instrumental ways to get good at solving the problem, not "getting good enough" as instrumental to getting a job. Which one is your north star? It's easier said than done, but getting so good they can't ignore you is still underrated advice, and can help you shift your focus to more medium term skill building trajectories.

As you describe in the post, that can take many forms short of "full time capital E capital A work right away." Here are some slides on this theme (and trying to concretize strategies) from a recent talk I gave if it's helpful for anyone. And the 80,000 Hours career guide has many career capital tips.

And on AI timelines, people should probably think more seriously about opportunity costs when weighing between specific options, but I agree it shouldn't be their only factor or close off longer term skill building priorities. We should maximize our impact across the distribution of plausible outcomes- if AGI comes tomorrow, I'm probably not in a position to help directly anyway.

Hi Libby! I'm glad you're applying broadly to a range of roles. I think consulting can provide a solid foundation for generalist skills, but if you're able to find work for a directly impactful organization that aligns with your values, I'd encourage you to consider that. Sometimes these organizations can provide valuable networks, growth opportunities, and context for the pressing problems you care about. In addition, many impactful causes allow you to work on personal projects in your evenings/weekends to upskill if ops isn't your goal forever (BlueDot courses, personal writing projects, putting work on a GitHub, etc.) Depending on where you work, consulting sometimes provides less work life balance to continue this kind of learning.

Without knowing your specific cause area interests and longer term goals, it's hard to say more. But I'd encourage you to check out Consultants for Impact's resources on the pros and cons of a consulting career, as well as 80,000 Hours' many guides (high impact ops, top problems, etc.)

Hi Warren, thanks for this comment. I feel for your situation- in my undergrad I jumped between majors and wasn't sure what skills I wanted to develop, and I was worried that coming from a non-prestigious public college in Canada that there wouldn't be a place for me in these more competitive roles. This sounds like a cliche, but it was helpful for me at the time: relentlessly focus on what you can control. We don't choose the cards we're dealt to start out in life, but you have a remarkable amount of freedom in college to try out projects, explore different options, and get really good at something. College can be your 'training montage.' 

As you identified with the GED, there's no speed limit. Once you've identified a rare and valuable skill that helps solve a pressing problem, you should try to obsessively improve at it. If you haven't identified that yet, test your fit with small projects that let you try out different skills and interests efficiently, like taking a range of courses, writing something for a personal site, trying a weekend coding project, etc. You'll want to balance explore/exploit strategies.

The specifics will really depend on your situation. One way to look for your advantage is to ask yourself "which things feel like work for other people, but energize me?" For myself it started with a political philosophy course that I loved (and which introduced me to Peter Singer), but maybe you just haven't found that spark yet. I'd encourage you not to compare yourself to others who got luckier or are farther along, but to compare to where you've been and where you might have been if you didn't step up. You should be proud of getting your GED and being where you are now.

Also, I don't think your writing was messy. It seems like you've identified a feeling a lot of people have.