Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In adulthood, this all seems to change. Trying new things is often shunned in adulthood. People often view other (adult) people who try different things, move around a lot, switch jobs/careers, explore different educational paths, and so forth as unstable, unreliable, disloyal, having poor judgment, or otherwise.
I have not experienced this but it might simply be a difference in emphasis. I don't feel that these things are shunned. What I have seen is people expressing their insecurities but with a tinge of astonished envy.
While in Mexico this spring I had a money transfer problem that was complicated by my age-related forgetfulness. I was at the bank still trying to get it straightened out and mentioned to the bank officer that my forgetfulness had cause a problem that the bank made worse with some poor security policies.
Apparently this put her on the defensive and she said, "YOU went to Mexico by YOURSELF with memory problems?"
Eventually we got it straightened out and I managed to let the judgmentalism slide to expedite the problem solving. Geez.
My thought about the OP is that the message is a good one to tell yourself when plans don't work out. To me there is no such thing as a mistake on vacation. There are only learning experiences and unplanned adventures. Using the OP as an attitude adjuster works well for me.
In practice it can seem rational in planning but be disastrous in execution. That's where all that early learning in good thinking skills and striving for a solid emotional stability comes in handy. Ideally we all learn our tolerance for unwanted surprises and unpleasant outcomes and factor them into our decision-making process so that our sense of adventure doesn't cause human train wreck.
I believe it's not what happens to us in life that determines whether we are living well but how well we handle what happens to us that is the measure of life satisfaction. Know thyself, right?
Here are some concepts that I think most of us can get behind.
Learning is a lifelong pursuit.
To learn, one must be curious and try different things.
One must not be afraid to make mistakes and fail. This is a critical step in learning and growing.
-------
We instill these values in children. We encourage them to explore, try new things, make mistakes, fail, get back up, try something else, learn, grow, etc.
In adulthood, this all seems to change. Trying new things is often shunned in adulthood. People often view other (adult) people who try different things, move around a lot, switch jobs/careers, explore different educational paths, and so forth as unstable, unreliable, disloyal, having poor judgment, or otherwise.
Life is a journey. Last I checked, there were no rules about having it all figured out between the ages of 28-32. Yet, a lot of people judge it based on something arbitrary like that. It raises the question of who does all this complacency and loyalty serve to benefit? It's certainly not the individual trying out new things and trying to have some semblance of control over their own lives.
Yes, life is a learning regimen.
The largest difference I see in child vs. adult learning is...the child isn't afraid of how they'll look if they fail.
For adults, that fear may be s strong that the adult may not attempt to learn, for fear of appearing foolish to their comrades, should they fail.
For the child, this is the time for discovery.
For the adult, this can be a form of control.
The one thing that's unusual, is that if an adult consistently fails, then they come to expect failure. They've been "conditioned" to fail. With each failure, this buttresses their psych. If/when they have a success, then they may not know how to accept success.
By the same token, the adult that consistently achieves success, has been conditioned to expect that success. This is all well and good, until they have a failure. Sometimes, their "psychie" can't tolerate failure. This can manifest itself in many ways. Most of them damaging. Occasionally, we read about it in the newspaper...
I believe it's not what happens to us in life that determines whether we are living well but how well we handle what happens to us that is the measure of life satisfaction. Know thyself, right?
Totally agree with the "when you get knocked down, get up again" mentality.
A large concern of mine is when other people leverage this as a gatekeeping opportunity. "So you say you don't conform to the rules that I subscribe to? Be gone with you then!"
People develop prejudices towards others when they view them as unconventional, uncontrollable, unstable, etc. But it's not that the person is necessarily any of those things, at least not in the negative ways we think about them. It just means that they go by the beat of their own drum and want to figure out life for themselves, as opposed to rigid guidelines established by the powers that be; the gatekeepers so to speak. Or maybe...they are simply learning as they go as many of us do. This leverage over us removes the locus of control from us and places it in the hands of these gatekeepers. It should be okay to try out different things, make mistakes, fail, try other things...you know, figure out who you are and your place in the world. And that doesn't mean by 22 years of age! It is not a crime to explore life and figure it out well into adulthood. But people treat it as such; as if it is a failure of judgment on the individual's part. In a round about way, they see it as their inability to control you.
It's like I mentioned earlier, god forbid I committed actual negligence or a crime. If it's this difficult just to figure it out as you go, I can't imagine how screwed your life must be if you actually have a criminal record.
From my own anecdotal experience, that's not what I'm referring to. I live a moderately conservative lifestyle, and even I feel judged a lot.
As an example, I've explored different jobs and paths throughout my career. Nothing insane like 2+ jobs per year for an extended period. But more like 2 years here, 2.5 years there, 1.75 years here. I recently explored a transition into the accounting field, and ultimately realized it wasn't a good fit for me after 1.5 years in that space. During that period, I went back to school, and tried out a couple jobs in that field. In some recent job hunting experiences, there were times I felt extremely judged, almost to the point that they were hostile towards me in the interview.
God forbid it was something as serious as choosing pot over baby diapers.
Are you actually talking about leading an adventurous life or job hopping interviews? Seems like this thread has two very different themes to it. I don't find most people to judge someone for leading an adventurous lifestyle unless, as mentioned earlier, something else is getting neglected. But to the specific you mentioned of interviews, well, the interviewer is judging you. They are trying to decide if they should risk hiring you. And yes, lots of short term jobs is a red flag that you won't stick around long enough to be worth their while.
/This leverage over us removes the locus of control from us and places it in the hands of these gatekeepers. It should be okay to try out different things, make mistakes, fail, try other things...you know, figure out who you are and your place in the world./
/ But people treat it as such; as if it is a failure of judgment on the individual's part. In a round about way, they see it as their inability to control you./
Internal locus of control means I think my outcomes are based upon my thoughts and behaviors. I have agency in my life. External locus of control means I think my life is controlled by external factors. I think autonomy in adulthood requires trying to lessen the weight of external factors and increase the power of internal ones.
This is why it's important to work on where you place your locus of control. It's not other peoples' choice; it's yours. You may not like others' reactions to your lifestyle but it's important through experience to recognize that those consequences are a possibility because of your choices.
Just as others may recognize they have no ability to control you you may also realize you have no ability to control what others think of your choices.
Isn't that just a basic fact of living? We hope for acceptance. We can even ask for it. But it's inevitable that people will have opinions about our choices. Courage helps.
I know there is a risk with having an external locus of control to not take responsibility for one's self and it puts us in a spot where we can easily blame others for our mistakes. Where's the learning in that?
I like the idea of taking responsibility for my choices because it frees me to learn from my mistakes and better yet, allows me to take credit for my successes.
Are you actually talking about leading an adventurous life or job hopping interviews? Seems like this thread has two very different themes to it. I don't find most people to judge someone for leading an adventurous lifestyle unless, as mentioned earlier, something else is getting neglected. But to the specific you mentioned of interviews, well, the interviewer is judging you. They are trying to decide if they should risk hiring you. And yes, lots of short term jobs is a red flag that you won't stick around long enough to be worth their while.
Good distinction. FWIW, I consider myself adventurous. However, when I first finished college, I happened to work at a lot of employers that ended up going under. I had a string of really short-term jobs and would get questions about whether I was likely to stick to a job long term. I don’t think that had anything to do with me being adventurous generally.
That said, I don’t think I am in a situation where this sort of mentality is looked down upon. I work in the federal government, and with vet preference, there are a lot of people who have moved around a lot. It’s actually very hard to get the best job in my office without moving. A lot of people ended up in my office (a suburban office0 by chance while others ended up moving to my office from more rural areas. At my last job, I started at HQ and that was something similar. Many people had started out in regional offices before moving to HQ, and it was not uncommon for people to take long trips abroad once every couple of years.
Good distinction. FWIW, I consider myself adventurous. However, when I first finished college, I happened to work at a lot of employers that ended up going under. I had a string of really short-term jobs and would get questions about whether I was likely to stick to a job long term. I don’t think that had anything to do with me being adventurous generally.
That said, I don’t think I am in a situation where this sort of mentality is looked down upon. I work in the federal government, and with vet preference, there are a lot of people who have moved around a lot. It’s actually very hard to get the best job in my office without moving. A lot of people ended up in my office (a suburban office0 by chance while others ended up moving to my office from more rural areas. At my last job, I started at HQ and that was something similar. Many people had started out in regional offices before moving to HQ, and it was not uncommon for people to take long trips abroad once every couple of years.
I too am a Fed and a vet. There is a bit of a difference between a defined experiential growth path and a history of rapid job changes. Here in the Fed, it takes 3-5 months minimum to fill a position. If the person in it doesn't last a year, it's not worth hiring them.
We even see problems with the typical defined moves as the senior leaders punch their tickets and move up. Our leadership is full of people who have 20-25 years total and still have zero experience in what we do. We see a lot of poor decisions and constant money and time wasting re-directs as they turn over.
Really illustrates the difference between 20 years' experience and 2 years' experience 10 times.
I think a lot of people are both scared and jealous of a less structured lifestyle.
They don't like their jobs, but have too many obligations to quit. They locked into a path when young, and can't see a way out, so probably can't see how anybody else can manage it, either. And their parents and grandparents did the same, so they believe that's the only way.
I too am a Fed and a vet. There is a bit of a difference between a defined experiential growth path and a history of rapid job changes. Here in the Fed, it takes 3-5 months minimum to fill a position. If the person in it doesn't last a year, it's not worth hiring them.
We even see problems with the typical defined moves as the senior leaders punch their tickets and move up. Our leadership is full of people who have 20-25 years total and still have zero experience in what we do. We see a lot of poor decisions and constant money and time wasting re-directs as they turn over.
Really illustrates the difference between 20 years' experience and 2 years' experience 10 times.
I empathize with your specific situation. I understand the dilemma this puts you in. And I understand where there can be value in having many years of experience in one area.
However, things tend to work very differently outside of the Fed and other governmental agencies. As it's been described to me from other governmental employees, the government has a "hurry up and wait" type of work flow. In a lot of corporate environments, things change on a dime. Your organization can be acquired, and you might not know if you have a job tomorrow. That's happened a number of times in my career. It's hard to find a role or company where you can stick around long term. Even if you do find something you like, the company may be pushing you up or out of the organization, even if it's against your will. Or, as it's happened to me, they might hire a manager who clashes with you and it feels like your only option is to leave. You don't just get to transfer out to another unit. The corporate world is anything but static. There is also little to no job security. There is no tenure or union to protect you. Competing with the notion that you can be let go at any moment for any or no reason at all can wreak havoc on your psyche. It makes sticking it out long term through many changes much less enticing. If you've been a government employment your entire career, you might not understand what that feels like.
The government is very, very different than corporate in other ways pertaining to pathways. While there is a lot of standard, linear progression across federal and state agencies, that doesn't always exist in corporate unless you decide to pursue a rigid path in a straight forward field like accounting. In that case, you might start as an AP/PR clerk, move to staff, get promoted to manager, later get promoted to controller, get your MBA, and become a CFO. That's about as linear of a path as I know in corporate, but that doesn't exist much outside a select few fields. Additionally, rarely is it the case that two jobs at two different organizations are exactly the same. For instance, I've been a financial analyst in the insurance world, and that means absolutely nothing in the FP&A world.
Another thing to keep in mind is that, for many of us, the first 10-15 years of our careers are spent figuring out what it is we want to do. I'm at the tail end of this process now. I passed on a state job over a decade ago, and maybe it was the worst decision of my life; I don't know. But after that, I spent many years trying to figure out what I wanted to do, as well as find the right cultural fit. I did not have this guidance as a first gen college graduate, and I did not magically fall into my dream job right out of the gate. I spent years discovering my talents and learning how I can apply that to roles in corporate. Let me tell you this. None of that would have been possible if I settled and stuck it out with one of those early roles long term. Recently, I took a stab at accounting. Guess what? I hated it! I hated the work and I hated the conservative nature of the work culture. I spent $2000 in education, 1.5 years between two different roles to figure this out for myself. Does this make me a bad, unstable, unreliable, unknowledgeable worker? No, it doesn't.
There is a lot to be said about the value a worker like me brings to the table. For one, we're adaptable. I can learn things really quickly, because I've done it, a lot. I'm not indoctrinated in one organization's (broken) culture. I've seen what works, what doesn't work, and everything in between, because I've been around the block a few times. I'm also not one to complain about change, as it's actually something I'm comfortable with and embrace.
Last edited by modest; 06-05-2022 at 04:33 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
