I have a theory I'm trying to disprove
I'm no Psychologist, but I have a theory about human behaviour.
We're all trying to maximise the following:
Intrinsic Enjoyment x (Social Capital + Financial Capital)
Let me break it down.
First, a few definitions:
Intrinsic Enjoyment: How much you enjoy doing something, independent of any external rewards.
Social Capital: Your status, level of influence, and strength of your personal network.
Financial Capital: Your financial net worth.
Second, note that Social Capital and Financial Capital can be converted into each other.
For example, a rich person can increase their status by buying a yacht. And a high status person can create financial capital by charging for access to themselves (think of all those keynote speakers).
Because Social and Financial capital are interchangeable, they have an additive relationship in the equation.
Lastly, note the multiplicative relationship between the two sides of the equation.
This implies that if you absolutely love what you do (high intrinsic enjoyment), you won't mind having low status and a near empty bank account, as long as they let you survive. But if the sum of your social and financial capital is zero (or negative), the entire equation implodes. It's why you see struggling artists take up corporate jobs.
On the flipside, the typical corporate slave hates what they do, but the money's usually good. And status games (MBA applications, office politics) are usually winnable. So they stick around. One fine day (usually around the age of 27), they quit to "find themselves". That's just slang for – "I need to work on something I enjoy, and no amount or money or status can make me do work I hate anymore".
Anyway, I'm looking to disprove this theory.
Reply if you have any examples that contradict it?