“Find Your Passion” Is Terrible Advice!

“Find your passion; if you find what you love to do, then you won’t have to work a single day in your life.” You have surely heard or read statements like this. Statements that are the talk of success circles and seminars and fill popular psychology books. Recent studies by some leading psychologists suggest that it may be time to change the way we think about our interests.

Carol Dweck, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, recalls recently asking undergraduate students at a seminar: “How many of you are waiting to find your passion?”

Dweck told me: “Almost all of them raised their hands, and dreamy looks appeared in their eyes.” They talked about it as if “it’s going to wash over them like a wave.” Swoosh. Hooray! It’s got them!

Would they have limitless motivation for their passion? They nodded their heads vigorously in agreement.

Dweck said: “I hate to burst your bubble, but it usually doesn’t work that way.”

What Dweck asked her students is a common topic of conversation in American society. The phrase “follow your passion” has become nine times more common in English-language books since 1990. Another ready-made piece of college counseling advice from an unknown source is: “If you find what you love to do, then you won’t have to work a single day in your life.”

But, according to Dweck and others, this advice misguides people.

Paul O’Keefe, an assistant professor of psychology at Yale-NUS College, says: “What are the consequences of this advice?” He adds: “It implies that if an activity you do feels like work, then you don’t love it.” O’Keefe gave the example of a student who jumps from one lab to another, trying to find the one whose research topic interests them. “The assumption is that if I don’t walk into a lab and feel overwhelmed with excitement, then its research topic isn’t my passion or interest.”

This is why he and two colleagues—Dweck and Greg Walton of Stanford University—recently conducted a study suggesting it may be time to change the way we think about our interests. They argue that interests are not “found,” but rather developed.

In an article forthcoming in the journal Psychological Science, the authors delineate the difference between two mindsets. One is a “fixed theory”¹ mindset—the idea that core interests are there from birth and just waiting to be discovered—and the other is a “growth theory”², the idea that interests are something anyone can cultivate over time.

To examine how these different mindsets influence us to pursue various subjects, the authors conducted a series of studies on college students, a group that is often advised to find their passion in the form of an academic major or career path.

First, students answered a questionnaire that classified them as either “techies”³—a term for those interested in math and science—or “fuzzies”⁴—meaning those interested in the arts or humanities. They also filled out a questionnaire that determined how much they agreed with the idea that people’s core interests do not change over time. They then read an article that did not align with their interests, a piece about the future of algorithms for fuzzies and a piece about Derrida for techies. The more participants endorsed a fixed theory, the less interested they were in the article that did not match their stated identity, i.e., techie or fuzzy.

The authors then repeated a similar procedure, but first asked students to read about either the fixed theory or the growth theory. Once again, those who had been informed that interests are fixed throughout a person's life were less drawn to an article that did not align with their interests.

The authors believe this means that students who favor fixed theories may forgo interesting lectures or opportunities because they do not align with interests they have already expressed. Or they might overlook paths where other disciplines could intersect with their chosen field.

Walton told me, "It is foolish to think that interests are things that are found fully formed and your job is to go around the world looking for them," and continued, "This does not reflect the way I or my students experience college; it is not that we go to class and have a conference or talk and think, how interesting. Rather, it is through a process of investment and development that we build a lasting passion in a field."

Another reason not to accept the fixed theory is that it may cause people to become easily discouraged. In fact, if something becomes difficult, it would be easy to simply assume it must not have been your passion. In one part of the study, students who thought interests were fixed were less likely to think that pursuing a passion is sometimes difficult. Instead, they thought it provided "unlimited motivation."

Dweck, one of the paper's authors, has previously studied different types of mindsets in relation to intelligence. According to her research, people who have a growth mindset about their own intelligence are less afraid of failure, because they believe intelligence is cultivated, not innate. Interests are related to abilities but are separate from them; the paper's authors told me: one might be interested in something but not very good at it. O'Keefe says, "I have been playing guitar for 25 years, but I cannot say my abilities have improved much in the last 10 years."

Dweck told me that "find your passion" has an admirable history. "Before that, people said, 'Find your talent,' and that saying was quite terrible. Because it implied that only those who were truly masters at something could succeed." She added, "'Find your passion' seems more democratic; everyone can have a passion." But this study suggests that even the idea of finding a "true" passion may intimidate people and prevent them from exploring a field further.

The authors also informed students about the fixed or growth theory and then exposed them to a new interest: astronomy. First, they showed them a video that The Guardian had made for a general audience about Stephen Hawking's ideas, an entertaining video that was easy to understand. Then, the authors gave the students a highly technical and difficult article about black holes that had been published in the journal Science. The students who had been introduced to the fixed theory, despite having said moments before, after watching the video, that they were fascinated by black holes, said after reading the difficult Science journal article that they were no longer interested in black holes. In other words, when we are told our interests are somehow ingrained, we abandon new interests as soon as things get tough.

This study was a preregistered replication⁵, meaning the authors had stated at the outset what their hypothesis and methods would be. This process is intended to prevent data dredging⁶, a practice in data analysis that has cast a shadow over many psychological studies in recent years.

K. Ann Renninger, a professor at Swarthmore College who was not involved in this study, has researched the development of interests and says that “neuroscience has confirmed that the development of interests can be facilitated.” In other words, with the right help, most people can become interested in almost anything. Before age eight, Renninger says, children will try anything. Between eight and twelve, they compare themselves to others and become anxious when they are not as good at something as their peers. This is when educators should find new ways to keep them interested in certain subjects.

Although the authors did not study adults, they told me their findings could apply to older individuals as well. For example, a person’s interest in parenthood increases rapidly when they have a real, crying baby at home. O’Keefe says: “You might know nothing about cancer, but if your mother gets cancer, you’ll become an expert in the blink of an eye.”

Another study conducted on adults’ views of interests shows that people who think interests should be found tend to choose jobs that are a perfect fit from the start. They prioritize satisfaction over a good income. Meanwhile, people who think interests are developed prioritize other goals over immediate job satisfaction, and the study’s authors write: “They grow over time to perform their profession better,” continuing: “Ultimately, people who haven’t found their perfect fit in a job can be hopeful; there is more than one path to becoming passionate about work.”

How can we cultivate a “growth” mindset in the young subjects of future psychology experiments? If you are a parent, don’t drop a new hobby as soon as it becomes difficult. (If you do, O’Keefe says, your child might notice).

Beyond this, there is no clear-cut way to develop a growth mindset about interests, other than knowing that this is a valid way of thinking and that our interests might still be around here somewhere.

Walton says: “We are trying to pull back the curtain on the hidden implications of things like ‘find your passion.’” He says: “Is that really how things work? A little knowledge is power.”

.

---

.

‘Find Your Passion’ Is Awful Advice

A major new study questions the common wisdom about how we should choose our careers.

Carol Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford University, remembers asking an undergraduate seminar recently, “How many of you are waiting to find your passion?”

“Almost all of them raised their hand and got dreamy looks in their eyes,” she told me. They talked about it “like a tidal wave would sweep over them.” Sploosh. Huzzah! It’s accounting!

Would they have unlimited motivation for their passion? They nodded solemnly.

What Dweck asked her students is a common refrain in American society. The term “Follow your passion” has increased ninefold in English books since 1990. “Find something you love to do and you’ll never have to work a day in your life” is another college-counseling standby of unknown provenance.

But according to Dweck and others, that advice is steering people wrong.

“What are the consequences of that?” asked Paul O’Keefe, an assistant professor of psychology at Yale—NUS College. “That means that if you do something that feels like work, it means you don’t love it.” He gave me the example of a student who jumps from lab to lab, trying to find one whose research topic feels like her passion. “It’s this idea that if I’m not completely overwhelmed by emotion when I walk into a lab, then it won’t be my passion or my interest.”

That’s why he and two co-authors—Dweck and Greg Walton of Stanford—recently performed a study that suggests it might be time to change the way we think about our interests. Passions aren’t “found,” they argue. They’re developed.

In a paper that is forthcoming in Psychological Science, the authors delineate the difference between the two mind-sets. One is a “fixed theory of interests”—the idea that core interests are there from birth, just waiting to be discovered—and the other is a “growth theory,” the idea that interests are something anyone can cultivate over time.

To examine how these different mind-sets affect our pursuit of different topics, the authors performed a series of studies on college students—a group that’s frequently advised to find their passion in the form of a major or career path.

First, students answered a survey that would categorize them as either “techy”—slang for interested in math and science—or “fuzzy,” meaning interested in the arts or humanities. They also filled out a survey determining how much they agreed with the idea that people’s core interests don’t change over time. They then read an article that mismatched their interests—a piece on the future of algorithms for the fuzzies, and a piece on Derrida for the techies. The more the participants endorsed a “fixed” theory of interests, the less interested they were in the article that mismatched their aforementioned identity as a techy or fuzzy.

The authors then repeated a similar procedure, but they had students read first about either the fixed theory of interests or the growth theory. Again, those who learned that interests are fixed throughout a person’s life were less captivated by an article that mismatched their interests.

The authors believe this could mean that students who have fixed theories of interest might forgo interesting lectures or opportunities because they don’t align with their previously stated passions. Or that they might overlook ways that other disciplines can intersect with their own.

“If passions are things found fully formed, and your job is to look around the world for your passion—it’s a crazy thought,” Walton told me. “It doesn’t reflect the way I or my students experience school, where you go to a class and have a lecture or a conversation, and you think, That’s interesting. It’s through a process of investment and development that you develop an abiding passion in a field.”

Another reason not to buy into the fixed theory is that it can cause people to give up too easily. If something becomes difficult, it’s easy to assume that it simply must not have been your passion, after all. In one portion of this study, the students who thought interests were fixed were also less likely to think that pursuing a passion would be difficult at times. Instead, they thought it would provide “endless motivation.”

Dweck, one of the paper’s authors, has previously studied different types of mind-sets as they relate to intelligence. People who have a growth mind-set about their own intelligence tend to be less afraid of failure, according to her research, because they believe smarts are cultivated, not inherent. Interests are related to, but distinct from, abilities, the study authors told me: You can be interested in something but not very good at it. “I’ve been playing guitar for 25 years, but I can’t say that my abilities have gotten that much better in the past 10 years,” O’Keefe said.

Dweck told me that “find your passion” has a laudable history. “Before that, people were saying, ‘Find your genius,’ and that was so intimidating. It implied that only people who were really brilliant at something could succeed,” she said. “‘Find your passion’ felt more democratic. Everybody can have an interest.” But this study suggests that even the idea of finding your “true” interest can intimidate people and keep them from digging further into a field.

The authors also had students learn about either fixed or growth theory and then exposed them to a new interest: Astronomy. First, they had them watch a video made by The Guardian for a general audience about Stephen Hawking’s ideas. It was easy to understand and entertaining. Then the authors had the students read a highly technical, challenging article in the academic journal Science about black holes. Despite saying just moments ago, after viewing the video, that they were fascinated by black holes, the students who were exposed to the fixed theory of interests said they were no longer interested in black holes after reading the difficult Science article. In other words, when you’re told that your interests are somehow ingrained, you give up on new interests as soon as the going gets tough.

This study was a preregistered replication, meaning the authors stated at the outset what their hypothesis and methods would be. This process is meant to prevent p-hacking, a shady data practice that has cast a shadow over many psychology studies in recent years.

K. Ann Renninger, a professor at Swarthmore College who was not involved with the study, has researched the development of interests and said that “neuroscience has confirmed that interests can be supported to develop.” In other words, with the right help, most people can get interested in almost anything. Before the age of 8, she said, kids will try anything. Between the ages of 8 and 12, they start to compare themselves with others and become insecure if they’re not as good as their peers at something. That’s when educators have to start to find new ways to keep them interested in certain subjects.

Though the authors didn’t examine adults, they told me their findings could apply to an older population as well. For example, people’s interest in parenthood tends to escalate rapidly once they have a real, crying baby in their house. “You could not know the first thing about cancer, but if your mother gets cancer, you’re going to be an expert in it pretty darn quick,” O’Keefe said.

A different study done on adults’ views toward passions suggests that people who think passions are found tend to pick jobs that fit them well from the outset. They prioritize enjoyment over good pay. People who think passions are developed, meanwhile, prioritize other goals over immediate enjoyment at work, and they “grow to fit their vocations better over time,” the authors of that study write. “In conclusion,” they add, “people who have not found their perfect fit in a career can take heart—there is more than one way to attain passion for work.”

How to cultivate a “growth” mind-set in the young, future-psychology-experiment subjects of America? If you’re a parent, you can avoid dropping new hobbies as soon as they become difficult. (Your kids might take note if you do, O’Keefe said.)

Beyond that, there’s not a clear way to develop a growth mind-set about interests, other than knowing that it’s a valid way to think, and that your passion might still be around the corner.

“We’re just trying to pull the veil back on the hidden implications of things like, ‘find your passion,’” Walton said. “Is that really how things work? A little bit of knowledge is power.”

.

---

.

Footnotes:

• This piece was written by Olga Khazan and published on July 12, 2018, under the title “Find Your Passion’ Is Awful Advice” on the website of The Atlantic. The website Tarjomaan published it on August 7, 2018, under the title “Find Your Passion Is Terrible Advice”, translated by Elham Aghababagoli. •• Olga Khazan is a staff writer at The Atlantic, covering health, gender, and science. Khazan has also written for The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Forbes, and other publications.

[۱] Fixed theory of interest [۲] Growth theory [۳] Techy [۴] Fuzzy [۵] Replication

[۶] p-hacking: A form of data analysis abuse in which many statistical tests are performed and only those with significant results are emphasized. Whereas, prior to analysis, one should state a hypothesis about the main outcome and then conduct a single test for it [Translator].

.

---

.