As I'm writing this I realize I got used to naturally writing with mathematical notation¹. Fuck it we ball, I like the style.

Let's define the function that finds your "Life's Work" as the function that optimizes the following:

where $\mathcal{O}$ is your personal obsession and $\text{SOTA}$ stands for state of the art.

You can't really over-parameterize your function for optimizing your life's work. Well you can but I don't think you should.

But the concept of ones life's work can be volatile, there are many unknown variables. You don't want to parameterize too early. Plans are only useful with certainty to the degree to which the variables are known.

I think you want to follow your innate curiosity and obsession ($\mathcal{O}$) within a given domain, for a given time period, $\tau$, with the constraint that $\tau$ is prolonged enough to allow you to develop substantial specific knowledge ($\mathcal{K}$).

What counts as substantial specific knowledge ($\mathcal{K}$)?

It's arbitrary, volatile, and ambiguous, dependent on a person's context and the intensity or nature of one's $\mathcal{O}$.

You definitely want some level of commitment, otherwise nothing would get done, but you don't want to overcommit -- to the point where once your $\mathcal{O}$ drifts away, but you continue working on the same thing.

You want to be rational, but not too rational to where you ignore your intuition that guides you to your natural interest and $\mathcal{O}$.

So I'd say, you want to develop substantial $\mathcal{K}$ to the $\cap$ of the edge of your current $\mathcal{O}$ and a real world checkpoint, the checkpoint being having garnered enough $\mathcal{K}$ such that it provides a useful base for continuing to compound on.

But then what?

$\tau - 1 =$ previous phase of $\mathcal{O}$

You take $\mathcal{K}_{\tau - 1}$, consider where your current $\mathcal{O}$ might lie in, and ideally go in the direction that allows you to compound on $\mathcal{K}_{\tau - 1}$, while still following your innate $\mathcal{O}$, such that $\mathcal{K_\tau}$ becomes increasingly specialized, in the domain that you are truly obsessed about at time $\tau$.

And you do this as $\tau \rightarrow \infty$, continuously redefining what you do.

I think compounding becomes extremely important here, if you don't seek to compound on $\mathcal{K_{\tau - 1}}$, you might not develop the right $\mathcal{K}$ to make dent you might want to make on this universe, though this is contextual on the individual person ².

But why optimize for Obsession³?

I think if you want to be the best in the world at what you do, such that you provide extremely great value for humanity, the $\text{P}(\text{success})$ and the $||\text{success}||_2$ can be covariate with $||\mathcal{O}||_2$.

You'll only go as far as you're willing. Unconventional outcomes can be difficult to achieve. Most people won't be willing. Following $\mathcal{O}$ can take you there and past to $\infty$⁴.

Related

Naval 10/28/2016
huh, unexpected i typically dislike these