Thanks, this is exactly what I'm looking for. 

Accuracy isn't too important here. More interested in how people approach this

This advice sounds right to me if you already have the signal in hand and deciding whether to job search.

But if you're don't have the signal, then you need to spend time getting it. And then I think the advice hinges on how long it takes to get the signal. Short time-capped projects are great (like OP's support on 80,000 hours CEO search). But for learning and then demonstrating new skills on your own, it's not always clear how long you'll need.

Ooh good idea. I should do more of that.

I do think this can run into Goodhart's Law problems. For example, in the early 2010s, back when being a self-taught software engineer was much more doable, and it was a strong sign when someone had a GitHub profile with some side projects with a few months of work behind each of them. GitHub profile correlated with a lot of other desirable things. But then everyone got that advice (including me) and that signal got rapidly discounted.

So I guess I'd qualify that with: press really hard on why the signal is impressive and also ask people explicitly if they agree with the signals you heard from others (ex. I heard from people in field that signal X is good / bad, do you agree with that?)

I like this advice a lot but want to add a quick asterisk when transitioning to a new field.

It’s really really hard to tell what an expensive signal is without feedback. If you’re experienced in a field or you hang out with folks who work in a field, then you’ve probably internalized what counts as an “impressive project” to some degree.

In policy land, this cashes out as advice to take a job you don’t want in the organization you do want. Because that’s how you’ll learn what’s valuable and what’s not. Or taking low paid internships and skilled volunteering roles. Or dropping a lot of money to attend a conference for your target field.

It’s also really hard to know the steps to executing the “impressive project” (which is why the signal is so expensive!). With internships and skilled volunteering, you’ll get supervision. And even a light touch can prevent you from investing a ton of time in something that doesn’t matter. Or get reassurance that task X really does take everyone a long time so don’t feel bad about the time sink.

But with grants or independent work, you’ll have to seek out the feedback, brief them on project and hope you’ve given enough context for useful feedback, and also hope you picked someone who knows your area well enough. (I haven’t had success here and I’m not sure how realistic it is for most people.)

Work tests are awesome here since they’re mini-projects. But feedback is often noisy and hard to interpret since there aren’t good incentives for orgs to specialize in concrete feedback. I’ve interpreted this feedback wrong in both directions (first being too optimistic about a generic but lengthy “there were many strong candidates” and then too pessimistic about the terse but personalized rejections encouraging me to still consider research as a career)

The point I’m trying to make is that the idea of “cheap tests, expensive signal” is probably a lot easier for mid-career folks to apply independently. But for people without any experience, the advice depends on whether you can get supervision from an organization. Without that, it may be better to just “get your foot in the door” in any way possible. Maybe a “good enough cool sounding project” helps to demonstrate interest, but it’s tough for people to perform at 1-year of experience level before they have that 1 year of experience.

Strong agree. By no means am I suggesting organizations outsource or cancel more of their non-core work. It’s hard for organizations to define those, non-core work needs a lot of context, and a lot of grunt work is genuinely “real work” that people don’t appreciate.

But from an individual POV, I wanted to make sense of the feeling that extra hours could sometimes be increasing in value even when I was very tired. And I think it’s this dynamic with some tasks or career goals where the last N% is where most of the rewards are. So spending more time once you get there is a big deal.

I believe Claudia Goldin calls these “greedy jobs”.

Decreasing focus over time may not mean decreasing productivity:

Suppose you want to double your productivity by doubling your work hours from 30 to 60 per week. Standard advice will say this is silly, since focus decreases over time. You may still increase your productivity but it will scale slower than your work hours.

But this assumes all assigned work is equally important. In reality, many jobs have peripheral tasks that must be done before your core tasks (or your "real work"). Civil servants have reporting requirements, academic researchers have teaching obligations, and individual contributors everywhere have to attend meetings so managers can coordinate direction. 

Suppose the non-core tasks takes 20 hours per week. Then going from a 30-hour to 60-hour workweek isn't just doubling your core task hours; it's quadrupling your core task hours from 10 to 40! And that quadrupling of core task hours can outweigh the diminishing focus over time. It can even mean that the last 20 hours are more productive than the first 20 hours.

Now 20 hours of peripheral tasks is admittedly an extreme example. But it may not be that far off for modeling career advancement. Promotions are based partly on stretch assignments (or "performing above your level") and you won't get to work on stretch assignments all the time. Managers may split your time between your current job and the job you want to promote into.

Once you get to a certain level of seniority and organizational maturity, then more of your hours become core task hours. So diminishing focus more directly translates into diminishing productivity. But I think the earlier you are in your career, the more exploration you're doing, and the further you are from your target job, the more likely you'll want those extra hours.

Any tips for running discussion groups on the WIT sequences? I'm vaguely interested in doing one on the CURVE sequence (which I've read deeply) or the CRAFT sequence (which I have only skimmed). However, the technical density seems like a big barrier and perhaps some posts are more key than others

1. What are selfish lifestyle reasons to work on the WIT team?
2. Is it fair to say the work WIT does is unusual outside of academia? What are closely related organizations that tackle similar problems?
3. How does your team define "good enough" for a sequence? What adjustments do you make when you fall behind schedule? Cutting individual posts? Shortening posts? Spending more time?
4. How much does the direction of a sequence change as you're writing it? It seems like you have a vision in mind when starting out, but you also mention being surprised by some results.
5. Can you tell us more about the structure of research meetings? How frequently do individual authors chat with each other and for what reason? In particular, the CURVE sequence feels very intentionally like a celebration of different "EA methodologies". Most of the posts feel individual before converging on a big cost-effectiveness analysis.
6. Much of your work is numerical simulation over discrete choices. Have there been attempts to define more "closed-form" analytical equations? What are pros and cons here?
7. What are the main constraints the WIT team faces?

Definitely wish I read and believed this when I was out of college.

One thing that surprised me once I got my 'dream job' was how behind I was on soft skills. I think if I had 'lowered my bar' earlier, I would have had more practice in communicating concisely, staying cool in stressful situations, and building work relationships.

Not sure if that path would have been more or less impactful in expectation, but there are definitely benefits to 'lower ambition' that I'm only appreciating now