I'm trying to find a job that requires thinking but doesn't tie me to a computer (but nothing on advertisement, though)
Any ideas?
The problem is that almost everyone would rather think than do, so you've got a massive supply & demand imbalance. Everybody wants to be the one deciding what should be done; very few people want to be the ones actually doing it.
In practice, most professions deal with this by instituting barriers to entry. In rigid hierarchical organizations like the corporate world, this is done through a "pay your dues" culture. The people who become corporate executives get there through performing well at grunt work on an individual contributor level - well enough to attract the attention of an outgoing senior executive. The most likely path to becoming a venture capitalist is to found a successful startup yourself. Anyone can start a hedge fund, but convincing people to give you money usually requires a solid track record as an analyst or trader at an established firm. Associates at management consulting firms do things like count products on store shelves and make PowerPoint presentations before they get to call the strategy shots themselves.
In more fluid professions like novelists, the barrier to entry is simply that you have to be so good that they can't ignore you. There are millions of aspiring writers that want to get published; only a few thousand manage to do so, and only a few dozen become bestsellers. If you want to be one of them, you need to be willing to practice and revise enough that your work is better than all the other folks.
I'd disagree. I think that the majority of people would rather work with something more concrete (doing) than abstract(thinking).
But if you really listen to people, I've found that most can think pretty deeply about grand and overarching subjects. And it's people from all walks of life - auto mechanics, high school dropouts, civil servants, retirees, in addition to the engineers and executives and authors you'd expect. Look at how many people had opinions on the bailout, for example, or how many think they could do a better job than Ben Bernanke at steering the economy. Or look at the traffic to forums like Reddit, where people are invited to leave their comments about all sorts of stories. Most of them are wrong, but that's still an awful lot of thinking going on about pretty abstract subjects.
I'm going to tell that a colleague of mine who wants to quit his current job because everything he does is talking and negotiating (i.e. deciding or rather preparing decisions) without ever getting anything done.
So as an analyst or grand strategist you would be tasked with studying how such and such technology will change global politcal and economic rule sets, etc and what america needs to do to take advantage of it or prepare for it. You can also be a person that researches the latest and greatest technology.
These military agencies were the people who developed the initial need for technological innovations like the internet and the database.
Also, you would go out talk to all these opinion leaders and participate in various think tanks with super smart people and create research that can influence the entire history of the world if compelling enough.
It is a lot of fun if you really want to contribute to the world and make a difference.
Secondly, your post overall just doesn't ring true to me. If the pentagon is really this keen on hiring the best and the brightest, wouldn't we have made great strides towards, say, ending our dependence on foreign oil?
There are too many examples like the above for me to believe that the pentagon is at all effective in preparing for the future. If they were, the financial meltdown wouldn't have happened, we wouldn't continue to subsidize corn like we do, we would be moving towards massive subsidies for sustainable farming, the Ogallala Aquifer wouldn't be getting empty, and so on.
Every day I have to do a lot of intense thinking... Every week, long term strategy and planning. Pretty much every business email that I write or phone call that I make requires a lot of thinking and analyzing. Especially since there's always an understand that if I fuck up, it's usually directly money out of my pocket.
It's not for everybody, but if you're looking for a job that makes you think, that's the one.
Still, the point is that running a business is much more about 'making sure things get done' than it is about 'doing things' - now, quite often, the only way to reach the former is through the latter, but when things are going well, your primary job is thinking of the next move.
Sounds like a a bunch of simple tasks, right? Not really. As an example, some things that go into a drawing:
What kind of paper do you want to draw on? Are you going to make your own paper or buy some premade? What materials do you want the paper to be made of? What are you going to draw with? Pencils? If so, what classification? Colors? Ink the drawing in afterwards? What inks are you going to use, if so? How are you going to put the ink on the page? Not to mention "what are you going to draw?"
And thats scratching the surface. And there's just as much to consider for every other type of art.
While you would think that there is a lot of sitting around dreaming and sketching, in reality the galleries are telling her what types of thing are selling, and she is creating 'product' to sell into that demand. Her studio is full of paintings that look very similar to each other, and there is precious little room for experimentation, because the galleries aren't super keen on giving wallspace to untried formulas.
In this way it's not terribly different from a lot of jobs. Sure, it's much better than most, but I would be careful about thinking life as an artist is truly an escape from the rigors of the real world.
Sadly for a lot of artists, their big breakthrough becomes the rod for their back, because all anyone ever wants is more of the same. This is why Ian Fleming ended up disliking the Bond books, even though they made him very rich. Same goes for endless bands, artists, sculptors etc.
FWIW, my suggestion was specifically to have art as a hobby, not a job. This way, it doesn't need to make you any money. Just to provide an escape and/or a stress relief. And in this case, who cares what others think of your work? You do it because you want to.
There are a surprising number of people in both roles. Lots of reading, critical thinking and writing. If you can operate a computer beyond that of a six year old you can go places.
Can you give more examples? I've never heard of these places..
This is a good list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFRDC also look at the managing organizations.
Non/Not Profit Companies
Battelle Memorial Institute - https://www.battelle.org/ Noblis - http://www.noblis.org/ Mitre - http://www.mitre.org/ Aerospace Corporation - http://www.aero.org/ Rand Corporation - http://www.rand.org/ CNA - http://www.cna.org/
Some for-profit Government Contractors (I've tried to pick ones that don't make stuff like planes and tanks, they focus more on thinkery)
SAIC - http://www.saic.com Bechtel - http://www.bechtel.com Mantech - http://www.mantech.com CACI - http://www.caci.com TASC - http://www.tasc.com
there's actually a whole ton of smaller ones like Blackbird Technologies ( http://www.blackbirdtech.com/ ) that you can make a good home in also.
Labs (don't let their Manhattan Project backgrounds fool you, they do tons and tons of R&D outside of nukes, great places with lots of smart people)
Lawrence Livermore - http://www.llnl.gov/ Pacific Northwest - http://www.pnl.gov/ Los Alamos - http://www.lanl.gov/ Brookhaven National Laboratory - http://www.bnl.gov/ National Renewable Energy Laboratory - http://www.nrel.gov/ Sandia National Laboratories - http://www.sandia.gov etc.
I've worked at some of these places in my career. If you want to be surrounded by smart people all the time, pick the labs. Note: if you don't have a PhD you will be made to feel inferior to everybody else you work with, it just comes with the territory. The Non/Not-Profits can be friendlier places to work. Go for an analyst job or something similar. Most of those are also full of really smart folks, and making $$$ isn't the most important thing in the world for them. Many labs are managed by these non-profits. I listed the Contractors because it's easier to get analyst type positions with them, but I've found the general caliber of the people there (in terms of pure "smartness") to be lower. It can be tough to go from a Lab like environment, where your next cube co-worker speaks three languages fluently, can fly six kinds of aircraft, holds two PhDs and built a small-scale particle accelerator in his garage to relax to a contractor where your next cube co-worker debates, heatedly, between diet-coke and diet-pepsi, and how to score that cute waitress in the happy hour bar without his wife noticing.
2. Become a professor/researcher.
3. Grad students program for you.
In my opinion the wonderful thing about programming is that it is the job with the lowest barrier of entry, to which your thinking, your thoughts, have the most direct and lasting effect on your employer's business.
As it's been pointed out on this thread already, the jobs in which you have the most effect and the most amount of thinking have very high barriers to entry, i.e., the corporate executive, or aren't well paid, e.g. the artist or writer, or don't have any real effect in the world, e.g., the romance language professor (humanities academic)... that is to say, there are trade-offs.
In general the thing that bothers me the most about non-programming thinking jobs, being a professor, thinking about policy, business strategy, or whatever seems to be the way you qualify or train yourself for the job- most of the time it means thinking or doing things that don't relate to your interest- business school, law school, MFA, whatever- but what do you do to become a better programmer? Program.
The "doesn't tie me to a computer" part leaves me unclear whether you want a job that's still thinking about computers but just isn't actually on them all the time, or whether you want a change of careers to a thinking-centric occupation that may not involve computers at all.
If the latter, there's all the traditional areas like philosophy, but they tend to be hard to find jobs in. Law has thinking-centric jobs, especially if you're a researcher for a larger firm that has someone else doing the in-courtroom advocacy, or a clerk for a judge, or a judge yourself, or a legal analyst at a think-tank or in academia. But you'd need to get a JD.
Long-form analytical journalism is also thinking-centric, but it's hard to make a living at (there are a handful of coveted jobs doing it full-time, and then a larger number of freelancers writing such pieces and trying to shop them around).
I was involved in Grid Computing research, which didn't involve any development, but meant I had to go around to different Universities and private companies, and help them understand the benefits of getting into Grid Computing. It was mainly dealing with Management and Administrators, getting them to understand the benefits of using all those spare computing cycles, they have on their desks and in their computing labs.
It was a great job, and I got to meet amazing people and see lots of different places. This way you get to use your knowledge of computers, but aren't stuck at your desk programming away.
Another one might be some sort of civil engineering or any job where you need to physically build something.
Also, any job that you have can require thinking if you want it to. Learn about the job and then think about you can do it better, faster, or cheaper.
