Why so much hate, [name redacted]? Scott is an unconventional character, but his community has actually been very intellectually rewarding to be a part of and very profitable. It seems like you two had a falling out and now you are bitter for some reason. Peace and love.
Creating a fresh account to accuse someone of a vague conspiracy is pretty on-point for the "scam/grifter" vibe described. This feels like "analog crypto" and sure enough Scott's got his own coin.
I'm disappointed because it looks like I resonate with a lot of his ideas, but the marketing turns me off more.
Fresh account because first time here (see reddit username). I am not accusing Bob of anything untrue. Scott has a idiosyncratic style, but this is why many people follow him. All I can tell you is that his private community is nothing but intellectual discourse and goal-chasing.
I understand that communities evolve, mutate and sometimes divide over time. Online communities are the same, maybe just faster and larger.
The author of the article though feels a bit odd? What exactly is the endgame here? You divided a subreddit and created a new one, that's good for you and your "disciples" I guess...? Like what the hell I've had just read...?
You didn't read anything, there's very little content. It's just a narrative.
The author split a group of users off an established website and used it to build his own reputation, under the banner of a 'belief system'.
The author mentions concepts that exist and should be defined out, like prioritization and belief, but does absolutely nothing to fill in those blanks with useful information.
I'd be wary of membership with these 'belief system' based groups. The narrative self-promotes excessively, promises everything and delivers nothing.
Expect to see more of this as the desire to be in the 'inner circle' or members area increases.
There's nothing on the other side of the velvet rope, but it does destroy institutions and the craft of software by taking people and knowledge off the map.
I liked the concepts a lot. But the money part was ambiguous.
As in:
1. Get fascinated by some area a community is interested in
2. Dig into it, find and overcome challenges
3. Create an offshoot community around your insights
4. ???
5. Profit
I feel like Ken in the Barbie Movie had 1-3. He was really into "Beach". And lots of people liked "Beach". But that didn't lead to any money in the real world.
A follow up essay on that missing link would be great.
Once you have a community, monetization just requires a bit of creativity. If it’s an authentic community, you’ll already have deep insights into what members desires are (intellectual fullfillment, belonging, relationships, etc) and how those can be fulfilled better. It can be something as simple as status badges for donors, or something more complex like a new app or product.
It's just an explicit explanation - which is great! I'm aiming for 1,000 people who love my content and will sub for $20/month! I'd sleep very well with a quarter million a year as one person/my own boss.
Only the end here is questionable. The part about you can make a decent living is true, but also very not. The author is fortunate that his hobby forked out and is the kind people would pay money for.
The anti find your niche is quite interesting. We always hear the find your passion, find your interest, find this or find that.
As if they exist right in front of you and just need to walk a few steps to get it.
However, we don't actually know what we don't know or what could be a potential interest or niche. It's the exploration VS exploitation problem. Do we explore new things or old things to see if we're interested in them now. Or just do the same stuff, if it ain't broke, dont fix it
This is the author of Antinet Zettelkasten. The podcast notwithstanding, the book helped me finally start my own slipbox. I also learned a lot about Niklas Luhmann's zettelkasten (actually two).
For context, the previous podcast challenges the listener to try 30 days of creating impromptu audio content in the car--carpods--of something you're interested in.
These aspects of Scheper's presentation on zettelkasten spoke to me most:
- Positive correlation between handwriting and concept retention.
- Interacting with a "second brain" in a reflective way: reorganizing, rewriting, and reviewing.
Below, is an obviously dramatized, prose maximized, self-serving, motivational, shameless myth-making, story. But it is also true and an exciting time for me.
TLDR; More than a few years of my life rewritten to perspective of the article.
-- Zone of Fascination --
Some time ago, I discover a topic of fascination, full of challenging unsolved problems.
I dug in - improving iteratively - before hitting walls that nobody seemed to think were going to be magically solved. People wrote books and essays and Reddit rants with titles like "This is Not Going to be Magically Solved".
I decided a group of these problems were really the same problem. I came to this conclusion by my progress that seemed to have an asymptotic element, partly by theory, and some hopeful intuition about how "reality" "should" work.
The concept seemed clear to me, but capable people I knew in the field consistently said things like "Uh, no way", or "WTF", or "Good luck!". Or stared into my eyes and said nothing.
So I stopped asking. Over time a repetitive behavioral pattern emerged with friends and family: I say "Things are great. I am making progress." They say "So happy for you. Show it to me when it works."
-- Hero's Journey --
So I forged ahead with 100's of mostly quite small experiments. Probably 1000's. And lots of time thinking. And holding my head in my hands. And staring into the void and saying nothing.
I found organization bit by bit. Directions that the problems led me, through perplexing and perhaps illusory, paths. But I went down every path I thought might be real. As long as I was finding paths, and seeming to find organization, maybe I could do this.
First I got snowed by a seemingly endless series of sub-quests. Often just ruling out alternatives. But then found some truths, and I saw patterns that let me tame those.
Then, I got bogged down in trees of sub-quests. But finally I recognized enough patterns to tame those.
Next, I got stretched across flows, directed graphs of abstractions. But after a lot of running in circles and tangents, I managed to find a partially independent basis that helped me separate many complex things, into fewer simpler things.
And finally, I got lost in a graph of sub-quests, multi-faceted bootstrap problems, chickens and eggs, Orourobus todo lists, and Escher progress that wasn't progress.
But after wandering through many mazes of twisty little concepts, getting through houses of mirrors by feel, and inverting my own mind, I finally found the right approach. I knew I was close, as in nine months, by Christmas, maybe? Excitement!
And then, one day, only two weeks later, I got in. One last stumble, and I was staring at the complete design. Feelings of shock, satisfaction, and the surreal. A clear blueprint. Yay.
I can definitively say, "I am not Don Quixote!" Although he remains a hero.
Now I am building my niche, which is in fact a tool, and letting the constraints of the solution tweak the unformalized details into their perfectly formalized places.
-- Split the Congregation --
I have begun to start my congregation, one employee and customer/partner at a time. I suppose this is "forking the congregation" in slow motion.
I have bet it all. I am scarily insolvent. But the negative numbers have not caught up with me, and I solved my problem. I am strangely unworried. Happy. Friends and family are helping me bridge cash flow issues for the moment.
What is next? I have my first customer/partner. And other prospectives. Start slow, to move fast. Start small, to grow big. Stay focused to completely and overwhelming solve customer problems, one at a time.
If I do anything amazing it won't be evident for some time. No big congregation any time soon.
