Love the article and had difficulty grappling with your relevations given most are told to write for the algorithms (myself included). What are your thoughts on wanting to write a blockbuster with only a person or two in mind knowing that it could help them (then extrapolating it could impact others)?
And what are your thoughts on writing a blockbuster to help you think through a large problem or burning desire you want to learn or clarify for you only?
First, I pick topics that I'm deeply curious about. And, I write in a way that allows me to maximize my learning and evolving my thinking rather than just proving what I know. Said differently, my aim is to have the process be so personally enjoyable and beneficial that even if I never published it, I would still consider it a good investment.
Building on that internal foundation, I feel like it's a matter of reach and depth. Blockbuster articles at their best actually accomplish both. However, when you're just getting started, you won't have the reach. What I keep in mind during this phase is that if I'm writing high-quality, ever-green content and linking back to it in the coming years, it will get lots of traffic in the coming years. In other words, I'm taking a longer term perspective on reach rather than just a few day perspective.
I believe your long term view is deeply important and if you treat it as a learning experience, even if it does not gain an audience with the years, you will have hedged your bet against articles views/audience growth with learning.
Wouldn't there still be a little risk that what you are deeply curious about garners no interest by others?
And something else that comes to mind: if publishing a successful blockbuster has the same odds as a coin toss, why publish them in the first place?
I'm thinking it returns to the notion of learning (much value is derived from learning and writing), but I could be wrong?
The mental model I use for thinking about the value of curiosity is best explained in WHY GREATNESS CANNOT BE PLANNED by two AI researchers. They also did some interviews when the book originally came out that summarize the book well.
Regarding probabilities of success as a writer, I see it that my probabilities go up as a function of:
1. The size, diversity, ever-greeness, and value of my knowledge base and personal experiences.
Love the article and had difficulty grappling with your relevations given most are told to write for the algorithms (myself included). What are your thoughts on wanting to write a blockbuster with only a person or two in mind knowing that it could help them (then extrapolating it could impact others)?
And what are your thoughts on writing a blockbuster to help you think through a large problem or burning desire you want to learn or clarify for you only?
Hi Alex - Great questions.
First, I pick topics that I'm deeply curious about. And, I write in a way that allows me to maximize my learning and evolving my thinking rather than just proving what I know. Said differently, my aim is to have the process be so personally enjoyable and beneficial that even if I never published it, I would still consider it a good investment.
Building on that internal foundation, I feel like it's a matter of reach and depth. Blockbuster articles at their best actually accomplish both. However, when you're just getting started, you won't have the reach. What I keep in mind during this phase is that if I'm writing high-quality, ever-green content and linking back to it in the coming years, it will get lots of traffic in the coming years. In other words, I'm taking a longer term perspective on reach rather than just a few day perspective.
What are your thoughts on this?
I believe your long term view is deeply important and if you treat it as a learning experience, even if it does not gain an audience with the years, you will have hedged your bet against articles views/audience growth with learning.
Wouldn't there still be a little risk that what you are deeply curious about garners no interest by others?
And something else that comes to mind: if publishing a successful blockbuster has the same odds as a coin toss, why publish them in the first place?
I'm thinking it returns to the notion of learning (much value is derived from learning and writing), but I could be wrong?
HI Alex,
The mental model I use for thinking about the value of curiosity is best explained in WHY GREATNESS CANNOT BE PLANNED by two AI researchers. They also did some interviews when the book originally came out that summarize the book well.
Regarding probabilities of success as a writer, I see it that my probabilities go up as a function of:
1. The size, diversity, ever-greeness, and value of my knowledge base and personal experiences.
2. My ability to synthesize this into ideas.
3. My ability to communicate those ideas
4. The quantity of ideas I share (see equal-odds rule or https://bit.ly/3SahUAg)
Also, very few people are willing to be deliberate over long-time scales on the 4 points above so I see that as a differentiator.