Love the dialogue. Definitely find it convincing, and I've been on both sides of it (my sister does NOT enjoy being Bob when I'm the Alice guerilla-philosphizing her).
In your view, does the text contradict the quote a bit, in that the quote would predict that people unconsciously coming up with a self-consistent philosophy is unlikely?
Yes, there is some tension here! In my experience, the internal consistency level is *surprisingly* consistent, but that's relative to a previous default expectation that the underlying philosophy would be an absolute mess. At risk of sounding tautological, I'd say that it's 'somewhere between fully consistent and totally inconsistent'. I tend to find that the person's philosophy is usually coherent in its overall thrust (i.e. its overall tendency towards solipsism or dualism or whatever) - but that less-central claims and justifications can be in substantial conflict with each other, or seem to be. Sometimes shaking out these inconsistencies leads to a change in the person's perspective, but not always.
Years ago I ran a career coaching firm called Self-Made Renegade, which was also about helping people with little credentials find unconventional paths to career success. I looked into the path you're mentioning here, and my conclusion at the time (and something I still believe) was that the path is as much about timing as it is about talent and tenacity.
If you look at people who's careers start on these platforms, you find they largely all get started around the same time. Usually the timing is around an inflection point, the largest being:
1. A new platform springs up.
2. The algorithm changes in an existing platform.
3. The demographics of a platform have changed such that it can support new types of content, and someone finally realizes that fact.
I think as much as being tenacious with the content itself, if one is looking at this is a possible career path they should familiarize themselves intimately with the history of these platforms, and get excellent at spotting trends. All it takes is a few standout pieces of content to create "1000 true fans" but getting those in the sea of people making excellent content and trying to get noticed on these patterns often (usually?) requires riding the crest of a wave.
A great point! This seems very likely to be right. I wish I had a better language/concept set for thinking about the timing, and the way you put it is pretty interesting, re algorithmic and demographic change.
And studying the history of the platforms also seems like great advice for people in this area. Do we have social media historians yet?
Love the dialogue. Definitely find it convincing, and I've been on both sides of it (my sister does NOT enjoy being Bob when I'm the Alice guerilla-philosphizing her).
In your view, does the text contradict the quote a bit, in that the quote would predict that people unconsciously coming up with a self-consistent philosophy is unlikely?
Yes, there is some tension here! In my experience, the internal consistency level is *surprisingly* consistent, but that's relative to a previous default expectation that the underlying philosophy would be an absolute mess. At risk of sounding tautological, I'd say that it's 'somewhere between fully consistent and totally inconsistent'. I tend to find that the person's philosophy is usually coherent in its overall thrust (i.e. its overall tendency towards solipsism or dualism or whatever) - but that less-central claims and justifications can be in substantial conflict with each other, or seem to be. Sometimes shaking out these inconsistencies leads to a change in the person's perspective, but not always.
I Enjoyed Post Number One :).
Re Social Media Stars:
Years ago I ran a career coaching firm called Self-Made Renegade, which was also about helping people with little credentials find unconventional paths to career success. I looked into the path you're mentioning here, and my conclusion at the time (and something I still believe) was that the path is as much about timing as it is about talent and tenacity.
If you look at people who's careers start on these platforms, you find they largely all get started around the same time. Usually the timing is around an inflection point, the largest being:
1. A new platform springs up.
2. The algorithm changes in an existing platform.
3. The demographics of a platform have changed such that it can support new types of content, and someone finally realizes that fact.
I think as much as being tenacious with the content itself, if one is looking at this is a possible career path they should familiarize themselves intimately with the history of these platforms, and get excellent at spotting trends. All it takes is a few standout pieces of content to create "1000 true fans" but getting those in the sea of people making excellent content and trying to get noticed on these patterns often (usually?) requires riding the crest of a wave.
A great point! This seems very likely to be right. I wish I had a better language/concept set for thinking about the timing, and the way you put it is pretty interesting, re algorithmic and demographic change.
And studying the history of the platforms also seems like great advice for people in this area. Do we have social media historians yet?