Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Be careful of who you work for

sethgodin.typepad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#31

Post by netcan »

tomsaffell wrote: post #16
pchristensen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if that's a compliment or a slam.

Ditto. Maybe that was the point? I'll give him a compliment, because whilst this advice maybe obvious , it is extremely difficult to follow, and it is useful. IMO that makes it a worthy post. I have followed this advice once, and it was really tough to do, but ultimately I'm very glad I did.

Actually I think it's the sort of a mark of a good salesman that you see in 'modern' self help from Seth to Robert Kiyosaki.

Take some things that are trivial, true, powerful & seldom put into practice. Take the reader through the logical process of what can/will happen & sprinkle generously with motivational story telling. I think the secret sauce is in the chasm between trivial & seldom put into practice. You can say 'that's obvious' to which you/I can answer 'why haven't you done it.'

'Rich Dad Poor Dad' is the perfect example. Everything is either trivial or rubbish. Definitions & numbers are fuzzy & the writing feels like it was plagiarised from real estate flipping sales letters. The core 'message' is trivial, true, powerful & seldom put into practice. He delivers it by using accounting terms with his own definitions (I'm sure accountants like that) over several books, tapes, lectures board games & infomercials (coming soon I hope) but the ida can be represented in a sentence:

"Spend your time & money accumulating revenue generating assets."

You can probably apply that kind of formula to many a self help book dealing with marriage, self esteem, sexor any other popular topic.

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#32

Post by netcan »

fallentimes wrote: post #28
Alex3917 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Seth's own words, his job to remind people of what they already know. Even if you don't like it, I don't see why it's so hard to see the value of such a service.

His ego, coining of vapor words and other people's awe of him do not match that description.

Ego is debatable.

'Coining of vapor words' is naming things, renaming things or creating concepts. These are very useful tools for assisting thought processes. We think with language.

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#33

Post by netcan »

Allocator2008 wrote: post #11
Allocator2008 wrote: post #5

OK, it's not "who you work for" it's "WHOM you work for". Pet peeve of mine, people saying "who" when they mean "whom" - if the "who" is the object of the action "work for" then it is "whom", like "To whom are you speaking?" NOT "Who are you speaking to?" Irks me no end.

Hey to whomever down voted this comment: down voting it doesn't make "who" right when it should be "whom". Down vote this all you want, it does not change the Queen's english darling.

I'm not sure it's hers anymore.

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#34

Post by dmoney »

Allocator2008 wrote: post #11
Allocator2008 wrote: post #5

OK, it's not "who you work for" it's "WHOM you work for". Pet peeve of mine, people saying "who" when they mean "whom" - if the "who" is the object of the action "work for" then it is "whom", like "To whom are you speaking?" NOT "Who are you speaking to?" Irks me no end.

Hey to whomever down voted this comment: down voting it doesn't make "who" right when it should be "whom". Down vote this all you want, it does not change the Queen's english darling.

You should learn American. Dynamic typing makes it much easier to use.

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#35

Post by michaelneale »

gwsaines wrote: post #29

I'm not entirely sure why everyone is always hating on Seth. His blog posts are hit or miss, but that doesn't mean he's an arsehole.

Whilst I agree with your point, I am shocked at your courage to attempt to use the English spelling of "arsehole" in the internet. Haven't seen it written that way for too long a time !

I find myself giving up and using American spelling and terms.

Even Firefox doesn't know how to spell, despite me telling my OS many times my locale to an alarming level of detail.

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#37

Post by fallentimes »

netcan wrote: post #32
fallentimes wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His ego, coining of vapor words and other people's awe of him do not match that description.

Ego is debatable. 'Coining of vapor words' is naming things, renaming things or creating concepts. These are very useful tools for assisting thought processes. We think with language.

That's debatable. Buzzwords or vapor words are usually not useful. Most of the time other legacy words exist to express yourself. Buzzwords (not to be confused with technical terms) are created to sell books or consulting services. It appears to be working.

"clowd", purple cow, meatball sundae, ideavirus, his wrong usage of the word competent (the article I think you submitted), the dip, lens, etc

Just because "we think with language" doesn't mean we should make up superfluous words on the fly. I'll admit, it's necessary sometimes, but certainly not at the rate people do it at. The point of language is to communicate. And like I said, it's not like I hate the guy, some of his stuff is great. The rest... He seems to resonate a lot more with you than me, and if his work has helped you do something better all the power to him (and you).

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#38

Post by Alex3917 »

fallentimes wrote: post #37
netcan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ego is debatable. 'Coining of vapor words' is naming things, renaming things or creating concepts. These are very useful tools for assisting thought processes. We think with language.

That's debatable. Buzzwords or vapor words are usually not useful. Most of the time other legacy words exist to express yourself. Buzzwords (not to be confused with technical terms) are created to sell books or consulting services. It appears to be working. "clowd", purple cow, meatball sundae, ideavirus, his wrong usage of the word competent (the article I think you submitted), the dip, lens, etc Just because "we th…

Actually I think that purple cow, meatball sundae, ideavirus, the dip, sheepwalking, etc. are very important ideas. It's just that the words Seth chooses to represent these ideas kind of suck. What Seth calls an ideavirus is the same thing that Dawkins calls a meme, and that's a word we pretty much use every day. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future someone else coined a word that meant the same thing as sheep walking, but was actually usable without sounding daft.

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#39

Post by fallentimes »

Alex3917 wrote: post #38
fallentimes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's debatable. Buzzwords or vapor words are usually not useful. Most of the time other legacy words exist to express yourself. Buzzwords (not to be confused with technical terms) are created to sell books or consulting services. It appears to be working. "clowd", purple cow, meatball sundae, ideavirus, his wrong usage of the word competent (the article I think you submitted), the dip, lens, etc Just because "we th…

Actually I think that purple cow, meatball sundae, ideavirus, the dip, sheepwalking, etc. are very important ideas. It's just that the words Seth chooses to represent these ideas kind of suck. What Seth calls an ideavirus is the same thing that Dawkins calls a meme, and that's a word we pretty much use every day. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future someone else coined a word that meant the same thi…

You can express ideas without creating ridiculous buzz words. And like I said, sometimes the creation of a new word (e.g. meme, kool-aid) is necessary, but not at the rate consultants and marketers do it. They're just marketing.

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#40

Post by shiranaihito »

Allocator2008 wrote: post #11
Allocator2008 wrote: post #5

OK, it's not "who you work for" it's "WHOM you work for". Pet peeve of mine, people saying "who" when they mean "whom" - if the "who" is the object of the action "work for" then it is "whom", like "To whom are you speaking?" NOT "Who are you speaking to?" Irks me no end.

Hey to whomever down voted this comment: down voting it doesn't make "who" right when it should be "whom". Down vote this all you want, it does not change the Queen's english darling.

Whoever? :)
Post reply on HN