Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno if the comparison is quite right, at least shovels were actually useful in the gold rush.
Shovelbot 3000. It uses the latest cutting edge techniques in computer vision to determine the best angle to dig. Except that it can’t actually dig holes.
The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’
81–90 of 170 posts
Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, not 'simply' for being honest, but for being (entertainingly) rude about it. You can be honest without being brutally honest, but it doesn't make such good TV I guess.
That depends on if you think people are naturally rational and without bias. In reality, people often have to be forcibly dethroned from their views. Having a judge say no thanks will not have the appropriate effect. The issue is emotional commitment, not accurate assessment.
Assuming you meant 'But you have to be brutal to have the desired effect of getting through to the terrible singers, plain honesty - considerate, respectful honesty[0] wouldn't work', well, he didn't get through, did he. Instead they thought he must be just being rude deliberately and didn't mean what he said. He made it impossible for them to hear him. Mostly.
Anyway.. I was making another point, not that Simon became notable 'simply because he was honest' but because he was rude; whether it was effective (at getting terrible singers to realize they're terrible) is another thing.
[0] See the book Crucial Conversations, it's largely about how to be honest with people, in important situations people usually aren't, while being respectful and considerate.
Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’
#83I disagree with the article. I got nowhere fast in life by just sitting around waiting for things to happen. I had all sorts of excuses on why I wasn't succeeding, the article likes to supply plenty, and they are just poisonous thoughts. then i lit a fire under my butt. I wanted to be a principle engineer, so I did research by looking at profiles on linkedin and found a masters at a great school would make that path…
Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’
#84Work ethic is great and shows through. But you don't get far ahead when you Karōshi [1] yourself. If it hurts, stop.
Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
something else is off - the idea isn't good enough, you're attacking it in the wrong way, whatever. ...and don't forget the fact that seems almost taboo to say these days: you just don't have the ability.
What hussle porn is selling most of all is agency. That you can get whatever it is you want through some actions you can take.
Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds of what happened with Inbox Zero. Didn't that guy wind up admitting he himself failed at it and it wasn't reasonable anyway? (Or am I getting confused with someone else?)
No, Merlin Mann distanced himself from Inbox Zero once it got picked up by the productivity porn blogger crowd who reduced it to yet another lifehack and lost the spirit of the idea which is that your inbox should not be your todo list because then you lose agency over your own priorities.
If you're at one of those rare crossroads where you do have a genuine choice, your inbox is probably going to be close to zero already. I think cause and effect here are getting switched.
Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’
#87The problem with hustle porn is really how little emphasis is put on luck. They show a grind that translates directly into results, not really talking about dealing with failure due to things outside of one's control. Yes hard work gets you primed for new opportunities, but luck still plays a role in which opportunities you come across.
Luck is a part of it for sure. And survivorship bias isn't usually discussed in motivational stories. XKCD has something on it: https://xkcd.com/1827/
Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends on if you think people are naturally rational and without bias. In reality, people often have to be forcibly dethroned from their views. Having a judge say no thanks will not have the appropriate effect. The issue is emotional commitment, not accurate assessment.
You know that they intentionally put through and hyped up the worst singers, right? Like some kid who showed up for the first round on a lark was told "congrats you're great!! You're coming back for the next round when the judges are here," did the whole profiling/backstory thing like they'd do if you were a good singer, and intentionally set you up to fail in the worst way. Just so Simon can make a joke at your expe…