Whether you’re an artist trying to create something unique, an entrepreneur, an investor, or a simple worker who wants to explore a new field, you just need to follow one rule to be successful
Thomas, the best thing about your content is that when you dig into a subject you go deep. As a fellow lover of random topics in which I can immerse myself, I have a deep appreciation for your ability to turn that process into relatively succinct and digestible output that is truly educational. Thank you!
Jun 13, 2023·edited Jun 13, 2023Liked by Tomas Pueyo
Thanks for sharing that; I agree with everything, but the idea of writing under a pseudonym.
It's true, you get to be uncancellable, and you can always opt in to reveal who you are; it makes perfect sense. However, if we start consciously doing that, we will enforce, support, and normalize the mode of writing behind a display without putting our face on it; this can be dangerous.
Sorry for just pointing out a criticism. The whole article was great.
Don't apologize for criticism. Criticism is great! That's how we progress!
Why is it dangerous to not put our faces? There's clearly a tradeoff, but it sounds to me like the upside of more freedom of expression is worth the "willingness to say more aggressive things".
This is like freedom of expression itself. It sounds to me like pseudonyms increase its pros and cons. So if you're in favor of freedom of expression, you should be in favor of pseudonyms no?
Freedom of speech is, by definition, the principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Writing or talking behind a pseudonym implies being afraid of retaliation, censorship, or, more simply, judgment.
That's why I think that in the name of speech, we should express ourselves without fearing any discrimination but, on the other hand, take full responsibility for anything coming out of our pen/mouth.
In addition, as you said, people don't really pay attention to our mistakes (or at least not to the extent we do it ourselves), so there's no reason to hide, strengthening confusion on the web, which is already relatively unbridled.
To sum up, I believe the compromise is to express ourselves freely while keeping our name tag next to our words. Erasing it would mean going to further.
"Freedom of speech is, by definition, the principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
Yes!
"Writing or talking behind a pseudonym implies being afraid of retaliation, censorship, or, more simply, judgment."
Yes!
"That's why I think that in the name of speech, we should express ourselves without fearing any discrimination"
Yes! That would be an ideal world!
"but, on the other hand, take full responsibility for anything coming out of our pen/mouth."
Wait, what? Why? You just said that we should not feel fear of consequences, that unfortunately we do fear them, and that pseudonyms eliminate those fears. Surely that means we SHOULD use them!
I read this as a statement that pseudonyms and responsibility for your words are fundamentally at odds. This is based on how pseudonyms confer anonymity, which allows someone to feign ignorance and pretend they are someone else's words.
A pseudonym can be dangerous if the things being said have the potential to cause harm, or encourage others to cause harm, or are misleading...
We have very clear limits to free speech in the US: You can't say anything that can lead to imminent physical harm. Other countries have equivalent (usually more stringent) laws, like Germany's ban on Nazi propaganda. These rules are very clear: If the speech is of that nature, it should be banned, and the person behind it should be penalized, with or without a pseudonym.
Then, there's social media, where the rules are dictated by the platform. Again, with or without a pseudonym, the rules will apply to the speaker. If the pseudonymous person says something against the rules, they will be banned or something equivalent.
What the pseudonym does is separating the physical person from the virtual person within the boundaries of what is approved by the law or social media. This is only valuable insofar as the *mob* might make a judgment and penalize the physical person for the virtual words.
What's the upside of allowing the mob to cross over to the physical world? I can't see any. If the mob disagrees, it should engage with the pseudonym with the same tools—speech.
The downside of allowing the mob to cross over to the physical world is super clear. People don't speak their true beliefs when they fear retaliation. Pseudonyms allow the true beliefs to be spoken. This is one of the most important aspects of freedom of speech, and the reason why it's the most important freedom of them all:
I think all of those mechanisms you mention rely on the pseudonym *not* being anonymous. Essentially, the platform must know you to enforce the rules, and therefore can always "out" you, either to authorities or to reporters, or just to doxxers and hackers. And then your mob is back in the physical world. Pseudonyms that are not anonymous are not much protection, and pseudonyms that are anonymous are often a danger to society.
Here's a good read on a blogger getting doxxed by the NY Times...
I read your post right after attending a session in David Perell's *Write of Passage* program. David teaches pretty much exactly what you are writing about here. So I just shared your post in that community because it's great to get good messages in different forms.
BTW, I love, love, love your Substack--it's one of my favorites and I smile in anticipation every time a new post goes up :)
I love David's work! Wholesome, honest, productive, intellectually curious... I hope you're enjoying his course!
And thank you for your kind words. A big deal coming from you! I was sad to see Jason's announcement that you were stepping down from Roots of Progress, but I'm sure it's for the best. The progress movement needs people like you!
I very much enjoy his course--and I'm not stepping down from Roots of Progress, just going part-time for now :) We're actively working on a blog-building program for progress writers; planning to have more info and an application live by mid-July!
I think the work you do is so important. By writing so deeply and thoughtfully about a wide range of topics you are opening eyes and minds to better futures we can create. And not just that: you're demonstrating, in action, how to think about progress.
I am hoping we can find and empower many more people to do this important work, on a wide range of progress-related topics--and the quality of your writing is a mental model I find myself referring to often as I think about what that will look like.
Thank you for your kind words! Happy to hear it’s just part time for now. Let me know if I can help! I can feel the energy of the movement, and now it’s just a matter of organizing ourselves better—squarely what you’re working on!
I consider myself very fortunate to have had the foresight to just write. Once a week, no brand, no preparation - just get the damn writing out there. For no reason other than to do it.
Because you're right - I could have spent years avoiding writing by pretending I was getting ready.
I went to school with geniuses. I was not as I learned. I've had seminars with Heisenberg. What else did he do with Certainty? Nada.
Einstein had the Annus Mirabilis. Photoelectric effect, the quanta of light and yea Solar cells and LEDs. Special Relativity - Sat positioning (actually General Relativity), Brownian Motion (application in physics, semiconductor, math, economics, thermodynamics, chemistry, biology), and of course, E=mc^². Nukes and nuclear energy.
But after General Relativity, only thermodynamics.
Some things I believe sustained genius needs:
A. You can't sustain breakthrough creativity if the field in a long dwell stasis. Like Physics.
B. Art has no endpoint. Thus, it can be innovative forever. But perhaps long stretches between new plateaus. For me, the last great music I liked, that was innovative, was early 90s.
C. Assessment and evaluation to one's own ultra high standards. My wife, in the fiber and textile arts is very accomplished and had some recognition. From her 1st gen Polish American father, she learned the high standards. Don't settle. If it's not right its not done. She has the tortured conflict between creativity and extremely precise execution. She's always creating and working at 73.
I have an SB physics from the 70s. I find almost nothing new that wasn't forseen in the 70s. I think we are in an era of verification and expansion of already established things. And a ton of derivatives. That's good of course. We iterate and churn to make better things. And there are very fundamental areas.we have yet to master like quantum and time.
So a cool future for some as yet to be seen Newton or Einstein or Bohr.
Until then, I think our human bodies is the science frontier of great significance.
One other variable is the number of times you submit a work for views. Sometimes, a work doesn't get noticed/go viral the first time it is put out there.
Good point. I took a YouTuber course and they said the title and thumbnail were more important than the video. So much so that it was worth it to change them frequently, even with a constant video
I recently came across this band called "The Big Push". Listen to them, and it seems like they have played their instruments so much that they have played all the bad notes out, its like they're incapable of playing bad notes any more.
Thought-provoking. Thanks. Makes me want to experiment with creating a wider variety of stuff. See what sticks.
What about feedback? I ask because I didn't see you nor anyone in the comments explicitly mention it. I guess it starts with figuring out how you want to measure success. Then don't you think the more accurate and timely the feedback on your creation, the quicker you'll learn and improve your chances of making masterpieces?
Nikocado Avocado listened to consumers' "easy" feedback—in terms of views and comments—and nearly killed himself. No masterpieces.
I'd be amazed if future generations call Mr. Beast's work "masterpieces."
Many artists create masterpieces then "sell out" for the wrong objectives and listening to the wrong feedback.
Even more potential masterpiece-makers never get close to actualizing because they never get the feedback they need to push them in the right direction.
I was expecting you to just focus on increasing quantity of output to create a masterpiece. I liked the other strategies of increasing your average (via deliberate practice I am guessing) and increasing variance by trying new things.
Jun 21, 2023·edited Jun 21, 2023Liked by Tomas Pueyo
Apparently Woody Allen writes (or used to write) 1 page of screenplay every day. Rain or shine. At the end of the year he would have written 365 pages. Which is equal to 3 movies, as most movies are ~120 pages = 2 hours on the screen. He produced most of these screenplays. They were all somewhere between “OK” and “Meh”.
Then he wrote Annie Hall. His masterpiece in my opinion…
I just want to let you know that I deeply enjoy all your content. Thank you for not procrastinating.
Thank you Maria Isabel! Sometimes I do... But nothing compared to what I used to. I guess maybe I should add another rule:
4. Do what you like, so it doesn't feel like work!
So do I !!
Thomas, the best thing about your content is that when you dig into a subject you go deep. As a fellow lover of random topics in which I can immerse myself, I have a deep appreciation for your ability to turn that process into relatively succinct and digestible output that is truly educational. Thank you!
Super kind, Marie. Thank you!
Well written Tomas.
I write a lot about performance psychology and I think most people are held back by fear.
And I can't blame them. You mention geniuses and their works of art we enjoy but many of them suffered extremely for it.
J.K. Rowling was on welfare, Steve Jobs was on the brink of bankruptcy, Eminem had nothing to his name and James Cameron was a truck driver.
The price of following the artist call is usually great personal difficulty. It's not so easy to maintain your stable life once you give in to it.
Especially if you're interested in creating at the highest level. It requires a certain kind of commitment that I can only describe as faith.
Or better yet, you keep creating because you literally cannot stop while alive.
It is not a logical decision by any means for the artist. But something that happens to them from just the momentum of being alive.
Despite everything, there's nothing else I'd rather do.
This is indeed true for art
The worst part is when there's commitment but the average quality and/or variance are low...
Thanks for sharing that; I agree with everything, but the idea of writing under a pseudonym.
It's true, you get to be uncancellable, and you can always opt in to reveal who you are; it makes perfect sense. However, if we start consciously doing that, we will enforce, support, and normalize the mode of writing behind a display without putting our face on it; this can be dangerous.
Sorry for just pointing out a criticism. The whole article was great.
Don't apologize for criticism. Criticism is great! That's how we progress!
Why is it dangerous to not put our faces? There's clearly a tradeoff, but it sounds to me like the upside of more freedom of expression is worth the "willingness to say more aggressive things".
This is like freedom of expression itself. It sounds to me like pseudonyms increase its pros and cons. So if you're in favor of freedom of expression, you should be in favor of pseudonyms no?
Tomas, I get your point, but I still disagree.
Freedom of speech is, by definition, the principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Writing or talking behind a pseudonym implies being afraid of retaliation, censorship, or, more simply, judgment.
That's why I think that in the name of speech, we should express ourselves without fearing any discrimination but, on the other hand, take full responsibility for anything coming out of our pen/mouth.
In addition, as you said, people don't really pay attention to our mistakes (or at least not to the extent we do it ourselves), so there's no reason to hide, strengthening confusion on the web, which is already relatively unbridled.
To sum up, I believe the compromise is to express ourselves freely while keeping our name tag next to our words. Erasing it would mean going to further.
Let me know what you think
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning:
"Freedom of speech is, by definition, the principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
Yes!
"Writing or talking behind a pseudonym implies being afraid of retaliation, censorship, or, more simply, judgment."
Yes!
"That's why I think that in the name of speech, we should express ourselves without fearing any discrimination"
Yes! That would be an ideal world!
"but, on the other hand, take full responsibility for anything coming out of our pen/mouth."
Wait, what? Why? You just said that we should not feel fear of consequences, that unfortunately we do fear them, and that pseudonyms eliminate those fears. Surely that means we SHOULD use them!
I read this as a statement that pseudonyms and responsibility for your words are fundamentally at odds. This is based on how pseudonyms confer anonymity, which allows someone to feign ignorance and pretend they are someone else's words.
A pseudonym can be dangerous if the things being said have the potential to cause harm, or encourage others to cause harm, or are misleading...
We have very clear limits to free speech in the US: You can't say anything that can lead to imminent physical harm. Other countries have equivalent (usually more stringent) laws, like Germany's ban on Nazi propaganda. These rules are very clear: If the speech is of that nature, it should be banned, and the person behind it should be penalized, with or without a pseudonym.
Then, there's social media, where the rules are dictated by the platform. Again, with or without a pseudonym, the rules will apply to the speaker. If the pseudonymous person says something against the rules, they will be banned or something equivalent.
What the pseudonym does is separating the physical person from the virtual person within the boundaries of what is approved by the law or social media. This is only valuable insofar as the *mob* might make a judgment and penalize the physical person for the virtual words.
What's the upside of allowing the mob to cross over to the physical world? I can't see any. If the mob disagrees, it should engage with the pseudonym with the same tools—speech.
The downside of allowing the mob to cross over to the physical world is super clear. People don't speak their true beliefs when they fear retaliation. Pseudonyms allow the true beliefs to be spoken. This is one of the most important aspects of freedom of speech, and the reason why it's the most important freedom of them all:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/freedom-will-always-win
I think all of those mechanisms you mention rely on the pseudonym *not* being anonymous. Essentially, the platform must know you to enforce the rules, and therefore can always "out" you, either to authorities or to reporters, or just to doxxers and hackers. And then your mob is back in the physical world. Pseudonyms that are not anonymous are not much protection, and pseudonyms that are anonymous are often a danger to society.
Here's a good read on a blogger getting doxxed by the NY Times...
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/still-alive
I think it's more like compartmentalization. There are so many reasons to use a pseudonym.
For example, separating an audience you've built in one area from an unrelated one or even security reasons due to the nature of topics you cover.
A lot of celebrities get stalked and hacked. A pseudonym would reduce the surface area of attack.
This is one of the biggest upsides, correct
Some examples don't really hit home
Proust died before his work was fully published. He didn't say he was done and stop. He died of pneumonia while working on it.
John Kennedy Toole killed himself because his work wasn't accepted. He may have gone on to create further wonderful works.
Fair. In either case, we don't know whether they were lucky.
I read your post right after attending a session in David Perell's *Write of Passage* program. David teaches pretty much exactly what you are writing about here. So I just shared your post in that community because it's great to get good messages in different forms.
BTW, I love, love, love your Substack--it's one of my favorites and I smile in anticipation every time a new post goes up :)
I love David's work! Wholesome, honest, productive, intellectually curious... I hope you're enjoying his course!
And thank you for your kind words. A big deal coming from you! I was sad to see Jason's announcement that you were stepping down from Roots of Progress, but I'm sure it's for the best. The progress movement needs people like you!
I very much enjoy his course--and I'm not stepping down from Roots of Progress, just going part-time for now :) We're actively working on a blog-building program for progress writers; planning to have more info and an application live by mid-July!
I think the work you do is so important. By writing so deeply and thoughtfully about a wide range of topics you are opening eyes and minds to better futures we can create. And not just that: you're demonstrating, in action, how to think about progress.
I am hoping we can find and empower many more people to do this important work, on a wide range of progress-related topics--and the quality of your writing is a mental model I find myself referring to often as I think about what that will look like.
Thank you for your kind words! Happy to hear it’s just part time for now. Let me know if I can help! I can feel the energy of the movement, and now it’s just a matter of organizing ourselves better—squarely what you’re working on!
Love this.
I consider myself very fortunate to have had the foresight to just write. Once a week, no brand, no preparation - just get the damn writing out there. For no reason other than to do it.
Because you're right - I could have spent years avoiding writing by pretending I was getting ready.
Wonderful post, very encouraging. Thank you.
That's write!
;)
I went to school with geniuses. I was not as I learned. I've had seminars with Heisenberg. What else did he do with Certainty? Nada.
Einstein had the Annus Mirabilis. Photoelectric effect, the quanta of light and yea Solar cells and LEDs. Special Relativity - Sat positioning (actually General Relativity), Brownian Motion (application in physics, semiconductor, math, economics, thermodynamics, chemistry, biology), and of course, E=mc^². Nukes and nuclear energy.
But after General Relativity, only thermodynamics.
Some things I believe sustained genius needs:
A. You can't sustain breakthrough creativity if the field in a long dwell stasis. Like Physics.
B. Art has no endpoint. Thus, it can be innovative forever. But perhaps long stretches between new plateaus. For me, the last great music I liked, that was innovative, was early 90s.
C. Assessment and evaluation to one's own ultra high standards. My wife, in the fiber and textile arts is very accomplished and had some recognition. From her 1st gen Polish American father, she learned the high standards. Don't settle. If it's not right its not done. She has the tortured conflict between creativity and extremely precise execution. She's always creating and working at 73.
Very interesting! Yes, I haven't dived into rule #1, but it deserves its own series!
I have an SB physics from the 70s. I find almost nothing new that wasn't forseen in the 70s. I think we are in an era of verification and expansion of already established things. And a ton of derivatives. That's good of course. We iterate and churn to make better things. And there are very fundamental areas.we have yet to master like quantum and time.
So a cool future for some as yet to be seen Newton or Einstein or Bohr.
Until then, I think our human bodies is the science frontier of great significance.
And AI!
Between AI and CRISPR.... it will indeed be a brave new world.
Imagine.
AI running CRISPR.
New forms of organic intelligence!
The positronic brain arrives.
One other variable is the number of times you submit a work for views. Sometimes, a work doesn't get noticed/go viral the first time it is put out there.
Good point. I took a YouTuber course and they said the title and thumbnail were more important than the video. So much so that it was worth it to change them frequently, even with a constant video
'Create a ton'
This is also where practice comes in.
I recently came across this band called "The Big Push". Listen to them, and it seems like they have played their instruments so much that they have played all the bad notes out, its like they're incapable of playing bad notes any more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbL7Frf6nJI
They also put so much passion into it, it's a pleasure to see!
Thought-provoking. Thanks. Makes me want to experiment with creating a wider variety of stuff. See what sticks.
What about feedback? I ask because I didn't see you nor anyone in the comments explicitly mention it. I guess it starts with figuring out how you want to measure success. Then don't you think the more accurate and timely the feedback on your creation, the quicker you'll learn and improve your chances of making masterpieces?
Feedback is easy: if people consume it, it’s good
You can have qualitative feedback like comments. It’s useful. They come with ppl consuming the content.
Nikocado Avocado listened to consumers' "easy" feedback—in terms of views and comments—and nearly killed himself. No masterpieces.
I'd be amazed if future generations call Mr. Beast's work "masterpieces."
Many artists create masterpieces then "sell out" for the wrong objectives and listening to the wrong feedback.
Even more potential masterpiece-makers never get close to actualizing because they never get the feedback they need to push them in the right direction.
I was expecting you to just focus on increasing quantity of output to create a masterpiece. I liked the other strategies of increasing your average (via deliberate practice I am guessing) and increasing variance by trying new things.
Really enjoyed this piece! ♥️
Wow, incredible piece. Very succinct and makes a strong case. Thanks for sharing this with us all.
One question - other than volume, how do you personally increase your variance?
I assume testing new ideas isn't random. What is your experimentation system like?
I follow my interests! Usually it naturally builds a skill stack
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/how-to-become-the-best-in-the-world?r=36xnz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I really enjoyed the Java article, it's fascinating to read about the thoughts you had when writing it.
This was another really great post, it's definitely motivating!
Thank you Tom!
(But seriously tho, Java?!)
Apparently Woody Allen writes (or used to write) 1 page of screenplay every day. Rain or shine. At the end of the year he would have written 365 pages. Which is equal to 3 movies, as most movies are ~120 pages = 2 hours on the screen. He produced most of these screenplays. They were all somewhere between “OK” and “Meh”.
Then he wrote Annie Hall. His masterpiece in my opinion…
Perfect example! Thanks
Banger