I don't find this specific post terrible, but I'm the type who prefers the advice of people with a track record of success–or, at the very least, who have tried and humbly reflect on their failures. With details.
When the most I get from an About page is "I’ve been working and training to be the most skilled strategist of our era." and "I worked as an entrepreneur from 2004 to 2008.", meh ... pass.
Nah, that's a common enough reaction. Me, I dropped out of two high schools, was able to pick up an alternative high school diploma at age 16 or so anyways, got a near full ride scholarship to UMass Amherst at 17, left there at 19, have held down a variety of self-employed or owned gigs in contracting, project management, sales, marketing, logistics, and a whole variety of other things. Studied business at Boston University later, paid cash for everything. Lived, worked, or traveled through 40+ countries, been around Asia the last 15 months. My last work was in hospitality/tourism. I'll make at least $65,000 this year (just inked a $65,000 contract, but the cash isn't in the bank yet so no partying yet), maybe a lot more depending.
> I'm the type who prefers the advice of people with a track record of success–or, at the very least, who have tried and humbly reflect on their failures. With details.
That's totally fair. I've written hundreds of posts - did you go through any of them? I've written detailed guides on lots of stuff, lots of personal experiences.
This is actually a tricky thing about writing, you never know which piece you write will be the first one someone sees. You write a heavily assertive one, someone thinks you're a jerk. You write an introspective one, someone thinks you're narcissistic. You talk about what you've done, people think you're bragging. You don't talk about what you've done, people think you're full of hot air.
...occupational hazard with writing, I guess. I don't take it personally :)
What I imagine is troubling to most is your claim to entrepreneurship skill, but your lack of anything derived from it. 2009 and 2010 were both losing years for you. June 2010 you only had 9k in the bank (related post about your goals for the next few years).
Especially since this community is based squarely on entrepreneurship, I think "money talks, bullshit walks" is especially relevent to the typical HN user.
Also, probably not the same for most people, but I do not understand much about your first paragraph filled with many extra details that don't excite me (full ride to umass, 65k this year, paid cash for everything in Boston, etc). I dont think that explains who you are (well, some might say braggart) or what you're about.
I have never met you, but I know many users here have and every single one vouches for your credibility. That is something I believe in.
Yeah, this is classical "rock and a hard place" thing. Someone asks, "Who does this jerk think he is?" You can write a factual answer, and you come across either boring or as a braggart. You can write a flippant answer and you come across cheeky. You can ignore it and come across aloof. It's surprisingly hard to answer well when someone calls you out in an unfriendly way.
If you want to know my personal interests, my favorite thing in the world is scubadiving, I like electronic music quite a lot and was just at a bar with a great DJ here in Saigon, my favorite piece of music in the world is Dvorak's 9th Symphony, I like guns a lot (this is partially an American thing, Europeans need not be alarmed), I snowboard, I'd like to travel to every place in the world, I read a ton of books... I'm a natural introvert, but I like people. Yeah, I'm aiming to be the greatest strategist of this generation. I reckon it'll take me another 20-25 years to get there.
> I have never met you, but I know many users here have and every single one vouches for your credibility. That is something I believe in.
Thanks. I think I'm a decent guy, but I rub some people the wrong way. But I mean, I knew I'd do that when I started. I write pro-wealth, pro-ambition, pro-winning, pro-excellence, pro-individualism, etc, etc, etc. That really bothers some people. Like, a lot. But it's also why my site got relatively popular relatively quickly - there's just not many places like that.
I did a brainstorm a while back - I asked, how could I reach people that were just interested in what I have to say without rubbing people who don't want to hear it the wrong way? I don't want to antagonize who doesn't like what I have to say. Of course not... but I couldn't really find any way to write my site, share it with people who are interested, and have people who aren't interested not find it.
I guess that's the nature of things - you take strong positions, you get criticized. Bothered me a little at first honestly, but you get over it pretty fast. When someone criticizes someone they don't know except via online, they're replying to their idea of you, not you yourself... it's just the nature of things. With some acclimation, the criticism isn't so bad, and you get to do some interesting stuff and meet some interesting people. Worth doing overall, definitely.
That's what rubs me the wrong way: that kind of phrase is a throwaway. You're pro-winning. Great. Until I read your blog, I was a firm believer in losing? Maybe it was because I was striving to be as mediocre as possible, rather than... "excellent"?
I'm not trying to be a wiseass (well, maybe a little), but do you see what I'm getting at?
Actually, maybe not you, but I think a lot of the modern world is fundamentally anti-excellence. Maybe America less than most places, but a lot of the world Tall Poppy Syndrome going on -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
A Swedish friend of mine is a talented mathematician, professional poker player, and was a highly competitive athlete before a shoulder injury derailed him. He said he got all kinds of negativity and abuse and people really hating him for what he did, despite the fact that he's like the nicest, kindest, friendliest person I know. He says they have this phrase for it in Sweden -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law
So yeah. I think a lot of the world is actually anti-winning, anti-excellence. Look how rich are always portrayed in movies. They're always the bad guys. Look at how the star players get booed. Look at how people cheer against the New York Yankees just because it's a successful and extremely well-run organization that wins.
> I'm not trying to be a wiseass (well, maybe a little), but do you see what I'm getting at?
I understand. Most people don't realize that things are like this because it's so normal. But if you seriously break the mold and go counter-mainstream/counter-culture, you're going to get serious abuse from people. Almost everyone that breaks the mold does. I think that's garbage, that ambition should be celebrated, that achievement should be celebrated, etc.
I also spend a lot of time working on various time tracking and habits and reading lots of science and things like that, but that more pedestrian stuff never really gets spread around the internet - so if you only see my site on an occasional one that climbs HN or Twitter retweet, you're probably seeing the more controversial/aggressive stuff. I'm a believer in hard work and putting the time in too, I'm not a fan of rah-rah-go-go.
But to answer your question, yeah, I think a lot of the world is fundamentally anti-excellence, anti-standing-out. And I think that's bad.
Don't confuse a distaste for egomania with a hatred of achievement. People don't boo the guy who comes from nowhere, works his ass off, and remains humble despite success. People boo hubris.
Yes, a lot of the world is at least ambivalent about personal excellence. I think most of the world is trained in school to do enough to plausibly cover their ass and stay out of trouble. That makes them good cogs in the burgeoning machinery of society, but useless to an entrepreneur.
I notice this a lot in music. Many people in America think it's more important to praise some kid for doing some worthless flubbery musical thing than it is to just appreciate good music. If you just be sincere and applaud for what you really like (as opposed to what gets your attention while you try to talk over the music) your kid might pick up on and be inspired by your passion for music. Applauding for any old flubbery thing just to bolster self esteem just teaches kids that it's all bullshit, fake, and you're trapped in a suburban put-on devoid of real meaning.
Like many people here, I don't fit into a mold at all, but am pretty comfortable with my life and with most people I deal with. Maybe it comes with age.
With sports, at least, I think people like to see the underdog win because the idea of "sport" isn't just about who's best on paper. For instance, with cyclists, there is an impressive array of physiological tests they take, but it's more fun to watch the races, rather than simply decide, say, the Tour de France over who has a bigger VO2 MAX in the lab.
Not sure how much of Sebastian's work you've read, but none of it really comes across as corny.
It's hard to describe the "point" of his blog. His writings really are all over the place, but almost every single one is legitimately interesting and contains some unique or novel insight.
I think because the topics are so diverse, when you end up simplifying it to "pro-winning" it sounds a little "eh." But if you actually read it, you start to understand what he means.
I'm not saying anything I wouldn't say to his face.
The world isn't as black-and-white as you're indicating here. People are skeptical of the rich guy because for so long the main way to get rich was to rob people. Some rich people still get rich that way today. Many others don't do anything illegal but they're not nice people and aren't what I would call "excellence" by any stretch.
As for booing stars, I think that's usually jealousy and ignorance. They don't understand why he/she is making that much, how long the stars career can be compared to, say a banker or investor.
Sweden, also, isn't about "anti-excellence" it's about the group over the individual. It may be one's opinion that that's the same thing but we really are all in this together (Note: I don't agree with the Swedish approach, I simply don't dismiss it out of hand).
>I think that's garbage, that ambition should be celebrated, that achievement should be celebrated, etc.
I agree, except in my opinion the ends don't necessarily justify the means. For example, if you make money but do by creating no value, less value than would have been provided otherwise or actual negative value then I don't think that should be celebrated, it should be opposed and discouraged.
Who was was the greatest strategist of the previous generation?
Who decides?
Rommel was a great strategist. Is it better to be Rommel or to hurt fewer people and to be forgotten?
> Who was was the greatest strategist of the previous generation?
Of the last, say, 50 years? It's certainly debatable. Depends on what field.
You probably know most of most of the excellent business strategists in finance and technology. For statesmen, probably Deng Xiaoping or maybe Lee Kuan Yew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew
> Who decides?
It's a subjective thing, like "best painting" or "best painter" - you could put metrics to it or rankings or something, but in the end it's all subjective.
> Rommel was a great strategist. Is it better to be Rommel or to hurt fewer people and to be forgotten?
Actually, interesting you chose Rommel. Rommel was executed by the Nazis (forced suicide, technically) for being part of the plot to overthrow Hitler. I think it's fair to say that if that plot had been better executed, then millions of lives would be saved. So that's the flipside - better strategy can save millions of lives as well.
For what it's worth, Rommel is a hell of a comparison -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#Popular_perception
Super honorable guy. Was opposed to war crimes, opposed to the Holocaust, opposed slave labor, believed Hitler should be arrested and tried for crimes and replaced... he's the only member of the Third Reich leadership with a memorial or museum in Germany (he has both).
But anyways, it's kind of a false dichotomy. The Romans had an expression - "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - "If you want peace, prepare for war" - I do believe in that, and sometimes - like Hitler blitzkreiging Europe or Saddam invading Kuwait - military action is necessary. But it's never desirable if avoidable.
Like, I once hired a sales guy on salary with no commission. I recommend that you don't do that. He would work pretty hard, but after he got a sale then... nothing would happen for like a week or two, it's like he was "done" - or something. But anyways, that's commonly known and understood, writing about it is just reinventing the wheel. For sales people, pay them mostly on results if possible, not on base compensation.
If you ever have anything specific I can help you with, drop me a line - I'm pretty open to people reaching out to me, much moreso than average I think. I take a lot of questions, spend a lot of time with people to lend a hand. I try to do that for entertainment time instead of surfing the net or playing games or watching tv - so if you ever have specific questions or I can help you, drop a line. If I have experience, I'll share it on what you're working on. If not, I can try to call some people I know and see if they know. So yeah, drop a line if there's specific questions and I can help.
No. Perfectly reasonable question.
lionhearted may or may not have a "track record of success", but he does have a track record here on hn. For every x weird posts, he has a real gem, something that no one else has mentioned that really gets you thinking. Also, he is more likely that almost any other poster to "push the envelope", bring up something that runs counter to the group think often found here.
If he posts something I don't get in the first 3 sentences, I just hit the back button and decide to read him some other day. It's usually worth it.
Some people, in order to hit a few home runs, have to strike out every once in a while too.
If someone never strikes out, they're not trying hard enough.
If you're going to speak with authority, you want to establish some sort of credibility and the About page here fails to do that. I think the author has a great handle on aspirational "made-for-hackernews" linkbait but I'm not sure I want to read strategy advice from someone who has no obvious history of implementing strategy.
In other words, I'm not saying Sebastian's content is necessarily bad (some of it is quite good), but I would like to see him focus on improving his writing style a bit.
It's apparently about "Strategy, Philosophy, Self-Discipline, Science. Victory."
Sebastian Marshall is Charlie Sheen!
Philosophy of what?
Self-Discipline in what art?
Science to discover what?
Victory over what?
At least this guy is out there sticking out his neck and taking a chance. I might disagree with what he has to say (I usually do), but I have no right to judge him either way and I think that neither do you.
Every serious writer wants a book deal. If he makes a "direction-less advice blog" to do it and manages to write decent stuff once in a while then more power to him.
What I'm trying to say is that argue with him on the basis of content and where he's wrong instead of taking pot shots at him. It's healthier and a saner way, because both of you might just learn something out of this.
Take care,
If this guy helps people, then awesome. However, the practice of bookblogmarketing still sucks.
That is a stab at the content, not the author.
Come on.
Lionhearted (Sebastian) has delivered outstanding insights time and time again. Many thing he said has struck a chord with me. One of his best blogs was that it takes many ordinary writings to hit a gem piece. And he certainly practices that.
My friend works at a bar so I go in there twice a week for lunch. I've been going for years so I've gotten to know most of the staff. When I ask them what their plans are for the future, no one says to be the best waiter around. These people get looked at as waiters, but that is not how they view themselves. They are in-transit, they are on their way.
When I look at someone like Sebastian, I see someone who is articulate, intelligent, and genuinely helpful to people around him. I like those qualities and that makes me at least willing to check out what he has to say. Other people have different priorities and that is fair. But I'd rather look at the person rather than just the body of work because behind every great success is someone who was a nobody, perhaps even your waiter.
You also often don't get quite the right story, since not everything a successful person says about their own success is accurate. Sometimes there's a bit of self-mythologizing, but even without active attempts to mislead, sometimes people just aren't that good at analyzing the causes of even their own success. They're usually interesting to listen to, but people who are good observers can also be interesting to listen to.
I pretty much feel the same way he does about "needing" money. I can't say it made me successful, but it certainly makes me have some respect for myself.
I drive a Honda Element
Point being that when it comes to making money, no verifiable list of achievements with sources is necessary: the kind of car you drive (as a proxy for how much money you make) should be credentials enough.
That's kind of the reality of the money world.
Maybe he has, but I didn't see it. That was my point.
Are you intimately familiar with lionheated's income/revenue? Are you with mine?
Deleted comment
Deleted comment