That website is bullshit frob. Might as well read lifehack or something than read that.

Seriously. He actually has an article where he strongly endorses the "Law of Attraction". Sweet zombie jesus.

We're talking about the guy who keeps getting articles published on this very site, right? Like, say, this one? I have to admit I'm a bit confused as to why so many people take him seriously. Most of the time he's "not even wrong," just spouting stuff that's abundantly obvious. The article I linked has this gem in it:

For example, I’ve written 700+ articles, so I’m pretty good at estimating how long an average article will take to write (3 hours is typical).

I mean, there's not even a pretense that he's actually putting a lot of thought into these articles; he's just spouting as much stuff as he can as quickly as possible.

I was also confused by the positive response to this article. It's obviously too short to have any actual content, and yet people keep praising it for telling "the hard truth" or some nonsense, seemingly without realizing that it's actually just the same hollow, feel-good "you can do it!" drivel, devoid of any specific advice and disguised with some "bluntness" and more than a bit of self-promotion. This does not, of course, change the fact that it's immensely satisfying (and useful) to be genuinely good at a lot of different things, but there are roughly billions of people out there just as qualified to point that out, and most of them don't even feel the need to spend the first sentence of their interaction with me letting me know that they're "intelligent, self-directed people."

That's not to say that his advice doesn't work: if you're a smart person, you probably can turn into a rich person just by changing some of your habits. The fact is, though, that this requires taking time away from your real dreams and pursuits, be they artistic, intellectual, or whatever. If what you really want out of life is to get more money and and do less work than everyone else, then by all means, do this kind of stuff.

For me, at least at this point in my life, the fact that he stopped being a game developer is enough to tell me that following his path will lead me away from where I want to be. I mean, maybe some day I'll give up trying to make stuff that people, you know, actually like, but for now I'm happy to run far, far away.

Most of the time he's "not even wrong," just spouting stuff that's abundantly obvious.

If you cannot see why what you said here is actually fairly important, then I beg you to look at your words again and consider why the abundantly obvious so often needs pointing out, to so many people who don't see it.

Most of the time he's "not even wrong," just spouting stuff that's abundantly obvious.

If you cannot see why what you said here is actually fairly important, then I beg you to look at your words again and consider why the abundantly obvious so often needs pointing out, to so many people who don't see it.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but I am fairly sure that almost everyone I know managed to figure out the "multiply the time you 'think' some task will take by some factor based on past experience" technique quite a while ago without wasting time with meaningless quasi-spiritual pseudoscience like the "law of attraction" and other stuff he discusses on his blog.

, but I am fairly sure that almost everyone I know managed to figure out the "multiply the time you 'think' some task will take by some factor based on past experience" technique quite a while ago

It's not about the quasi-spiritual arguments that I am referring to. Yes I am sure almost everyone you know has managed to figure how long a task will take....except it never works like people think...reality is projects run over time or before time but rarely ontime, people are late or early, tasks take longer or earlier. The reality is despite the obviousness of how easy it is to make an estimate of time...people still fuck up the time even on the smallest of estimates.

As to my earlier remark - this comes down to simple reality that many people do not necessarily grasp something obvious until it is pointed out to them (by someone else or by result) for example a door labelled "pull to open" is still pushed by many people. Life is sloppy it is not a neatly divided world of logic that all partake in, it is an environment by where most of the time most people are mostly coping.

, but I am fairly sure that almost everyone I know managed to figure out the "multiply the time you 'think' some task will take by some factor based on past experience" technique quite a while ago

It's not about the quasi-spiritual arguments that I am referring to. Yes I am sure almost everyone you know has managed to figure how long a task will take....except it never works like people think...reality is projects run over time or before time but rarely ontime, people are late or early, tasks take longer or earlier. The reality is despite the obviousness of how easy it is to make an estimate of time...people still fuck up the time even on the smallest of estimates.

As to my earlier remark - this comes down to simple reality that many people do not necessarily grasp something obvious until it is pointed out to them (by someone else or by result) for example a door labelled "pull to open" is still pushed by many people. Life is sloppy it is not a neatly divided world of logic that all partake in, it is an environment by where most of the time most people are mostly coping.

Sure; all I'm saying is this: I think Mr. Pavlina is not actually solving the problem of inaccurate time estimates as I don't think he's really bringing much new to the table.

Of course it's possible that some people genuinely don't have any idea that they are systematically, predictably underestimating how long certain tasks take, and that for those people, simply informing them of that fact will make an important difference in their lives. Likewise, though, it's possible that some people don't realize that people killing each other is an obstacle to world peace; I nonetheless do not think I'd be contributing a great deal if I wrote an article that could basically be summarized as "if you want world peace, you should not kill people." and then provided some overly-general tips about how to not kill people.

In the end I think we probably more or less agree: people should know better than to kill each other, and yet real life doesn't always work out that way. All I'm saying is I think that in order to actually address the very "sloppiness" I think you're discussing, it takes more than some words about "self-help" and "life purpose" that are largely detached from any real, specific details.

All I'm saying is I think that in order to actually address the very "sloppiness" I think you're discussing, it takes more than some words about "self-help" and "life purpose" that are largely detached from any real, specific details.

Yet as observed by Frob in an earlier post, by following his advice (albeit to a lesser extent) he and his wife managed to generate an income stream that whilst not huge is also not so small as to be dismissed. Overall neither of us are that far away from each other I agree, the thing is - it's obvious, based simply on Frob's piece - that his advice can have an effectively positive outcome for some people at the least...regardless of the approach he uses.

If I wanted to gain some sort of insight I would not be reading Steve Pavlina. I would be reading Less Wrong. Granted Less Wrong is still directed at the masses to some extent but I'm always shocked by how much people don't know that is explained there quite clearly. Compared to the relatively pappish stuff I saw on the Steve Pavlina site. His site seems to be of the extremely placebo variety. Honestly his pitch reminds me of real estate scams.

There are a huge number of books and stories like that.

The lessons in books like "who moved my cheese" are obvious when you think about them, yet few people actually think about them, so the books become bestsellers.

Sometimes people need the obvious pointed out to them.



Steering this back on topic, working "too much" is subjective. Work is usually a means to an end. Some people work simply for working sake, but I think they're pretty rare.

There are a huge number of books and stories like that.

The lessons in books like "who moved my cheese" are obvious when you think about them, yet few people actually think about them, so the books become bestsellers.

Sometimes people need the obvious pointed out to them.



Steering this back on topic, working "too much" is subjective. Work is usually a means to an end. Some people work simply for working sake, but I think they're pretty rare.

The idea that once something is pointed out to them they will use that knowledge is much less convincing to me than to you. Reading a bestselling how to reason pap book doesn't help anyone in my opinion.

(...) the thing is - it's obvious, based simply on Frob's piece - that his advice can have an effectively positive outcome for some people at the least...regardless of the approach he uses.

Well, no. That's correlation, but not necessarily causation. And since Steve Pavlina has a vested interest in being credited in some way for Frob's success I'm not inclined to accept causation without something a bit more specific.

In the end, though, this sort of sidesteps my real issue with this whole "passive income" thing. Some people, presumably, only want to make stuff (be it art, science, games, or whatever) so that they can make enough money that they're able to stop making stuff. This is fine, I think, but ultimately not really relevant to my own interests. Sure, I'd like to make money, but I'd like to make enough money that I can keep making stuff. That, ultimately, is why I don't think the right thing for me, personally, is to follow in the footsteps of someone who started out doing something I want to do (make games) and then stopped doing that.

And the truth is, I think most people like to make stuff (or at least be "productive" in some way, be it making a product or contributing to some cause or whatever). Whether it's driven by the search for esteem or fame or just to "work for working sake," I think most people actually want money primarily so that they have the freedom to keep doing stuff, not stop doing stuff. If it were the other way around, there'd be a lot fewer aging movie stars out there.